>>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.

I've read McConnel's "Code Complete". He was a former contract programmer for Microsoft and now runs his own consulting business, Construx.com, which specializes in software solutions using *Windows* OS and tools. His opinion of NT vs Linux is not what I'd call unbiased. Besides, I don't need to "Appeal to Authority" for my opinion on something. I've programmed on one sort of machine or another since 1961 (IBM 402 Tabulator - programming was wiring!) and PC's since Apple II+ in 1978. I had my own consulting business for 15 years, using DOS through Win3.11, and retired it just as Win95 came out. I've also taught at the college level for nearly a decade and was a 'joiner' too. I've run every version of the Win OS except Win2000. Where I currently work I started with Win95, switched to NT 4.0, back to Win95, with all of their patches. I am currently using Win98SE as the platform for VFP 6, and SuSE 6.4 for C++ and Python. I would switch totally to SuSE in a New York Minute if it were up to me. With KDE and GNOME and *many* third party tool developers gearing up Linux ports it won't be long before I'll have a choice that management can go for. The way W2K is being marketed and priced I doubt that we will ever "upgrade" to it. If Bill's practice of squeezing off support for the older versions occurs I wouldn't doubt that we'd move our development efforts to another platform and toolkit.
So, having my own experience with NT and Linux, on the same machine, I've drawn my own conclusions about which is best. That is why I deleted Win95 from my home box which, by the way, hasn't crashed since I can't remember when and only gets shutdown if there is lightening overhead. Uptime brings to mind some microsurf posts about their Win95 uptime a couple of years ago. Some were claiming months and a couple were claiming over a year. Then MS announced the release of the patch for the clock bug in Win95 that caused 05 to die and hang the computer every 49 days! So much for those "uptimes" and stability claims.
I don't recall if that problem was in the NT or not.