> (I know this is a waste of time and energy, but I feel like venting just a 
> wee bit!  :-)
>
> It seems to me, as a not-so-impartial observer, that if Linux is ever going 
> to really compete against Windows, that the present state of differences 
> between different versions of Linux is A Very Bad Thing! 
> I have just spent all day trying different versions of Linux to see which 
> would run on my surplus laptop.  I finally got one to run after trying 
> several different distros,  which is neither here nor  there, but surely no 
> one goes around trying to find different versions of Windows?? 
> I have all the praise in the world for the different folks trying different 
> strokes, but if we cannot have one version of Linux that is The Standard, 
> then we are never going to convince the masses to convert.  (Which they 
> should).  And yes, to answer your question, I feel better now.

Imho you are wishing for thunder. My opinion on this:

Try to think about it backwards: Which version of (recent, post -98) 
Windows could run on that hardware ? Answer: none.

The reason you were able to get that machine working was, that you had 
alternatives. And that is the point.

If you want a canned all-ready version of Linux you can buy RH 
Novell/SuSe or get free Knoppix and it's there. But when that does not 
work, you have alternatives. I would call that an advantage.

Peter
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist