Installing apache is easy sure; but its even faster in Windows
If you mean apache performs better in Windows you're delusional. 1.3.x uses fork() which is mind-numbingly slow on Windows compared to unix, 2.0.x uses real threads but it's still too young IMO and AFAIK a lot of things don't work with it yet.
Gimp, what the heck kind of junk is that thing? Windows paint with a facelift *belch*
Hardly, the only thing it's really missing is CMYK editing for publishing and I believe that's being considered for the next development version.
Windows is plain easy for everything .. name one thing thats hard to get up and running reliably on Windows?
IIS, that is if you consider security a part of reliability.
Btw, how do you find Windows slow and awkward? The Windows GUI is MUCH faster than your KDE or Gnome GUI's ...
The responsiveness
may be a little quicker but GUIs in general are slower for a lot of things and the milliseconds faster Window's GUI may be doesn't make up for it by a long shot. Maybe I've been tainted because I've been using Linux for so long but I really don't see the speed difference with X so many Windows users cry about.
also, for the beginner how would you rate Linux on security? Its more vulnerable than a rookie install of Windows without a doubt; its just you hardly hear of Linux being hacked because nobody runs the piece of junk!
Hardly. You can't put an unpatched Windows install on the Internet for more than 2min without getting infected with blaster or some other RPC worm, I know multiple people who got infected before they could get a single patch installed. Install a copy of RedHat (or Fedora once it's released) and you'll notice that A) the firewall is on by default with no incoming ports open (something MS decided would be a good idea in XP SP2 which isn't out yet) and B) unless you pick a bunch of server software you don't have any daemons listening to be exploited but with Windows you don't have a choice about the SMB and RPC servers.
You get what you pay for, you really do.
With hardware maybe, because there's physical parts to degrade or be put together poorly but with software it's completely untrue otherwise 2/3 of the Internet's websites wouldn't be running on free Apache. And the best part is that even when you buy something like Windows there's no liability, if a BSOD costs your company millions you can't do anything but reboot and weep because Microsoft's licensing says they're not responsible for any problems the software may cause. You'd think if the software was actually reliable they'd back you a bit for the cash you threw their way, right?
Its about useability, performance, polish and support. Neither of those are Linux's strong points.
And after having to support Windows for many years I can honestly say Windows isn't any better.
now take your average myth that Linux can be run on just about anything; P3 350 with a shitter vid card, load up your GUI and whats the first thing you do? take off all the eye candy, and strip it to bare minimum; even then its still sluggish
Take your average Windows and put it on the same box and what do you do? Nothing, you complain about bootup times and wait for windows to draw because you can't strip it down to anything except what MS decided is best for you.
Linux .... I have always said, its for unempowered geeks who take to the glorified world of theatrical "hackers" and feel empowered by having to use a command prompt;
You mean like all those people working at IBM and Oracle?
Until that day; you have to pay for Windows for a reason. Microsoft isn't rich because they sell crappy software;
No they're rich because they got there first and companies like IBM didn't think consumer level computers would be big. They were wrong and I'm sure they're angry, but not even MS is a great predictor because they were about the last big company to have any real Internet presence, hell they didn't even have their own TCP/IP stack until 1995. If IBM had actually pushed OS/2 against Win311 it would have crushed it because Win311 was terrible, but they didn't and here we are now enduring the sh!t MS pushes out ever year. And Apple never gains market share because their sh!t is too expensive, noone wants to pay $3K for a PC even though it has all around better software.
It's obvious you've got no real experience with Linux other than probably b0rking your MBR installing it a few years ago and now you hold angst towards it. I feel sorry for you, you're missing out on a lot of great free software that IMO works a lot better than anything commercially available. Given a choice between running Windows and all the commercial software you can name and running Linux I'll always choose Linux and the free software that runs on it, it's a no brainer for me and if you'd actually learn the software you'd probably feel the same way.
p.s- its pretty sad when Linux users have to "show off" how they can do things just like they can in Windows hahahaha
What's even sadder than that is people like you running around spewing misinformation about things they obviously know nothing about.
