"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> 10 Major Reasons To Switch To Linux
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | 1. It Doesn't Crash
> | 2. Viruses Are Few and Far Between
> | 3. Virtually Hardware-Independent
> | 4. Freedom of Choice
> | 5. Standards
> | 6. Applications, Applications, Applications
> | 7. Interoperability
> | 8. It's a Community Relationship, Not a Customer Relationship
> | 9. It's Not How Big Your Processor Is...
> | 10. Linux Is Configurable
> | ...And lastly no Bill schmendrick character telling you what you
> | can and cannot do.
I find it curious as to how the Linux advocates harp on Microsoft's monopoly
while at the same time extolling Linux as the best choice. It is a poor
monopoly that could allow such a thing to exist. Logic does not seem to be
the Linux advocates long suit, evidenced by statement such as:
"Linux offers freedom of choice as far as which manufacturer you purchase
the software from as well as which application programs you wish to use."
So far so good, but then comes:
"Being able to pick the manufacturer means you have a real choice as far as
type of support you receive."
My feeling is that, by picking a manufacturer, you are obviously locked into
the support provided by whatever manufacturer you pick. The Linux advocate
is certain that is the case with Microsoft, so how do the other
manufacturers not suffer the same?
"Being open-source software, new manufacturers can enter the market to
address customer needs"
Hard to tell what the cause-effect relationship is here. New manufacturers
enter proprietary software application markets as well and there doesn't
seem to be any conventional wisdom to apply.
Choice of application programs means that you can select the tools that best
address your needs. For example, three popular word processors are
available. All three are free and interoperate with Microsoft Word, but each
offers unique advantages and disadvantages. The same is true of Web