Hmm. My turn I guess. I don't have any problems with Microsoft. It bugs me when people say "Winblows" or "Microsucks". It makes it look like 13 year-old pimply-faced MySpace teens run the F/OSS movement
That said, their software has some serious faults, many of their own making. Granted, at the beginning, it was designed to be a non-networked, single-user OS, and everything since has been ad-hocked onto it. Still, some decisions, like a central registry, .dlls, activeX, non-password-protected, root-equivelent accounts, shipping with all ports open, etc..., are almost brain-dead, flashing neon signs saying "Hack me, please!". It's true to some extent that market share dictates the target, but when you make it so damned easy, it's hard to resist
On the converse, I use Windows alot. I use Vista, because I don't *personally* run into any of the bugs that haunt so many users, and visually, XP is just painful on the eyes now. I use it for gaming, but the wife still needs a "real" windows environment for her work. I don't like many of their strong-arm, shady tactics, but I don't have a problem with people making money for their product in general, just many of their tactics in particular. That doesn't mean I dislike their products, however. The products are just a series of 0's and 1's, and aren't capable of being inherently good or evil
Macs: I think the reason Apple is so restrictive of OSX is twofold: 1) probably some sort of agreement d/t the cash infusion from MS some years ago, and 2) they've found a niche in which to survive. Windows PCs are like Hondas: Cheap, tunable, and anyone can afford one. Apples are more like a Jag or Porsche - not everyone can have one, they're a luxury item, a sign of lifestyle. It may irritate many of us that would like to use OSX, but it's a place they've found to survive, and even thrive.
Also, tying their OS down hard to 1 controlled platform ensures quality control and support costs, and helps perpetuate the fanboi reputation that "Macs just work". Well, of course they do - you can only get them in one flavor, with an OS designed specifically to match it
These would be hard to maintain if unleashed on the myriad and plethora of options available in the Wintel world
Then they wouldn't be able to do those cutesy commercials
That said, I adore OSX. It's simply elegant, and a pure joy to compute in. However, I wish they wouldn't hide behind the "we're unhackable, no viri here, etc..." lines. Fell in less than two minutes the other day. How's that for unhackable? Apple has a long history of burying security flaws and pretending they aren't there, because it might affect marketing, instead of being honest about them and securing their users. This makes me a saaaaaaaaaaad Panda
Linux - Love it, obviously, for the freedom of choice in every possible aspect. I *hate* the attempt to "Windowize" it. Wine is running more and more Windows viri all the time, and viri are starting to become wine-aware and able to replicate into the .nix system through it (cites available upon request, no problem
). In order to replicate the functionality of Windows, wine has to also replicate the bugs, flaws, and security holes. The better they get, the more vulnerable your *nix machine becomes, if you have it installed. If you want Windows, run Windows. If you want to run Windows programs but are too cheap to buy it, then suck, or install wine on your own. Don't stick it in my Linux. Also, it seems like more and more distros are going with the "Vista" look. Vista is beautiful, but where is the imagination? Why not be different?
It doesn't bother me that Linux doesn't run Windows games, either, for the reasons mentioned above. It would bother me if Linux didn't run *Linux* games well. Linux should rise to world domination by being a better *OS* than Windows, not by running Windows better than Windows
A modicum of learning isn't a bad thing, either. Instead of making distros so Windows-cloned that windows-castoffs feel right at home, how about we teach them about the wonderful things they are missing out on in the .nix world?
I also don't like that "Ubuntu" and "Linux" are becoming interchangeable. Ubuntu is one of the last distros I'd give to a beginner. I'd start with Mint, PCLOS, or MEPIS. From there, I can name off another 2 dozen I'd recommend before Ubuntu. It's buggy, their bug-fixing policy is absurd, and it often times just doesn't work. There are *so* many other distros that are so much more beginner freindly, easier to set up and maintain, more intuitive to navigate and use, it just goes to show what a few billion dollars to throw at marketing can do for you
There. I've ranted enough
Someone else's turn