Windows vs Linux - Experienced IT Pro

You have plenty of PC's, give it a go! try a file server, installing a few apps, web/application/database server etc. compare to windows and just keep all the effort it takes and the pros and cons in mind when approaching IT challenges - see if it jumps out as a solution.

Try mirroring the 2 neighbours file sharing, consider authentication and education of users. Set up a backup routine etc

I have been doing IT tech work at different levels since 1985, and went full time pro about 8 year ago. Much of the PC work has been MS Windows since it came out and use both Windows and Linux at home.

When I was first exposed to Linux, Red Hat 6, about 8 year ago it was as easier to load and use than DOS 6 and Windows 3.1, and tech support needs were at the same level as Win 3.1. In recent years I have had a lot more exposure to Linux as a server operating system and have found it to be far superior to Windows in server and gateway work. Linux for end user and desktop had lagged behind but has caught up now.

Yes there are many Linux versions and you need to examine what you want and choose the one best suited to your needs - kind of like a few years back with Windows XP Home - XP Pro - 2k Server - 2k Advanced Server - CE etc. You could use 2k Adv server for a desktop but it is not the best option and you could use XP Home for a file server but it is not the best option - same applies with the Linux varieties; although most Linux versions are closer to being universal than the Windows systems.

With MS Win Vista due out and the high end tech specs it appears to need I am seeing more and more people who do NOT want to go that way for their business software as they see that level of hardware and media support excessive for the business environment. Estimated cost of a Vista capable machine in Aust is expected to be several hundred dollars more than an equivalent Linux capable machine, add in the MS software and you start to look at a cost difference of a A$2K to A$3k per unit on the desk; an important point for small business. The problems come in regarding third party software running in Linux, which WINE and CRossover now resolve for most applications.

With this in mind I started looking at some of the latest Linux versions in light of non-tech end user ease of use. To that end I have found that Fedora Core 4 is easier to install than XP Pro and with WINE runs all the office applications I have and use. For gaming I just subscribe to Cedega and run the Windows based games within that - all I have tried work well (many better than in Windows).

Linux has a better record regarding the fixing of vulnerabilities than does Windows, and there are less holes in its security to begin with. It is not a perfect operating system but it is technically better and better coded than Windows.

IMHO Windows vs Linux is very much a personal choice or cost choice not a technical decision for the majority of people. I would recommend that you get some books like Linux in a Nutshell and learn how to do some Linux administration. Also talk to your clients about what they want and prefer. You can now get Linux versions that are almost impossible for end users to tell apart from Windows.

Currently working at a software house in the UK. Great place where they just recently last 4 years stopped support of Novell and in the past 2 years, just before I came stopped all support of Linux. Before starting I had very minimal experience with Linux but I know Windows Desktop OS inside out. Not a big fan due to all the things added to a peice of software that is not necessary. Started to play with Linux as one of my first assignments was to do a complete fact sheet on installing Pervasive and setting it for our db software on a Linux based network. We had stopped support at this time but still have some diehard Linux fans. So I set about setting up a server with Pervasive and a coulpe of differnet versions of Linux. Turns out it was a whole lot easier than I had anticipated. Since then I have added 2 more computers to my work desk which are formatted and installed with a new version of Linux every month or two so I can see what it is like.
One a footnote I can say that I do not like the way Mandrake(Mandriva) is heading. Should be trying a Ubuntu install by middle of next week hopefully.

I was, basically, you a few years ago.

My first brush with Linux in the late '90s was pretty frustrating. I tried out Red Hat Linux (I think it was 5 or 7) on a computer that, surprisingly, I still have, though at the moment it's sitting around unused. I don't even remember whether it currently has a hard drive in it with an OS installed. At the time, Red Hat Linux absolutely could not, under any circumstances, make the onboard integrated graphics adapter on my cheapass low-end motherboard work worth a damn. It was awful. Since I was playing with it only for personal hobby interests, I ended up walking away.

Later, I came back to Linux. Things have changed. Oddly, that particular computer still doesn't like unix-based OSes at all. I've managed to get two non-Windows OSes installed on it effectively, and the other dozen I've tried simply wouldn't work properly. Of course, out of the four different versions of Windows I've installed on it, only two of those worked as well. If there were another eight versions of Windows that I could try on it, I wouldn't be surprised if none of them worked either.

In my second run at learning Linux, it was more for business reasons than personal reasons, so I had more incentive to stick with it. I also wasn't dealing with that same computer with new installs, and discovered that Linux installs just fine on basically everything else. Better yet, I don't have to keep track of driver disks for Linux like I do with Windows, so when it comes time to reinstall, I never have the problem of not having drivers. It's a wonderful thing, I tell ya, especially when I keep occasionally coming into possession of third-hand computers that make perfectly good servers and low-end desktops.

If you use your computer for getting real work done, I suspect you'll end up going the same route as me if you give Linux a fair spin. I simply found myself using Linux more and more, and Windows less and less. At this time, I don't even have a Windows system running here. Everything I have running has Linux on it. Even my consumer-grade router/firewall appliance has a pared down, limited, custom version of Linux on it (though that was a matter of pure chance rather than choice, and I intend to replace it with an OpenBSD router/firewall made out of an ancient laptop with a broken screen).

The more I used Linux, the more I discovered I didn't want to use Windows. Windows is cantankerous, unpredictable, incompatible with everything (including itself) from one version to the next, unstable, more maintenance-intensive (especially for security reasons), less configurable and customizable, slower, incapable of being as pretty as Linux can be, and encumbered with high costs and frightening licensing issues.

Once I got used to the concept of good software management ("good" is a distinct understatement in the case of Debian's apt), I found myself wondering how I managed to put up with the nightmare of Windows install wizards, installation CDs for every damned program I might want to use, having to hunt through hundreds of websites and thousands of Google hits for useful programs, and so on for as long as I did. The necessity of running redundant AV and antispyware software, software firewalls whose resource-suckage brings the term "event horizon" to mind, and the existence hundreds of megabytes of software I don't use that cannot be removed all conspire to make Windows a miserable user experience for me in comparison with Linux.

At this point, even though there's more money in it, I mostly just refuse to support Windows issues when I have the chance. I don't need that kind of stress.

I had a computer crash today. It's a remarkable event, whereas with Windows it's remarkable that I was able to keep computers from crashing. Unlike Windows, though, with random blue screens of death and lock-ups, this crash was due to accidentally unplugging the computer while it was running. Whoops, my bad. My main server, meanwhile, hasn't crashed since August, when I moved to this town and plugged it in. It's a file server, application server, music server, mail server, web development test server, backup server, and about six other things as well: I use the hell out of it. It actually became a server because the monitor I had plugged into it died just before I moved here. Unlike what would have been possible with Windows, I was able to use a VNC variant to attach to its running GUI session to save data from open applications, and I have since then been able to uninstall applications I no longer use on the thing since it is no longer pressed into service as a desktop system. It's not even running a GUI now. Try that with Windows. Really.

The only things I can think of that might make Windows a better choice for some uses by IT pros who are reasonably intelligent are these: computer games and Windows familiarity/support.

When one's livelihood depends on knowing Windows, it behooves one to stay current on Windows matters, thus prompting one to keep using Windows at home. When one responds to support calls related to Windows, it (almost) always helps to have a Windows system near at hand.

With Cedega, I hear wonderful things about normally Windows-only computer games running well under Linux. That being the case, I have a hard time imagining much reason for going with Windows even for gamers. Of course, there still may be gaps in the ability of Linux to support these games. I don't really know -- I'm not much of a computer gamers. I only have second- and third-hand accounts to inform my understanding of the situation.

In the end, I have two marketing slogans for you to point out some of the differences between Windows and Linux. The first slogan was created by Microsoft marketing flacks, and the second by me:

"Windows. Where do you want to go today?"

"Linux. What do you want to get done today?"

If that doesn't strike you as a reason for an IT pro to use Linux, I don't know what possibly could.

Being an IT person myself with several years in the business, Microsoft and Cisco certified, I am always seeking new avenues of learning. I support a windows 2003 network at my job, and at times I get frustrated at the vagaries of a windows network. However, the Linux vs. Microsoft debate in my mind is purely an academic argument. One needs to evaluate the end-user software environment at their business carefully before migrating to another platform. Windows still offers the most extensive software selection for business needs, as well as ease of deployment in small businesses to large enterprises. Both the Linux and Microsoft platforms have their positives and negatives, each with their own issues. I don't believe in the continual assailing of the Microsoft platform from the Linux community. Any operating system before deployment in a business situation should be carefully evaluated in terms end-user skills, training of IT staff, scalability, upgrades, cost, etc. While linux and unix do have a long track record of stability and security in the server arena, Microsoft is seriously addressing these concerns to maintain the confidence of their customer base. As far as the question why learn linux?
As an IT professional, you should welcome new challanges and the opportunity to acquire new skills. Linux and Unix skills always are a welcome addition to an IT person's skillset, especially as more windows networks are become integrated. Learning to navigate the Linux shell will give you a window in harnessing the power of this stable and reliable o.s. This is not to say that you should abandon your study of windows, but to expand your horizons into learning other platforms.

I use linux at home when surfing the internet, as I am a security-phobe. I have a few linux boxes and enjoy their stability, but I am using them also as a learning tool. Many distros of linux can also run many microsoft programs, including Office, so the argument that Linux is an incompatible and isolated os for alpha geeks doesn't hold. Hardware recognition is longer a real problem in the Linux world, as distros such as Suse 10 have a GUI similar to windows device manager to make the hardware plug and play.

So, try installing linux on a spare box, learn and enjoy. And who knows, maybe you will end up both a Linux and Windows guru!

Well I think I'm normal. I work in the IT field but certainly not in the technical side. I rate myself as competent in most areas of IT however. I have set up a network at home with a mixed of wired and wireless, Microsoft XP and Mac OSX. I had an old PC that I wanted to use as an Apache/MySQL/PHP server (as a learning experience) but didn't want to pay for another OS license.

So I decided to check out Linux on my server (also as a learning experience). I've tried a couple of distros now and settled on a Debian based one. I found the installation and set-up of the Linux server very easy. I've managed to get the Apache/MySQL/PHP working fine all on the latest releases.

The Linux purists will all scream but I do all of my work via Windows XP clients. I don't have a screen or keyboard attached to my server. I find I can configure and manage my server via tools such as PuTTy, WinSCP, MySQL Windows Clients etc.

I now have a working web application server and use the Linux server for network filesharing. My current project is setting up my Linux server as an iTunes server and storing all of my music on that server. I'm hoping to serve up the music from that server to iTunes clients on both my Windows and Mac machines.

I've found using Linux ranges from incredibly easy to at times very frustrating. There are a huge range of resources available to assist on the Net but be prepared to invest a large portion of patience in getting some things working especially if they are a little obscure.

I am an experienced home user, help lothers with their computers..
Yes, Linux may be faster than Windows on simpler machines, but with ADSL and a Pentium IV, not even the most modern one, I get very fast repsonse to the programs I use.
Why bother? In the past three years, I have had only 2 minor virus attacks, easily dealt with, and that is using freeware legitimate programs.
The only advice I give to the less knowlegable is defrag, defrag- I do this on a daily basis, takes about 90 secconds, though only on my programs'drive.
ezra

"You don't have to go to the store and buy CDs". I should probably make this point in the "Home User" discussion, but people LIKE going to the store. They like to look at the pretty boxes. Some of them (okay, not many) even open the pre-printed manuals; ink cartriges are more expensive than software.

"It's installed in a few minutes (about five)." I'm assuming that's with a broadband connection. Don't forget, a slim majority of U.S. users are still on dial-up. I know high speed has broader market penetration in Europe and Japan, but for some of us it's still quicker to drive to the store than download over phone line.

If I don't know the name of an app I want to install, how do I find out?

"[i]I like reading a manual on dead trees, but I don't like waiting on my printer, using my paper and toner.[/i]"
So instead of spending about a thousand dollars on Adobe Photoshop to get the seventy page manual that comes with it, install the GIMP for free and spend seventy dollars for a thousand page book about how to really make use of its power at the bookstore. You still get to shop, you get about fourteen times as much dead tree manual (and less of it is marketing crap), and you've paid about one fourteenth what you could have spent. That doesn't even count the money spent on the OS, paper, toner, and electricity. You also get version upgrades free for eternity.

"[i]you make it sound like there are no Windows apps available on line.[/i]"
On the contrary, there are lots of them. The "freeware" crap tends to suck in comparison to free/libre/open source software or major commercial applications, though, and while those Windows applications are available online they're not all collected in one convenient software management system. Could you imagine the difference between having to scour the web for free applications for any number of tasks, finding what you need in a different place each time, and being able to just use something like Windows Update (only better) to get any of thousands and thousands of applications without a hassle?

"[i]No, they aren't free after the trial period, but we're talking about distribution methods here, not costs[/i]"
Maybe we should be talking about costs, too. Thousands of software packages in the Debian repositories, all entirely free. You could simply bring up a list of a dozen or so applications that are all suited to what you want in mere seconds, all free -- or, you can have thousands of irrelevant Google hits while you're searching for the one app you need, and when you find it, it's missing critical functionality, throws advertising banners at you, and craps out after thirty days.

"[i]retail distribution is one of the few choices open source doesn't offer.[/i]"
What, like paying too much at a brick-and-mortar store rather than basically just snapping your fingers and having what you want? Yeah, there's not much of that going around for open source software.

Linux FLIES compared to MS.
Get one of your oldest machines and put Linux on it. Play with it for a few minutes.
Then format it and put XP on it.
You'll get my drift.

For an experienced IT pro, I don't think Linux is a thing to ignore. You should know this software. Maybe tomorrow you'll be asked something about it in a professional setting, and you don't want to be saying 'Oh, yes, the command line OS...'

Once again, we're assuming a heavy Windows background (just like in the Home User thread). This probably means I'm really 'sucked up in the Matrix' and unaccustomed to things not done 'a la Microsoft'. Or maybe not. Anyways, to try out Linux will be a pretty good challenge to see how well I can shift my train of thought and adapt to a new model. And to see an OS 'under the hood', as Linux makes so many things accessible to us mortals (we can have the source code, and there is so much we can do just editing certain text files).

I recently showed Knoppix to a friend (who happens to have a few Microsoft Certifications under his belt). When this fellow saw what I could do with it (especially the easy access to anywhere in the the ntfs filesystem), he immediately saw the potential tool of sorts he may need in the future. I for one have used it many times to solve problems in Windows boxes.

As for personal experience, I can tell you that the knowledge of Linux, and *Nix in general, has given me a definite edge, as I have encountered many *Nix servers along the way. And there will be more Linux coming up. Of course, as your post indicates, there are places where you won't find it. But you never know.

Finally, I add that being in IT, you should at least have enough information for an educated opinion. Come on, just get a live CD (many distros have one) and try it out. At least you'll see for yourself what Linux is about. And with all the machines your post specifies, it won't hurt to try it on one of them. You'll can still have your Windows on it as an alternate boot, just in case.

Many people have argumented that Linux is for the tech savvy; that's us, isn't it?

Ok, now into my third or fourth try with Linux. Red Hat was terrible and Fedora 4 wouldn't recognize my wireless NIC or printer.

So, everyone says Ubantu is easy, simple and whatever. So Ubantu it is.

Upon install I get the following, please help or I will once again go back to Windows (I haven't had an install issue in Windows in a long, long time):

"Unable to install the selected kernel. An error ws returned while trying to install the kernel into the target system.

Kernel package: 'linux-386'.

Check /target/var/log/bootstrap.log for details."

Now, in another related post, someone said their grandma could instll Linux. Don't know about your grandma, but mine would be stumped by this...me too for that matter.

Last I checked, a surface scan of a small drive takes longer than 90 seconds, let alone a defrag. Hell, clicking buttons can take up 30 of those seconds, depending on how much practice you've had at a particular series of left-clicks.

In any case, programs don't move stuff around much if you aren't adding and removing programs very often. Anything with changing data, though, such as logs and documents, is going to shoot that through the roof -- and that's where the defragmentation is needed. Oh, sure, if you subdivide your hard drive into small enough slices, those little bits of data on each partition will take less time to defrag, but the whole is still going to be an absurd amount of wasted time.

If you think AV is necessary, you don't understand what makes virus exploitation a problem. A virus exploits a vulnerability, and requires execution with access to what it is designed to affect. Because unices don't have universal autoexecution like Windows does, executing virus code requires the complicity of the user. Because unix system architecture incorporates strict privilege separation, there's very little a virus can do effectively to a unix system even if it does execute. Finally, because the Linux Open Source development community actually fixes the vulnerabilities on which virus exploits depend, virus writing for Linux is pretty much an exercise in futility anyway. The Windows approach, meanwhile, involves leaving the vulnerabilities where they are and letting companies like Symantec cover up the holes with virus definitions, which don't address the underlying problem at all -- only the symptom. This means that while a specific virus gets rendered ineffective by something like Norton AV with updated virus definitions, a new virus can be created that doesn't match the definition, but exploits the same underlying vulnerability, and it will propagate just fine until a new definition is created. A very minor alteration in a virus can produce enough difference so that it doesn't match a virus definition any longer, thus leading to the epidemic virus problem with Windows.

In absence of all these issues, AV software is pointless. Just keep your security patches up to date, and you won't have to deal with viruses. Linux doesn't need AV software because it doesn't have the glaring issues that AV applications cover over.

If you're that intent on finding fault, nobody can stop you. Go use Windows, if that's what you really want to do. Linux doesn't need converts, really -- it'll survive either way. Most Linux users that spread the word, as it were, are doing so to some extent because they've found something worth loving (technology-wise) and want to share the wealth. It's not like we're getting kickbacks for the Linux Corporatoin for bringing in more customers.

I'd rather have fewer enthusiastic Linux users than more disgruntled Linux users in my vicinity.

You started out talking a good game about being open minded, but in the last day or so all I've seen you post is insults, accusations, and destructive criticisms. I'm not inclined to coddle that.

You desperately need to grasp that Linux is not Windows, in any way, shape, or form. The usual Windows-world rules do not apply. Things are done differently.

Link: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Read what's on the other side of that link. Seriously. You might learn something.

sides of this discussion.

Help - both Linux and Windows have places where you can get top quality help for top dollars - both have places where you can get free help from the forums. In all the years I have used Windows and posted messages asking for help I have not yet had a response from a person actual involved in the writting of the Windows code or program design - yet I have often seen the programmers and designers give answers and advice on Linux forums.

Distro not working with all my equipment - yes you can have equipment for which a Linux driver has not yet been written - that is an issue related to the equipment manufacturer, just the same as the issue that they do not write drivers for their new equipment to run in older Windows systems or write drivers for old equipment to run in the new Windows systems. I have yet to see a case where there was a Linux driver written for an earlier version that did not work in the latest Linux; a very common problem with Windows got hardware with Win 98 or Win NT drivers but can not get Win XP drivers for it.

Descriptive adjectives for programs - it just so happens that I am responding to this from my Windows XP machine and the task manager shows the following programs open and running wscntfy.exe alg.exe wmiprvse.exe csrss.exe svchost.exe (6 times) rundll32.exe (2 instances)and I have absolutely no idea from that info what they are related to (especially the svchost and rundll32 ones) others like firefox.exe thunderbird.exe and ctfmon.exe (colour tft monitor) are a bit obvious. So this problem applies to both - just a matter of what you are familiar with, and I am more familiar with Windows that Linux.

but the comment "You don't have to go to the store and buy CDs" caught my eye.

Do IT professionals (the topic of this discussion) normally buy software at the store? I buy it on line from Egghead or CDW or some similar vendor; I'm betting most others do too. In some cases I can download it immediately. I buy because I support Windows platforms and don't have a choice, but I sure don't go to Best Buy for company purchases.

"If you have the CD set for your distribution with you, it's even faster." Null point. If I have the CD for any software, open source or proprietary, pro or home user, it's going to install faster than over the net, dial-up or broadband. My comment that U.S. home users are still mostly dial-up was off-topic for pros; in my professional life I've got broadband.

"Could you imagine the difference between having to scour the web for free applications for any number of tasks, finding what you need in a different place each time,..." No, not in my professional life. That's why I use on-line vendors whose main business is supporting IT pros. I have yet to have a user request a software package that wasn't available either through CDW or the manufacturer.

(I know. Just being funny.)
Linux doesn't have defragging because it isn't set to frag in the first place.
Just another problem with what MS would like you to believe is an 'operating' system.

Why require all my time and attention when for $30 I can buy a router that requires almost zero of my time and attention once setup that also includes a 4 point switch and wireless capabilities?

More power to you running your 366. I wouldn't do it. Make a DVD on your 366. Rip some music. Open Photoshop.

red hat worked that good for me.

fedora could not format the partitions that it had just created...how can it install if it fails at formatting the partitions?
[ red hat 7.1 14 installs, no mountable root partition, 6 installs failed during install and rebooted itself, one, bootable, and didn't go to right runlevel on reboot. removed rad hat and put mandrake 6.1 back on, it worked perfectly. ]

understandable why I won't touch Red Hat's products? they have always given me nothing but headaches.

"[i]Do IT professionals (the topic of this discussion) normally buy software at the store? I buy it on line from Egghead or CDW or some similar vendor; I'm betting most others do too.[/i]"
Fair enough. I seem to remember having done the same thing back when I used Windows with any regularity. Now, though, I don't have to find the site selling something, spend the money, entrust my credit card number to someone else's SSL implementation, and wait a week for delivery. It's much more convenient for me to simply type a quick command and have the software already installed with sane defaults.

"[i]Null point. If I have the CD for any software, open source or proprietary, pro or home user, it's going to install faster than over the net, dial-up or broadband.[/i]"
That's not really a moot point. After all, all you need is the OS install CD set, and you've got access as well to the distribution's full software repository. It's like being able to use your Windows install CD to install everything from Adobe Photoshop to Microsoft Office.

"[i]I have yet to have a user request a software package that wasn't available either through CDW or the manufacturer.[/i]"
You still have to deal with multiple vendors ("manufacturers"). That's the point.

A few years ago I had a 450 MHz system that ran Windows 98 quite respectably. I decided to try Linux on it and set it up to dual-boot with SuSE (on a second hard drive). The KDE desktop was agonizingly slow - so bad that sometimes I would accidentally start a second instance of an application because so much time had passed without my seeing it start.

I've been extremely frustrated with Linux - especially when trying to set up specialized applications, like a network backup program that I found on SourceForge (I dont' remember the name offhand). In Windows you install a program (usually simply clicking OK for the default install directory, etc.), then use menus for other configuration. For many of the Linux applications, you have to manually edit configuration files (risking changing something you don't want to) - and in going through the installation instructions you find things like "It has been reported that in distro ABC it works to use this value, and in distro DEF this line works"... and then I find that this package relies on another package, which also requires manual config file edits...

Thanks, despite the vulnerabilities (which I acknowledge, and which can be dealt with), I'm much less stressed with Windows than with Linux (probably partially because I know it better). I just want to be able to install something and have it work, and not have to fight with it for days on end just to try to set it up...

With that said, I'm not against Linux per se - for example, I've managed to set up Nessus and use it to scan our company network quarterly. I've just gotten really frustrated with it - as well as with some of you Linux groupies who think that Linux is perfect and Windows is not worth the CD it's sold on. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages...

P - "I have yet to have a user request a software package that wasn't available either through CDW or the manufacturer."

a - "You still have to deal with multiple vendors ("manufacturers"). That's the point."

Okay, I'm missing your point. So I'm dealing with multiple manufacturers. How does that hinder me? Surely not all apps for Linux come from the same programmer? They may all be stored in the same place, but I can find 90% of the software I need to purchase at a single site (CDW; no plug intended).

As long as I can Google the Windows application name and be one click from the manufacturer's web site, what am I losing? A mouse click? I've got a big ol' box of them in the warehouse. I've got a box of double-clicks too, but it takes up twice as much space :-)

15 seconds and 24 viruses...

Maybe on a network you are in charge of!

I've seen it myself, bott the windows system up after installation, go to microsoft to get updates and you are infected before the system has completely loaded windows update page.

I went and downloaded avg free on my linux box, burned it to cd, along with zone alarm, then gave the cd to the person and made them install both, before I gave him back his network cable to connect again.

he was installing xp pro with sp2 slipstreamed into it, so it had microsoft's firewall and still got infected.

We are supposed to believe everything you see and none of what I say.

Red Hat didn't recognize my wireless NIC, Fedora 4 didn't see my printer, and Ubantu won't install the kernel.

Not being at home right now, I can't say exact models but the wireless NIC is a D-Link and the printer a Lexmark. Both widely sold here and very popular.

We call it ID ten T.

Except you put down those that need help, I actually help them.

There's quite a bit more than that involved -- paying for upgrades, having to get security updates from disparate vendors rather than a single upstream Linux distribution software archive, having multiple places to need to report bugs and the like, and so on.

Dealing with vendors is the scourge of my existence.

Well, [b]a[/b] scourge of it, anyhow.

You apparently can't come up with a substantive refutation, so you insinuate I'm an incompetent network administrator. Nice job.

Actually, this was a friend's residence, on Verizon DSL. There was a Linksys firewall/router between the computer and the DSL modem. The OS was Windows XP SP2. I had nothing to do with the network, which at the time had nothing connected to it that was turned on other than that one computer.

Any more stupid comments?

Send 'em on over. I'd love them. I'm considering setting up a Croquet cluster for fun.

I don't lack for faster computers. That server I mentioned is a P4, actually. I just don't have any faster laptops at the moment. I'll change that at some point in the near future, I'm sure.

If you asked for help, he might oblige you. Since you're being a cantankerous whiner that blames everything on the technology without bothering to find out whether he's doing something wrong, I don't blame him for failing to live up to your high standards of free tech support. You've spent a couple days or so insulting Linux users, and now you complain that they're not dropping their day jobs to offer you aid.

More flies with honey, son. Get an attitude adjustment.