🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <adtDCz2F8.IoL@netcom.com>,
Anthony D. Tribelli <adt@netcom.com> wrote:

>I've personally installed
>	Windows 3.x on            5 systems
>	Windows NT Workstation on 3 systems
>	Windows NT Server      on 2 systems
>	IBM OS/2               on 2 systems
>	linux                  on 3 systems
>Nothing spectacular, but enough to comment on their relative ease of 
>installation and configuration.
>
>Linux is not easier to install than any of the others, it can be the most 
>difficult. Of course I only had 3 years of experience as a UNIX user. 
>Maybe if I had been a system administrator it would be easy?

>Downloading, unzipping, creating floppies, this is easier? 
I just plug a network card in the pc, boot linux, run the slackware 
setup program, and 45 minutes later I'm done. Power down, remove the 
network card, and another satisifed customer leaves with a brand new 
unix workstation.

>: The experience of getting Bill-Gates BS off your hard disk is well worth 
>: this process.
>
>If you goal is non-MS software then linux is a good choice, but ease of 
>use is not a powerful pro-linux argument.

Well, those who are looking above all for ease of use are not the
movers and shakers anyway...

--
 Joe Sloan     jjs@engr.ucr.edu   http://dostoevsky.ucr.edu
     Win95? No, none for me, thanks - I'm already running Linux...
 Microsoft is not the answer - Microsoft is the question; the answer is NO!