Actually Microsoft's WindowsXP will not work on alot of computers the same goes for Windows98. Its the same for both really but Microsoft's operating systems just fit more hardware than most O/S's. The best way to run Linux is to build your own computer or have one built to fit Linux I built my computer so it will work with both Microsoft or Linux. I have 3 hard drives and boot up from witchever Operating system that I want to boot from! Its really that easy. I think every company should be as versatile. Im sure I'll buy more hard drives in the future. This also proves Fedora needs a compatibility list somewhere on http://fedora.redhat.com/ or elsewhere. Computer companies should have more than one hard drive for this issue also. Besides its makes computing more fun. Im also not so sure that Bill Gates does not pay somebody to flame this Fedora list to try to do some discrediting of Linux. Bill seems to be going full bore against Linux and if this is all he can throw at the Linux community then I would have to reason that Microsoft is in trouble unless it comes out with a Linux distrobution. The way they have treated Linus Torvalds though I would doubt that happens since Linus Torvalds holds onto the Kernel. That in itself worries me also. Kernel gone no linux? This will go on and on. Im having more fun and seem to do more with Fedora right now. On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 06:57, xyzzy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Sunday 22 February 2004 1:12 pm, Jos Vos wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 12:52:16PM +0200, xyzzy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > I use Linux at work... I am a kernel hacker at work. That is my job. > > > Redhat 9 works for me at work because the motherboard is not completely > > > state of the art. > > > > Right, and state of the art MB's, notebooks etc. indeed do not always > > (completely) work. So, unfortunately, we as Linux users have to be > > very careful when buying such hardware. *Always* do some research > > *before* buying HW. > > Thus, Linux stays as a hobbyist/hacker system for the desktop. > > > > > Agreed: this shouldn't be needed, this is a bad thing. But what is the > > real reason? That is that some vendors don't care and/or have hidden > > contracts with M$ and/or are blackmailed by M$ or whoever. This is the > > sad world we have to live in, but things are still improving, IMHO, > > so go complain to the HW manufacturers, tell them to support Linux, > > do *never* pay for a Windows license if you don't use it (i.e. ask > > that money back, which they have to do because of the M$ EULA), etc. > > If vendors have hidden contracts or are being blackmailed by M$, what good > would it do to complain to them about their lack of support for Linux? > > > > > > However, even with all of M$ garbage, the bottom line is that their > > > garbage works on my system and Linux does not. > > > > Yes, and this is *not* because M$ is good and Linux is bad, but because > > those manufacturers have "close cooperations" with M$ and don't care > > (or are not allowed to care!!!) about Linux. > > I didn't say anything about "good" or "bad" here aside from the pragmatic > observation that M$'s OS works for me and Linux doesn't. > > This is the crux of why M$ still has the stranglehold it has in the desktop > market and will continue to for a good long while even if the Open Source > solution is free. Free, in any way, doesn't matter if it doesn't work. From > what I see here, M$ doesn't have anything to worry about with its desktop > solutions for quite a while. > > > > > -- > > -- Jos Vos <jos@xxxxxx> > > -- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 > > -- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204 >
