s not in the system but in damage cable. Having assessed the level of training the new administrator, I invited them back Windows NT ©. At first, they refused, accustomed to good. But I was not very interested in free configure and learn another incompetent.

Perhaps I can be condemned for it, but if you know how ugly attitude of the organization, you would agre

First, I want to express my humble opinion, which emerged from a study of many articles, forums and personal experience about the OSS. I am deeply convinced that the mechanism that applied to the design of "free" software, including the GPL, it is not effective.

Such a statement is always a storm of anger in the appropriate forums where whistle blowers waved flags mozilla.org and OpenOffice.org over their heads, slapping their fists in the chest and BM expressed. Of course you can argue with them, but this is a waste of time, and who so desperately need. I am sure that some of the OSS grow and create new form of software, which will contribute materially to take into account the needs of users and programmers.

Given this, I do not see the price of basic dignity Linux. Yes price per se, but are we really do not buy "naked" - Linux kernel and distribution, including a list of great software. Why, I began to use the operating system? I needed a fast and reliable proxy-server. We first tested the various options based on Windows NT ©. Followed by administrators, but the system of command and users remain dissatisfied. I quite agree with those who argue that a good administrator can build a reliable system on the basis of a BeOS, the question at what cost ...

When I put Linux and turned him, he worked with the administration of the year, after which it began make new administrator, I had already resigned as six months ... But the problem was not in the system but in damage cable. Having assessed the level of training the new administrator, I invited them back Windows NT ©. At first, they refused, accustomed to good. But I was not very interested in free configure and learn another incompetent.

Perhaps I can be condemned for it, but if you know how ugly attitude of the organization, you would agree

ags mozilla.org and OpenOffice.org over their heads, slapping their fists in the chest and BM expressed. Of course you can argue with them, but this is a waste of time, and who so desperately need. I am sure that some of the OSS grow and create new form of software, which will contribute materially to take into account the needs of users and programmers.

Given this, I do not see the price of basic dignity Linux. Yes price per se, but are we really do not buy "naked" - Linux kernel and distribution, including a list of great software. Why, I began to use the operating system? I needed a fast and reliable proxy-server. We first tested the various options based on Windows NT ©. Followed by administrators, but the system of command and users remain dissatisfied. I quite agree with those who argue that a good administrator can build a reliable system on the basis of a BeOS, the question at what cost ...

When I put Linux and turned him, he worked with the administration of the year, after which it began make new administrator, I had already resigned as six months ... But the problem was not in the system but in damage cable. Having assessed the level of training the new administrator, I invited them back Windows NT ©. At first, they refused, accustomed to good. But I was not very interested in free configure and learn another incompetent.

Perhaps I can be condemned for it, but if you know how ugly attitude of the organization, you would agre

this, I do not see the price of basic dignity Linux. Yes price per se, but are we really do not buy "naked" - Linux kernel and distribution, including a list of great software. Why, I began to use the operating system? I needed a fast and reliable proxy-server. We first tested the various options based on Windows NT ©. Followed by administrators, but the system of command and users remain dissatisfied. I quite agree with those who argue that a good administrator can build a reliable system on the basis of a BeOS, the question at what cost ...

When I put Linux and turned him, he worked with the administration of the year, after which it began make new administrator, I had already resigned as six months ... But the problem was not in the system but in damage cable. Having assessed the level of training the new administrator, I invited them back Windows NT ©. At first, they refused, accustomed to good. But I was not very interested in free configure and learn another incompetent.

Perhaps I can be condemned for it, but if you know how ugly attitude of the organization, you would agre

mand and users remain dissatisfied. I quite agree with those who argue that a good administrator can build a reliable system on the basis of a BeOS, the question at what cost ...

When I put Linux and turned him, he worked with the administration of the year, after which it began make new administrator, I had already resigned as six months ... But the problem was not in the system but in damage cable. Having assessed the level of training the new administrator, I invited them back Windows NT ©. At first, they refused, accustomed to good. But I was not very interested in free configure and learn another incompetent.

Perhaps I can be condemned for it, but if you know how ugly attitude of the organization, you would agre

s not in the system but in damage cable. Having assessed the level of training the new administrator, I invited them back Windows NT ©. At first, they refused, accustomed to good. But I was not very interested in free configure and learn another incompetent.

Perhaps I can be condemned for it, but if you know how ugly attitude of the organization, you would agree with me. Then I saw that Microsoft © was putting pressure on the users of its OS. This is reflected in the increasing requirements for hardware system. I am referring to Windows XP ©. And although they claim it much faster than Win98 ©, but claims to power more than the computer. Let me be blunt, I have a computer that is designed to achieve specific targets. These can be achieved under DOS, Windows 3.1 ©, Windows 98 ©... So functionally, I do not buy new opportunities, but is expected to update the iron and spend.

This is not the face of real performance. This is a very unpleasant reality. Of course I can say that I am with the progress, but really this is an attempt to disguise the fact that I was deceived and make money really giving anything new. I simply cheating. I would now like to address the friendliness and ease of systems offered by Microsoft ©. This is a very large and serious topic for discussion. In a nutshell, we have a system that works without configuration.

Configuration, the system automatically selects which is not always the best, but for a broad range of users is not, I was one of principle. I should note, however, that in practice is not all rosy. Not all drivers are correctly, and after improper installation, it is often not receiving. And quite frequently, the attempt to achieve a specific, peculiar behavior of the system is facing difficulties.

As I have often told from Windows © and other Microsoft © product