Reply #23: My question

[Dogmudgeon]

Why isn't the Windows OS the object of the same effort that got GNU going? From what I hear, a complete re-write of the OS with extensions to allow Linux compatibility would be an "easy" task (although that's from listening to Linux-heads bragging).

I've never had a program crash while on standby, in any mode, etc. The main problem I encounter is program hangs, and it's inevitably the program's doing. I'll have to ask my brother, a systems engineer, if he's encountered this. He's seen everything Microsoft can throw at a user.

Viruses have not been a problem for me, since I keep up-to-date on my virus checking images and Win2k hotfixes. But if you think the attacks on Windows means it's a bad system, I'd argue that. 95% of the virus and hacking efforts have gone into bringing Microsoft down. If Linux or Mac users had to contend with similar unpopularity or "133t hax0r" rage, we'd see the holes in those systems real fast.

There are rebuild discs available, but they're third-party or homebrew. Generally, they can do a non-destructive reinstall from a CD-ROM. But simplicity is still lacking in Linux land as well as MSLand (as for MacLand, I have no idea, but many of the Mac users I encounter hate the new OS). I have read a few articles on the Knoppix version of Linux and that sounds like a promising project.

I've been staying with Microsoft because for all the hype and hoopla, Linux/GNU isn't the clean-and-lean, bulletproof system it's cracked up to be. Even with Windows open software, I've been disappointed -- I tried Mozilla for a few days and it's weaknesses far surpassed its strengths. I would love to chuck Bill's software for an open system, but it's still a few years too early yet.

Platform-specific, fat, buggy software was supposed to go the way of the steam engine by 1995. What happened?

--bkl