>I've been away from UT for a couple of weeks but I see the conversation went on without me! ;-). Below is a legal analysis of the UCITA agreement. See Article 2B, section 102(a) 20, which details the limiting of discussions of software performance without company approval. It has all but killed objective software comparisons, turning them into nothing more than PR puff pieces. MS lawyers, pushed hardest for this clause and, if memory serves me correctly, contributed the most to its writing. I haven't purchased a MS software product since I adopted Linux as my OS (removing Winxx from my system) on May 7th, of 1997.

I may be wrong, but as I understand it UCITA is not the law in the majority of the states, and it is hardly a thing that can be said about MS exclusively, as was the impression I got from your response. And as of today, it certainly can't be used as argument that MS does it all the time, given that UCITA is fairly new legistation and is still trying to get passed in other states.

FWIW, I responded to the original message because of its implication that "it runs better on Linux" as opposed to NT. The fact that it runs on Linux does not mean it doesn't run well on NT or other OS for that matter. After all the responses there was not a single shred of evidence to support it, and I didn't thought there was.

Don't get me wrong, if Linux is that much better than NT then I want to find out more. That's why I got my Linux box in the first place. But there is a difference between the hearsay and the facts.

If you get Dr.Dobb's Journal, read what Steve McConnell had to say (October issue) about comparing Linux to Windows NT, it will give you a different perspective.