Invisible wrote:
> No - but selling cars which you know are going to crash at least once 
> every 52 days... well, if a company tried to do that, they'd be shut 
> down. However, for software it seems it's OK to sell a malfunctioning 
> product.

I don't know what you're doing, but I've had production servers that ran 
for years on Windows without a problem.

> Well, sure, if there were an alternative,

And why isn't Linux an alternative?  Why isn't Mac OS X an alternative?

> But what about, say, Word? There's quite a few other word processors out 
> there - and in past times there were even more. And most of them were a 
> lot more reliable than Word...

So why aren't they alternatives? MS isn't buying every word processor 
company.

> Apple requires you to buy new hardware, so it's not purely a software 
> decision. Linux is nice, but... well, it's fundamentally designed for 
> UNIX nerds. So if you're not, good luck... Besides, I'm not convinced 
> that the whole UNIX design is particularly coherant. (E.g., autoconf 
> exists.)

Ding ding ding!  MS's product advantage is that it *can* be used by 
naive users without a lot of expense.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message