When I saw this on Slashdot, I was appauled that they would post such a thing: I can't believe that they had actually read through the article. This article is about how Windows 2000 Pro is better than Red Hat 7.3 on installation, but apparently, only in "two dubious categories". This guy reckoned that a fair test would be to use his Sony Vaio quick restore CD's - and all the junk they put on there, and then compare it against a Red Hat package he had downloaded! He reckoned it would take you 2 HOURS to install Windows 2000 Pro - which just isn't true- I know! Anyway, read away, if only for the comedic value.
"I expected Windows 2000's installation would be seamless, fast, and lightyears ahead of upstart Red Hat's by any measure I could concoct. It turns out the Windows 2000 Pro installation is superior to Linux, but in two dubious categories. "
View: Joe Barr's Comparison of Linux vs 2k Pro
News source: Slashdot.org
