Windows woes

[Anders F Björklund]

Fredrik Olsson wrote:

>> The morals of the story: computers ARE NOT for everybody yet now in
>>  the 2006, even with dumb-oriented systems as Windows XP. You
>> choose with which harshness you want to live with when choosing an
>> OS depending on the time you have and the tasks you'll be
>> performing on the system
>
> I beg to differ, we have Mac OS X. A unix for pretty much everyone.

Mac OS X is only partly UNIX, though ? And not for the poor ;-)
There are *several* reasons to chose one of the alternatives...

Linux, FreeBSD, OpenSolaris, etc.

One is the lack of open source, or choosing your own hardware.
Another is the recent number of security issues, on Mac OS X ?


I happen to like Macs, but they're clearly not for everyone...
Mac OS X is something of a strange hybrid (MacOS and OPENSTEP)

So nowadays, I'm platform agnostic.

Fortunately, GNU and Linux runs fine on both of my machines,
so I can always dual-boot into that when I tire of OS X / XP ?


I think it's sad, really. Computers *should* be for everyone.
And here I think that Mark Shuttleworth is on the right way...

--anders


PS.
I remember when Apple introduced the Xserve. One slide said:
"simplicity and elegance of Unix, power and stability of Mac"
I found that particular translation (to Swedish) was hilarious.