Bob,

You've stated in this message the sentiments that I've heard most often, that Linux is reliable and stable. That means everything to us here. We are going to set up a Linux box and put on the DB/2 that IBM graciously sent me. If it's a dog, we drop it. If we have a positive experience setting it up, we invest a little more in putting up a toy/sample/learning app.

Why would I "waste" time learning something I know nothing about (Linux) when NT/VFP is sitting there? Once upon a time I discovered a family of products known as Databases (which nobody told me about in college). I looked at them and saw I could earn a living with them. I abandoned C and learned Foxpro 2.0 from scratch, having determined that this Foxpro thing looked like the best. In retrospect, I'd say it was a good move <s>.

Once upon a time I used to be able to examine several products before choosing, such as Paradox, dbase and Foxpro. Or OS/2 vs. Mac vs. Win 3.x. Now it's Linux vs. NT, and it's a comparison I intend to invest in making.

Maybe it's just my stubborn belief that it is sometimes worthwile to learn things that I don't know. That same stubborn belief brought me to Foxpro, FoxWin, and now VFP.

>>- None of my clients is using Linux, How i'm gonna make a living ?
>
>If the client selects you to provide a system and you specify/recomend a Linux Server and the agree, then they will have one.
>
>>- None of my favourate programming languages is available.
>
>I believe the goal is to use the Linux machine as a SERVER, not to replace the workstation. And, since most VFP developers write traditional aps that run on the client, then this is not a problem.
>
>Would you tell your client they can't use Oracle becuase it doesn't run on windows?
>
>>- I get the impression that Linux is not as scalable as NT
>
>At this point in time that is somewhat correct, however, the same size processor on a Linux machine can generally serve more users at the same performance level, of course, depending on what the server is doing.
>
>>- I seriously do not experience many bugs in the NT os.
>
>HA! Lucky!
>
>>- The bugs that do exist are mostly due to some functionality added to NT in a previous release, they will be fixed in a next release.
>
>How many security issues have you heard about for IIS4 and IE? Compare that to how many security issue you hear about for Apache? Security is a very important issue for the enterprise, and a *Nix os has several operation levels... how often have you heard of a *nix virus?
>
>>- In windows I've lots of programs that serves my needs, in linux i've virually none.
>
>Doesn't mean they are not out there. Also, as I said, I belive we are talking about Linux as a server... to service files, serve printers, run a database, be a mail server, route internet packets, etc. (Things it is very good at!)
>
>>Seriously, the time there was a battle between Windows and OS-2 cannot be compared with the upcomming battle between Linux and Windows. About 1 Billion people are used to work with Windows. Do you really think that windows is so >
>
>I think the desktop battle will be hard fought... that is about ease of use and common file formats... actually, I think MS made a crucial mistake if the native file format of Office 2000 documents is HTML and data is XML... this allows people to use the software they LIKE since we can all share documents seemlessly. Office is only so popular because, it had a larger market share do to preinstalls, and people found that, "Hey if we all use office, it's really easy to share documents and spreadsheets." Remember when EVERYONE Used Lotus 123?
>
>>In the OLD dos day's there were some other companies which tried to get a piece of the OS market, but because MS had a enormous marketshare they were not able to get a significant share.
>>
>
>I think OS/2 2.0 was technologically equivelent to Windows 95 which was released several years later. If MS and IBM didn't have the political battle, we would all be using OS/2 and it would be much more mature that what we have now with windows. OS/2 had a great interface and was so much more bulletproff than Win 3.x was... but, once again, marketing and preinstalls one this battle, not which was technologically better.
>
>
>>When i look at linux, I don't see anything what could not be accomplished on NT. Why should i move ???
>>
>
>Set up a mail server that serves 300+ users and is rock solid... Then add a proxy server to it... Oh, and while we are at it, run the companies internal web intranet on it.
>
>The company I work for can't keep exchange running for more than a week without having to reboot. The company I have my permenant internet email address with runs Linux servers... and I have been with them for 3 years now, with only one service interuption, and that was due to a spam retaliation attack.
>
>>I can only wait to what is going to happen. Only if ms is giving up, i'll move.
>
>I do understand your position, but I do feel there is a place for Linux, espessially as a department level or small company server. No, I wouldn't put it on the desktop, but I would be very comfortable with it in the back room.
>
>(Heck, I have a Linux/Samba server here at home... it is a file server for my three workstations an a gateway for my cable modem. Once I got it set up, took a week since I never did it before it has been stable ever since... been up for months without needing a reboot. BTW: This is running on a 486SX33 with 8 megs of ram.... do that with Windows!)
>
>BOb