Rudi Ahlers wrote: > Rainer Duffner wrote: >> Guy Boisvert wrote: >>> >>> A discussion about slowliness or not of Winblows SP3 is *SURELY* off >>> topic in the CentOS list! I still don't know how the original poster >>> came with all this in the CentOS list. I mean, for Winblows stuff, >>> i'd post to a Winblows list first! >> >> Because the idiot-density is usually lower on a non-Windoze-list. >> This happens everywhere. On "good" lists, people come-up with all >> sorts of questions for all sorts of problems after they realize that a >> bunch of people who actually know their stuff hang around. >> >> This list is not too busy - it's still a bearable volume. But I admit >> I don't read everything. >> >> Rainer >> _______________________________________________ > I actually got kicked off a local Linux list for asking something > similar, had some issues with a MS Exchange server (which is more an > STMP / IP transport problem than MS specific) and some ppl on the list > decided I should be kicked off for it. > > On the other side of the coin, MS wanted to charge me close to $100 > /hour for support. Go figure. > I can imagine that the knowledge level can effectively be lower in Winblows lists. It's as simple as to who is headed Winblow$ in general. (There are idiots everywhere and even if sometimes they know a lot about something but that's another subject!) Macroshaft focus on sucking money out of the mass and Linux is aiming to something else. This list is about CentOS, we focus on that, it's clear. Sure there are probably a lot of people with high knowledge in Winblows here but let's just say again that there are probably many other lists for Redmond's "Let's Go Captive and Mess Around Standards" OS. If i have knowledge in Winblows and want to help, i can just subscribe to those lists and "Voilà" ! As for M$ wanting to charge for support, people have to realize that sometimes you have to take many parameters into account before choosing a server platform. I'm a consultant and when i speak about TCO and ROI to my clients, i often have to fight the misconception that it's always easy with Winblows... Redmond funded some research companies to say that Linux TCO was higher than Winblows', let's just say that money can buy many things... Majority of little companies choose Winblows by "default" thinking that you just put a server into a closet and forget about it. They think that the receptionist can just click "update" from time to time and everything will be ok! And VARs companies very often pre-install Redmond's crap on their hardware (again, buy out by Redmond)... Then one could probably say that if you get support for Linux, it could be as expansive as Winblows (hourly based) and that's true. But i always return to the root of the difference and illustrate the "techniques" used by Redmond to modify standards, to get clients captive, etc. I still have to live with "the M$ Office mess" everyday, good illustration of Redmond's "low blow" tactics (specifically in this case, the horror story about their closed source data file format that they use to push you to the latest version). Or even, think about their prohibitive license fees (Win2003 CALs are now in excess of 100$ per seat)! Ok, enough for evidences about Redmond... Guy Boisvert, ing. IngTegration inc.