[SATLUG] Network+ Question
dondavis at reglue.org
Wed Jan 6 17:16:22 CST 2010
. Curiously, if something doesn't work, they *always*
> either blame their own lack of knowledge or assume the hardware is at
> fault and go out and buy a bigger and more expensive MS computer. There
> is this blind trust that the OS could not be at fault (most people don't
> even know what an OS is, and assume the OS is part of the hardware).
Unless of course it's an OS there not familiar with… Then suddenly they
might blame all kinds of non-relevant things on the OS.
I've run Linux the last few years at home and haven't had to do much
with M$. I talk to a few people outside of Linux circles about Linux and
they always tout the ease of M$ and how they couldn't get the wireless
drivers to work in Linux. It's unfortunate that it happens.
However, I am a lot less sensitive since I've seen some crazy stuff that
an M$ install doesn't recognize e.g. run of the mill onboard _sound_
drivers that any Linux live cd would support.
Not to mention the big nasty mess of finding stuff for M$. Bleah.
Millions of websites with useless (precompiled) crap, malware, and
spyware. Most drivers don't even come with md5 sums. Gnu/Linux software
repositories are great things.
> What gets me is that even after you explain the "facts" (see John
> Kirch's article) they still insist on running MS, because everyone else
> does it and they bought into the FUD that Linux requires an insurmountable
> learning curve, which, by the way, barely anyone would be willing to climb.
There is a lot of FUD and there are a lot of entrenched users who have
no motivation to rock the boat. Server got hacked because it was M$?
What did you expect me to do? (I followed the M$ hand book.)
Most Linux users have run DOS and its incarnations - for me DOS 2.0, DOS
5.0, win 95, win 98, xp, etc.. and yet we love Linux. How many of those
so vehemently opposed to Linux that tout the 'virtues' of M$ have really
ps - I love anti M$ threads.
More information about the SATLUG