There is no problem. I could care less if other people run Windows as long as I don't have to. If somebody buys a computer with Windows pre-installed and then decides to run Windows because it's an appliance mentality, no skin off my nose. If they're happy, great.

The primary problem for me, though, is in being forced to pay for Windows. I build my desktop machines from components so it's not an issue there. Laptops ... it's an issue.)

The secondary problem is friends and relatives asking me for help with their Windows computers, but I can happily tell them I don't run Windows and sorry, can't help; however I'd be happy to install Linux for them.

Nothing is ALLOWED to contradict global warming.

You have to get the language correct. It's "global climate change" when something doesn't fit the "global warming" meme.

Interesting how incivility rules at slashdot. Can't we have discussions without resorting to this sort of language?

"It's news because it illustrates that, as much as Linux users like to throw stones at Windows, they too are vulnerable. Anyone can pick through the source and find security holes what can be exploited - perhaps even much more subtle ones than anyone would ever find on Windows."

I find this fascinating. Some Windows fans will grab onto something like this, an exploitable bug in Linux, and use that to "prove" that Windows is better. "Look here, Linux has an exploitable bug, obviously it's no good. I told you how much better Windows is, now it's proven science!" And the additional comment about finding bugs more subtle than those on Windows? Where's the evidence for that statement, other than perhaps in the fact that Linux source is readily available while Windows source is not?

Any OS has exploitable bugs. Failure to patch is, as noted by many other posters, the real issue. Don't necessarily condemn one system or the other because there are bugs. Instead, maybe we might look at the track record, in which case some conclusions should emerge.

My remark stated "the vast majority of office users." Those people don't do AutoCad, don't need to "photoshop" drawings, don't need the obscure superpower features in MS Office, etc. Linux tools will do 99%. If you're in the 1%, you might need Windows or a Mac or whatever. Maybe. I still think most of it comes down to liking to use what you're familiar with, and Windows is the giant incumbent in this game.

I think this poster has identified the real issue. I doubt that Microsoft bribed people to complain, though I'm sure they provided subtle encouragement. I'm sure they also worked at a high executive level, not with outright bribes, but in the way that sort of thing is always done, the old FUD method.

But really, it comes down to people who are used to Windows wanting Windows, and they'll do that (mostly) even in the face of a mess like Windows 8. "What's this weird Linux thing they're making me use? I never had to use that anywhere else! Other organizations aren't converting, why are we?" And so on.

I don't buy that Windows is inherently more "office ready" than Linux for the vast majority of office users, all else being equal. The thing is, all else isn't equal. I do buy the idea that Windows is heavily entrenched and has a huge "incumbent" advantage, one that is going to persist for a long, long time, whether we like that idea or not.

I've never, ever had the severe kinds of problems you mention, and I've been on Ubuntu or its derivatives (most recently Mint) for years and years. And this is across maybe a dozen machines of all descriptions, and with all sorts of graphics cards, including the dreaded nvidia, which works just fine and only required a little patience.

That is not to say I take the position that Linux is completely golden and Windows is purely trash. There are always bugs and problems. However, given what I paid for my Linux distros, I think I got a really good deal which far exceeds expectations.

The problem is that some vocal Windows people will jump on Linux bugs as "proof" that Linux is not "ready" and so on. But Microsoft's latest antic convinces me that Windows, after how many years, is less ready.

We can cut through all the nonsense and PC vs. science stuff pretty easily.

Are some things determined by genetics? As another poster mention, white people tend to have white kids. How far does this go? I don't know. Objective, non-political science should be the way to answer this question.

But, just for argument's sake, let's say that people with green skin have a tendency to be more violent than people with blue skin. I don't know if that's possible or not, but let's just say it.

The real issue is not that it is or isn't politically correct to state a scientific fact. The issue is pre-judging individuals and even worse, acting on that pre-judgment.

You're green? Oh, you're a violent criminal. You're blue? Oh, you're higher class.

Are there differences between races? Your eyes tell you that there are in a split second. Are there other differences? I don't know for sure but it seems likely. But do I have the right to pre-judge you, to decide you have a lesser value as a human being? No, I do not.

Everyone can say whatever they want, but this much is worth repeating: If Hamas, etc., disarmed, there would be peace. If Israel disarmed, they would be utterly destroyed.

This last post sort of hits the nail on the head.

Yes, complex projects need to be managed, or you end up with dogpiles like most of today's ERP stuff (and many others). But by managed I mean managed WELL.

Managed WELL does not mean all sorts of overhead and red tape that exist just because a clueless project manager doesn't know any other way than one-size-fits-all full-blown project management according to some textbook. It means using tools wisely as the project's needs demand, neither more nor less.

I remember working at a company quite a while ago when "structured development" started to be the latest rage. We had "structured documentation," "structured walkthroughs," structured everything, whether the project was a one-day effort (except after all the structuring nothing was short) or two years. The PMs in charge applied the methodology blindly and rigidly.

Is the same nonsense, with different names, going on today? No kidding! 'Agile' and all the rest will come and go; do better systems get produced in faster timeframes? I think we all know the answer.

As an aside, one of these methodology instructors insisted that a good piece of code NEVER contained embedded comments, because the external documentation should be so good that comments were superfluous. And this guy got paid to teach this stuff. Yes, he was an academic with no real-world experience.

Are you kidding? The Street makes investment decisions based on single news reports!

Really, the day to day volatility of the market never ceases to amaze me. One bad news report? DJIA down 200. One good report? Up 150. It seems to be based on moment to moment emotion rather than logic. No wonder out-guessing the market is so hard. I think the big traders more or less permanently forget to take their meds.

I may be a Linux "fanboy" or whatever it's called, but I've still had MS in my portfolio. I can be very happy running Linux on all my machines and making relatively good money (considering risk) from MS. My "fanboy-ness" does not extend to my bank account.

I completely believe in equality and when I was in management I put that into practice all the time, no fail. Equality meant I didn't care if you were male or female, or whatever color or race or religion or ... whatever. I didn't care; I would treat you fairly, try to know you as an individual with individual needs, goals, and aspirations, and to try to help you to succeed.

This worked. In spades. In productivity, retention, morale, health and safety, any measure you want.

What I did not do is somehow say that equality means men (or any other group) are inferior. White male? Whatever. Black female? Whatever. You're all as good as your job performance, not more or less.

What I seem to hear from some, though, is that a straight white male is by definition inferior. How does that align with a notion of equality?

Of course harrassment of women is wrong! It should never be tolerated. But harrassment of anyone is wrong, and is equally unacceptable.

That's what GW needs to be all about, legitimate science and letting the science speak for itself. Unfortunately the likes of Al Gore have been a real problem for obtaining wide acceptance of GW. Let's please drop the hype and posturing on both sides and follow the science. This isn't about what someone would like to believe or wants to believe. It's about finding and accepting the scientific truth, and then doing what's necessary (and not doing what's not necessary). And please don't imply anything from this comment about whether the scientific truth already is or is not determined. "Belief" (or non-belief) in GW is not necessarily a measure of scientifc literacy. It's more like "if you agree with me then you're literate" and that applies to both sides.