For what it's worth, I believe that there's a advantage to every OS. Just like there are many types of automobiles, and the way you intend on using it will determine whether you get a sub-compact, pick-up, SUV, or mini-van, so will how you use your computer determine what OS you'll run. I've seen way to many people push an idea that soon everything will run on Linux. Linux will destroy all competition and nothing could possibly compete with it. Well, I must say, I hadn't heard that since I left the Microsoft field, and I thought I had heard of the end of it then. Let me set the record straight right here. There will be a ton of things that Linux will never do better then other OS's. And there will be a ton of things that other OS's will never do better then Linux.
It's like a big puzzle. Only one piece will fit where you want. But it's a different piece everytime. And only one OS will not fit everywhere either. In the best setup, a network may have a dozen different OS's to do all the different functions. This is how it should be. But to say that one OS can do everything best, whether it's Windows 2000 or Linux, is just plain wrong.
I generally point newbies to Mac's because they are most userfriendly. For someone who wants to do graphical and multimedia work, I'll nudge them to BeOS. If someone wants to play games, I'll point out the Playstation. If they want to hack, and learn who to use a Unix-like OS, I'll give them a copy of Linux. So I have no problem with any OS. Oh, except I failed to mention an OS by one vendor. While I can't accept the idea that Windows is the best for everything, I do believe that are the areas that it does excel in. And in those specific areas I would advocate the use of Windows, except for one thing. I can't support a company that indulges in unethical activities.
I know a lot of people believe that Microsoft would have been better then the competition, even if they hadn't broken the law with regard to DR-DOS, Intel, Apple, Netscape, and OEM's. And I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Even if Netscape wasn't crunched, IE would have probably been better. (And we wouldn't have gotten Mozilla, which is the best :) However, it'd be like someone competing in the 500 meter run in the Olympics. If they are 2 as fast as all the other runners, they won't lose. But if they are twice as fast, and yet take drugs to improve their strength so the *know* they won't lose, then they'll be disqualified. It's no excuse that they were faster then everyone else to begin with. They participate with the rules, or not at all. And it's the same with Microsoft. They may have been better anyways, but they were paranoid enough to break the law to make sure they won. So they were from an easy win, to a disqualification, or, in this case, an anti-trust lawsuit.
I'm just waiting for Microsoft be enact ethical business practices again. Then I'll support them too.
www.bmetzler.org - it's not just a personal weblog, it's so much more.