Erik wrote:
>>> Jon Harrop wrote:
>>> > Not really. Windows supports a far wider variety of hardware than
>>> > Linux and
>
> Well, this does sound a little funny considering that Linux is free
> software and has been ported to almost every odd hardware platform,
> and how many platforms does Windows run on?

I think he meant hardware support as support for devices/drivers.

> In my opinion, the existence and market-domination of Windows is a
> little like the case with fossil fuel and internal combustion engines
> vs. whatever higher technology is being suppressed.

> However, I can confidently say that Windows would never be a decent
> operating system if there were not rivalry from free software (Linux
> and BSD kernels of course!)

I look foreward to the day when somebody explain me why even well
educated people loose the ability to differentiate when it comes to
Microsoft, while the fall into a state of extasy everytime Google
drops a little comfort toy while they carry on with their business
venture of 'monetizing' the worlds information.

The frightening success of Googles IT Services (Postini, Google Apps)
is unfortunately not only Microsofts fault, it also the consequence of
the fact that it is impossible with linux to significantly lowering
maintaining costs of a bigger it infrastructure. In other words: It's
still too difficult to manage. That in turn is what I believe a
consequence of the lack of modern language infrastructure.

As a proof of concept, try to lower your it costs with a true open
source alternative to Exchange. See? And this is the niche Google
fills with completely aggressive pricing.