J
johannes
Daniel James wrote:
>
> In article news:<MPG.212e3e3a5b0746d598a592@news.individual.net>, Conor
> wrote:
> > Windows costs nothing when you buy a PC.
>
> This is uk.comp.homebuilt (at least, that's where I'm reading it) ... many
> people here buy PCs in bits and typically pay £80 for XP Pro OEM (I'm
> assuming nobody would be daft enough to install XPH or Vasti). In that
> situation you can save £80 by installing linux instead -- IFF linux will
> do all you need.
It's that little word "instead" that gets up my nose. What if I have
applications that runs on Windows? What if I develop software for Windows
using Windows compilers and tools? I could of course use an emulator, and
Linux zealots love that idea. But why should I? Why this extra layer of
slow down and complication when it's completely unnecessary?
This is not a criticism of Linux per se. Im going to use Ubuntu in another
context. But not as a Window replacement.
>
> In article news:<MPG.212e3e3a5b0746d598a592@news.individual.net>, Conor
> wrote:
> > Windows costs nothing when you buy a PC.
>
> This is uk.comp.homebuilt (at least, that's where I'm reading it) ... many
> people here buy PCs in bits and typically pay £80 for XP Pro OEM (I'm
> assuming nobody would be daft enough to install XPH or Vasti). In that
> situation you can save £80 by installing linux instead -- IFF linux will
> do all you need.
It's that little word "instead" that gets up my nose. What if I have
applications that runs on Windows? What if I develop software for Windows
using Windows compilers and tools? I could of course use an emulator, and
Linux zealots love that idea. But why should I? Why this extra layer of
slow down and complication when it's completely unnecessary?
This is not a criticism of Linux per se. Im going to use Ubuntu in another
context. But not as a Window replacement.