Sounds like an awful long list.

When a process is running amok, I like the fact that a Unix process manager will tell you the identity of the offending process rather than masking it behind some vague "catchall" name.

That's just bloody annoying.

Microsoft's UI design just boggles the mind. How they managed to not be destroyed by Apple is the best argument ever for the fact that they were (and probably still are) a monopoly under the Sherman Act.

> on Windows because it looks nice,

No it doesn't.

At best. That is an entirely subjective metric with absolutely no meaning.

> it's remote exploits of one of the services that are installed, by default

Which are what?

That's another area where Linux differs from Microsoft. If one of the distributions or Unixen get a bloody nose, then they change their behavior. A type of exploit from 1998 is not going to work in 2012 because everyone has learned their lesson and are acting accordingly.

We learn from our mistakes and hopefuly from the mistakes of others.

Android has stuff that has to be explicitly installed.

Windows only requires that you browse the wrong webpage.

World of difference.

Thinking that you can be a cheap b*stard when it comes to Windows support is one of the most dangerous memes of our times. This leads to the hiring of people that can't be trusted to blow their own nose, let alone manage an interesting bit of technology. Because of this you end up with so-called sysadmins or dbas that are gravely out of their depth and unable to tread water.

If you are actually willing to spend money, it doesn't matter what the tech is. You can find someone to meet your needs.

More than anything, this seemed like a collossal process failure in general. Stuff simply should have been vetted better than that. You should have never been that close to a go-live date with problems like that.

Fortune 500 companies run lots of Linux and Unix in general.

They just don't tend to run it on the desktop.

Although given how much stuff has moved to the web, they probably could.

>> because nobody in their right mind would buy it
>
> Smart, non-Luddite people would.

Most people have no taste and greatly overestimate their intelligence.

I dislike the "ownership" aspect of GMO seeds and want to avoid them purely for that reason. It's like everyone's nightmares about software patents in one package. The increased pesticide levels and bee colony destruction are just an added bonus.

...except everyone does label the theory of evolution what it is.

It's a theory. It's a SCIENTIFIC theory. That truthful disclosure doesn't hurt anything. Neither does disclosing a mountain of literature written on the subject by actual scientists over the last 150 or so years.

That's a level of scrutiny thay Monsanto is afraid of.

"Mutated" beats "engineered to allow increased pesticide use".

I don't want to encourage the kind of monopoly that Monsanto represents. Even if Monsanto has salted everyone else's fields, I would still respond to a label that made it clear that the farmer that grew my food retained the right to save his own seeds.

This isn't just about the direct impacts of Monsanto franken-foods on my body or the environment. That's certainly important but it is by no means the end of the issue.