Why most run Microsoft, not RedHat

[Tim]

On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 13:29 +0200, Tomas Larsson wrote:
> The rumour that XP is unreliable etc, is just a rumour. 

Hmm, got a call from a friend he'd just got XP, come up and see it.  He
installs, hops on the internet to get updates, FOUR WHOLE SECONDS LATER
he's infected with a virus.  He had no other way of making his system
more secure than the installation CD provides than hopping on the net.
He downloaded an anti-virus package, it couldn't fix up the infection.
It wasn't allowed to modify the file (oddly enough, the virus was
allowed to modify that important file).  It was format and re-install as
the only way to get rid of it.  This time it was a few seconds longer
before he got infected after the installation finished.  I nearly wet
the chair laughing.  XP continued to be sold in that fragile condition
for a long time afterwards, it probably still is.

I've watched him progress from Win 95, 98SE, 2000, and now XP.  It
hasn't got more reliable since ditching 98SE.  Even a box with almost
nothing installed (no extra sound cards, basic video drivers, almost no
applications, etc.), still manages to screw up royally.  It's every bit
as bad as the reputation that it has earnt.

-- 
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
 important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.