JetAudio Version 6.0.1 -- March 2, 2004

[Rob]

JetAudio Version 6.0.1 was released on March 2, 2004.
Apparently it is a spyware free alternative to RealPlayer. (see previous
posts and also see http://www.jetaudio.com/support/faq.html )

Rob

 

[Richard Steinfeld]

| JetAudio Version 6.0.1 was released on March 2, 2004.
| Apparently it is a spyware free alternative to RealPlayer.
(see previous
| posts and also see http://www.jetaudio.com/support/faq.html )
|
| Rob

A poster, I believe it was "Bogus," summarized what appears to be
a method that jetAudio uses for spying, in the spyware newsgroup.

Before installing any software that plays streams using Real
Networks technology, be certain to read the threads both on this
newsgroup as well as alt.privacy.spyware, so you know what you
are getting into.

By the way, I've been using jetAudio for a few months. I like the
way that it handles, although I may abandon it because I don't
want "Digital Rights Management" on my system (yeah, I know: it
appears to be compulsory in MS). Everyone and their brother wants
to install their own proprietary DRM on your system.

Richard

Richard

 

[Rob]

A poster, I believe it was "Bogus," summarized what appears to be
a method that jetAudio uses for spying, in the spyware newsgroup.

Before installing any software that plays streams using Real
Networks technology, be certain to read the threads both on this
newsgroup as well as alt.privacy.spyware, so you know what you
are getting into.

By the way, I've been using jetAudio for a few months. I like the
way that it handles, although I may abandon it because I don't
want "Digital Rights Management" on my system (yeah, I know: it
appears to be compulsory in MS). Everyone and their brother wants
to install their own proprietary DRM on your system.

Richard

Richard

Is DRM only compulsory in XP? Or other Windows OS's?

Rob

P.S. Time to switch to Linux!

 

[Richard Steinfeld]

| Richard Steinfeld wrote:
| > | >> JetAudio Version 6.0.1 was released on March 2, 2004.
| >> Apparently it is a spyware free alternative to RealPlayer.
(see
| >> previous posts and also see
http://www.jetaudio.com/support/faq.html
| >> )
| >>
| >> Rob
| >
| > A poster, I believe it was "Bogus," summarized what appears
to be
| > a method that jetAudio uses for spying, in the spyware
newsgroup.
| >
| > Before installing any software that plays streams using Real
| > Networks technology, be certain to read the threads both on
this
| > newsgroup as well as alt.privacy.spyware, so you know what
you
| > are getting into.
| >
| > By the way, I've been using jetAudio for a few months. I like
the
| > way that it handles, although I may abandon it because I
don't
| > want "Digital Rights Management" on my system (yeah, I know:
it
| > appears to be compulsory in MS). Everyone and their brother
wants
| > to install their own proprietary DRM on your system.
| >
| > Richard
| >
| > Richard
|
| Is DRM only compulsory in XP? Or other Windows OS's?
|
| Rob
|
| P.S. Time to switch to Linux!

I believe that it is compulsory in Windows Media Player after a
certain version or if you've updated it. Thus, I'm stuck with it
in Windows Me because I upgraded WMP. Someone posted a method
they've used to successfully emasculate WMP, which I'm intending
to do.

I bought XP months ago and haven't installed it yet. I'm hoping
that it was issued before WMP 9. If so, I'll simply not allow it
to upgrade the Windows Media Player.

Spybot S&D now reports that there are three unique machine
identifiers residing in my registry. When I delete them, they
come right back. And to think of all the outrage there was over
Intels's putting a scannable unique ID into their processors. Now
MS feels firmly justified to plant the same thing into our OSs.

About Linux: that's mighty attractive. I was really impressed
with Unix after taking a class. To me, it was DOS with the
shackles removed. However, for me, Linux would be a really big
jump that might entail a change of work! Yet, it is attractive.
My DP-systems expert friend has pointed out that the internet is
a security minefield, especially when one uses Microsoft tools;
at least MS runs a "closed shop" (well almost), able to keep a
lot of the malevolent out. He mentioned that, on the other hand,
Linux, being an open system, is wide open for hackers to work a
far greater amount of damage.

Wow. This is really sobering.

Richard

 

[David Simpson]

|
| Is DRM only compulsory in XP? Or other Windows OS's?
|
| Rob
|
| P.S. Time to switch to Linux!

I believe that it is compulsory in Windows Media Player after a
certain version or if you've updated it. Thus, I'm stuck with it
in Windows Me because I upgraded WMP. Someone posted a method
they've used to successfully emasculate WMP, which I'm intending
to do.

I bought XP months ago and haven't installed it yet. I'm hoping
that it was issued before WMP 9. If so, I'll simply not allow it
to upgrade the Windows Media Player.

Spybot S&D now reports that there are three unique machine
identifiers residing in my registry. When I delete them, they
come right back. And to think of all the outrage there was over
Intels's putting a scannable unique ID into their processors. Now
MS feels firmly justified to plant the same thing into our OSs.

About Linux: that's mighty attractive. I was really impressed
with Unix after taking a class. To me, it was DOS with the
shackles removed. However, for me, Linux would be a really big
jump that might entail a change of work! Yet, it is attractive.
My DP-systems expert friend has pointed out that the internet is
a security minefield, especially when one uses Microsoft tools;
at least MS runs a "closed shop" (well almost), able to keep a
lot of the malevolent out. He mentioned that, on the other hand,
Linux, being an open system, is wide open for hackers to work a
far greater amount of damage.

Wow. This is really sobering.

Richard

I'll take issue with this. M$ being a closed shop and a monopoly means
that:
1. It becomes a target for hackers.
2. It is inherently insecure because the browser (IE) is entwined with
the OS which opens loopholes not otherwise available.
3. M$ response times are slow and, usually, cumbersome.
4. M$ does little to keep out the malevolent. In fact it seems to
encourage them by releasing such buggy and untested software.

1. Linux is not in a monopoly situation. It does not become such a
tempting target.
2. Linux does not integrate the kernel with any browser. This reduces
the opportunities for loopholes and back doors considerably. A recent
attempt to put a back door into Linux was thwarted before it was
released due to the diligence and fail safes involved in the
development cycle.
3. Response times are immediate. Most found instabilities and/or
vulnerabilities are patched within 24 hours of their becoming known.
4. Because Linux is Open Source it becomes more secure not less. There
are thousands of programmers from all over the world working on Linux.
Any security holes are generally caught before they are incorporated
into released software.

M$ put up a website claiming to compare Windows with Linux. It claimed
that Windows 2000 patched to 2003 had four security holes while Red
Hat Linux version 6.1 had sixteen. IIRC. Of course they don't mention
that the version of RH they are talking about was released 1998. To
compare they should really compare NT4 or Win98SE with RH. I can make
a guess at which OS had the greatest number of security holes at that
time.

My opinion is that your friend is wrong. I consider that he is being
biased because of ignorance about how the Open Source community works
and because his training doesn't allow him to compare the two
adequately.

 

[Richard Steinfeld]

| On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 01:22:35 GMT, "Richard Steinfeld"
| <[email protected]> typed furiously:
|
| >
| >|
| >| Is DRM only compulsory in XP? Or other Windows OS's?
| >|
| >| Rob
| >|
| >| P.S. Time to switch to Linux!
| >
| >I believe that it is compulsory in Windows Media Player after
a
| >certain version or if you've updated it. Thus, I'm stuck with
it
| >in Windows Me because I upgraded WMP. Someone posted a method
| >they've used to successfully emasculate WMP, which I'm
intending
| >to do.
| >
| >I bought XP months ago and haven't installed it yet. I'm
hoping
| >that it was issued before WMP 9. If so, I'll simply not allow
it
| >to upgrade the Windows Media Player.
| >
| >Spybot S&D now reports that there are three unique machine
| >identifiers residing in my registry. When I delete them, they
| >come right back. And to think of all the outrage there was
over
| >Intels's putting a scannable unique ID into their processors.
Now
| >MS feels firmly justified to plant the same thing into our
OSs.
| >
| >About Linux: that's mighty attractive. I was really impressed
| >with Unix after taking a class. To me, it was DOS with the
| >shackles removed. However, for me, Linux would be a really big
| >jump that might entail a change of work! Yet, it is
attractive.
| >My DP-systems expert friend has pointed out that the internet
is
| >a security minefield, especially when one uses Microsoft
tools;
| >at least MS runs a "closed shop" (well almost), able to keep a
| >lot of the malevolent out. He mentioned that, on the other
hand,
| >Linux, being an open system, is wide open for hackers to work
a
| >far greater amount of damage.
| >
| >Wow. This is really sobering.
| >
| >Richard
|
| I'll take issue with this. M$ being a closed shop and a
monopoly means
| that:
| 1. It becomes a target for hackers.
| 2. It is inherently insecure because the browser (IE) is
entwined with
| the OS which opens loopholes not otherwise available.
| 3. M$ response times are slow and, usually, cumbersome.
| 4. M$ does little to keep out the malevolent. In fact it seems
to
| encourage them by releasing such buggy and untested software.
|
| 1. Linux is not in a monopoly situation. It does not become
such a
| tempting target.
| 2. Linux does not integrate the kernel with any browser. This
reduces
| the opportunities for loopholes and back doors considerably. A
recent
| attempt to put a back door into Linux was thwarted before it
was
| released due to the diligence and fail safes involved in the
| development cycle.
| 3. Response times are immediate. Most found instabilities
and/or
| vulnerabilities are patched within 24 hours of their becoming
known.
| 4. Because Linux is Open Source it becomes more secure not
less. There
| are thousands of programmers from all over the world working on
Linux.
| Any security holes are generally caught before they are
incorporated
| into released software.
|
| M$ put up a website claiming to compare Windows with Linux. It
claimed
| that Windows 2000 patched to 2003 had four security holes while
Red
| Hat Linux version 6.1 had sixteen. IIRC. Of course they don't
mention
| that the version of RH they are talking about was released
1998. To
| compare they should really compare NT4 or Win98SE with RH. I
can make
| a guess at which OS had the greatest number of security holes
at that
| time.
|
| My opinion is that your friend is wrong. I consider that he is
being
| biased because of ignorance about how the Open Source community
works
| and because his training doesn't allow him to compare the two
| adequately.
|

Thanks, David.
You have certainly presented a good, solid, well-rounded
argument. In fact, much of what you've said lurks in the back of
my mind when I discuss such matters with my friend. I take
comfort and I have trust in the international community that's
entrusted their hopes and beliefs in Linux and other
open-systems. It's exciting!

My friend's background is heavy duty: he's been essentially the
guy in charge of all data handling for a large municipality:
maps, emergency, police, payroll, personnel, benefits: on and on.
Another friend who worked for friend #1 said that he was in awe
that the guy can draw a diagram around the wall showing all the
pieces of the city's data operations and how they interconnect.
I'm not really "name-dropping:" I'll come back to this below.

I have done a few data-related projects for a large telephone
company myself. What I noticed is that, for example, in the phone
company case, software modules and entire systems are debugged
and tested very thoroughly before going into service. A lot of
ramp-up time is allocated for this development: I was impressed
with this. What I saw was that in any angle in which the public
is involved (phone service, billing, repair service, etc.) the
approach is suitably cautious and deliberate: funding tends to be
ample. The stuff tends to work. This is in sharp contrast to the
other systems used in the company: office systems, networking:
that stuff is insane. You never know if you'll be able to get
your document to the networked printer 6 feet away. It took me 6
hours of work to submit my electronic timesheet. The only time my
home computers have been crippled by viruses is when I brought
them home from the phone company.I haven't mentioned customer
service: customer service systems are horrible: that is, horrible
for a customer to endure: arrogant and user-hostile.
Unfortunately, those systems are designed that way: they are
working perfectly! What never ceases to amaze me is that our
telephones work at all!

Because the phone company (I mean AT&T, the RBOCs, etc.) was a
pioneer in computerization, there are a number of legacy
("obsolete") systems in use. They are perhaps klutzy, but they've
been reliable. Integration of these different systems with each
other and with Microsoft office systems is mind-boggling. Changes
in the vital systems are made slowly and with deliberation. The
office systems use the latest and greatest, and it is those that
I had to struggle with on a daily basis: the loss of time was
significant.

My personal bias is that monopolies are toxic to our lives and to
our democracy. Open systems can be used in many businesses: this
makes me happy. Unix made me happy. Linux makes me happy. It's
David vs. Goliath like never before.

What I'm saying is that I see both sides. My friend is being
cautious: he's learned to build on what he knows and trusts. The
systems are damn complicated. After retiring, he's doing similar
work for a transit authority where not too long ago, the payroll
system went down during a major data migration to a new system:
people really sweated; camped out in the office, worked round the
clock until stuff got done: the bus drivers got paid on time!.
Ironically, I've sent him some freeware that he's using at home
and likes very much. I see the need for caution with the truly
humungous systems that I've been discussing here. What I'm saying
is that I understand the point that he's made. I suspect that all
the fixup work that MS has been doing lately is not just a "show
trial," but that for commercial reasons, MS if fixing their image
by fixing their products. Well, not as well as they could. But my
heart is with Linux!

I'm so disgusted with Microsoft's arrogance and buggy products
that I'm exploring Open Office despite owning a legal copy of MS
Office. I am truly weary from the time and effort that I must
constantly expend to protect my MS system from malfeasance, and I
include MS itself among the malfeasors! My work has required me
to be compatible with MS. If this changes, I'll definitely
consider switching. Thanks again.

Richard

 

[Rob]

About Linux: that's mighty attractive. I was really impressed
with Unix after taking a class. To me, it was DOS with the
shackles removed. However, for me, Linux would be a really big
jump that might entail a change of work! Yet, it is attractive.
My DP-systems expert friend has pointed out that the internet is
a security minefield, especially when one uses Microsoft tools;
at least MS runs a "closed shop" (well almost), able to keep a
lot of the malevolent out. He mentioned that, on the other hand,
Linux, being an open system, is wide open for hackers to work a
far greater amount of damage.

Wow. This is really sobering.

Richard

Then you should ask you friend why approximately 25% of all the servers run
some flavour of Linux. Many large multinationals trust Linux for their
servers. Many processes BIG $$$ every day for high security e-commerce
applications. Linux has proven to be a more reliable, robust and secure OS
than ANY MS product. See how long your Windows OS will stay up and running
continually without rebooting!

But historically, Linix / Unix required more computer expertise to properly
setup. Not a problem for large companies with a IT professionals on staff.
That is a different story for the average home user.

But over the last couple of years, the situation has changed considerably.
There are many flavours of Linux that are VERY easy to install and setup.
Mandrake and Lindows first come to mind.

You should try Linux. If you have a high speed internet connection,
download Knoppix or Mandrake Move and burn the image to a CD. Knoppix boots
off the CD and does NOT need to be installed on the hard drive. In fact
Knoppix will NOT modify any files on the hard drive. A great way to check
out Linux.

If you want a more permanent installation that will boot faster off the hard
drive, download the standard Mandarke distribution. It will resize your
NTFS or FAT partition, install Linux and give you the option of booting into
EITHER Windows or Linix at startup. Mandrake is FREE to download and use.
If you do not have a high speed connection, buy a Magazine with a Mandrake
or Knoppix CD.

There are other Linux variants out there. Most are FREE but I have found
most Windows users without much IT expertise have found Mandrake (and
Knoppix) are the easiest to install and use. Once you have more experience,
you can try others like Debian or Gentoo.

If you don't want to install a new OS, just buy a new PC with Linux
pre-installed. (Or a PC with BOTH Windows and Linux pre-installed).

Linux is a GREAT alternative to MS Windows. You have a CHOICE between many
different GUIs or desktops. There are also lots of great FREE programs that
are included with many distributions like OpenOffice. You do not need to
install them separately, they are part of the standard distribution. Unlike
MS, where you have to hunt for all the free programs and install them
separately. Of course, MS does not want you to use freeware but payware
(preferably its own payware like MS Office).

IMHO, Linux will always be a more secure OS than Windows since Linux was
developed with networking in mind from day one. That is NOT the case for
Windows. It is my understanding that Windows was designed as a single
desktop computer for word pro etc. Networking including internet use was an
afterthought. (E.G. If a virus does get on a Linux PC, it cannot DO much
damage due to the design of Linux. That is probably one reason there are so
few viruses for Linux)

Furthermore, I firmly believe that Open Source code is inherently MORE
secure than proprietary code. When code is widely distributed and used, I
guarantee it will be reviewed by many IT professionals. If a flaw is found
it will be published. Many IT professionals want the credit and
recognition. It is also a lot harder to put in back doors into Open Source
code. For these reasons, I would personally never USE any crypto product
for ANY OS including Windows that is NOT open source.

Where Linux are started to take off, MS been forced to other many of its
products (including MS Office) at a BIG discount (at least for MS) to be
competitive. (Look at parts of the Asian market)

If MS does not get its act together quickly on beefing up the security in
its products, it will quickly loose more and more market share. I think
Bill Gates knows this. Hence all the $$ and public relations efforts it is
putting into Windows.

Since all the major applications that current Windows desktop users use
(like an Office Suite) are now available and FREE for Linux, Linux is posed
to take off. Don't miss out. IMHO, if you are really into freeware, you
cannot miss out on Linux.

Rob

 

[Art Iculos Libres]

| Richard Steinfeld wrote:
|> |>> JetAudio Version 6.0.1 was released on March 2, 2004.
|>> Apparently it is a spyware free alternative to RealPlayer.
(see
|>> previous posts and also see
http://www.jetaudio.com/support/faq.html
|>> )
|>>
|>> Rob
|>
|> A poster, I believe it was "Bogus," summarized what appears
to be
|> a method that jetAudio uses for spying, in the spyware
newsgroup.
|>
|> Before installing any software that plays streams using Real
|> Networks technology, be certain to read the threads both on
this
|> newsgroup as well as alt.privacy.spyware, so you know what
you
|> are getting into.
|>
|> By the way, I've been using jetAudio for a few months. I like
the
|> way that it handles, although I may abandon it because I
don't
|> want "Digital Rights Management" on my system (yeah, I know:
it
|> appears to be compulsory in MS). Everyone and their brother
wants
|> to install their own proprietary DRM on your system.
|>
|> Richard
|>
|> Richard
|
| Is DRM only compulsory in XP? Or other Windows OS's?
|
| Rob
|
| P.S. Time to switch to Linux!

I believe that it is compulsory in Windows Media Player after a
certain version or if you've updated it. Thus, I'm stuck with it
in Windows Me because I upgraded WMP. Someone posted a method
they've used to successfully emasculate WMP, which I'm intending
to do.

I bought XP months ago and haven't installed it yet. I'm hoping
that it was issued before WMP 9. If so, I'll simply not allow it
to upgrade the Windows Media Player.

Spybot S&D now reports that there are three unique machine
identifiers residing in my registry. When I delete them, they
come right back. And to think of all the outrage there was over
Intels's putting a scannable unique ID into their processors. Now
MS feels firmly justified to plant the same thing into our OSs.

About Linux: that's mighty attractive. I was really impressed
with Unix after taking a class. To me, it was DOS with the
shackles removed. However, for me, Linux would be a really big
jump that might entail a change of work! Yet, it is attractive.
My DP-systems expert friend has pointed out that the internet is
a security minefield, especially when one uses Microsoft tools;
at least MS runs a "closed shop" (well almost), able to keep a
lot of the malevolent out. He mentioned that, on the other hand,
Linux, being an open system, is wide open for hackers to work a
far greater amount of damage.

Wow. This is really sobering.

<snip>

I am not opposed to Linux (I'm hoping the IBM push eventually makes it
"fully" ready for primetime). I'm also not biased against / opposed to MS
in all things they do. Both have their good / bad points. They have all
been mentioned before.

As far as the good points made by posters here regarding Linux, they appear
to be mantra (with "some" credibility), but mantra nevertheless. See here
for the mantra which has been available for some time now in various forms
on many different websites:

http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/myths.html

The site has some good information if you are inclined to make the switch,
but certainly consider all sides to the story before jumping in. If you
have a circle of friends who use Linux, you will become part of the inner
circle. However, your computing life may become a series of compromises
until Linux becomes as ubiquitous as MS, at which time we'll have the same
people who now make the Linux claims jumping ship to promote some new
flavor of esoteric OS.

Some of the Linux "myths" that the site attempts to dispel are definitely
founded in fact and are highly qualified; arguments to the contrary could
only be believed by the blindingly faithful or by someone who has never
attempted to install a complete Linux-plus-software-plus- drivers package
and then USE it. The problems arise when trying to get the package to do
what you have become accustomed to easily doing with MS. The very argument
that MS is vulnerable because of it's ubiquity is exactly why MS is far
superior in the end-user environment. It has been around, it has been
everywhere and everyone has been contributing to end-user friendliness and
productivity (hardware and software) for years. Some of the things taken
for granted with MS can't be done now, or are compromises at best, with
Linux. My recommendation would be to use Linux as a server and MS as a
front-end.

Scenario:

If you are a Linux user and an acquaintance or colleague asks if you use
this or that latest software / hardware because it definitely makes life
easier, you'll be able to say, "No. I don't [can't]. I use Linux. My
choices aren't "limited" by the choices forced on me by Microsoft's
monopoly (but, you say to yourself as you dare not say it aloud, they are
limited by what's currently available for use on Linux). I am, however,
much safer than you are."

Analogy:

XYZ store is a "monopoly". XYZ makes available directly, or is made
available through it's supporters, 30 colors of widgets. You wish you had a
widget of color 31 which is not currently available from any XYZ source
(but is likely to be available soon based on past experience). Everything
else you need, could think of, or couldn't think of, for that matter, is
available in various types of widgets from XYZ and its supporters. However,
you are so incensed by the monopoly not providing widget in color 31, you
jump ship to get the color from an up-and-coming competitor. You are
willing, for some reason, to do so even though nothing else you will need
is available from the competitor. No other widgets, no other colors, just
color 31. Based on past experience, the other things may come, but when?
But you showed the monopoly, didn't you?

While the analogy is extreme in all areas, it does have merit. And the
example / behavior is known as "cutting off your nose to spite your face"
where I'm from. When one is willing to do this, it's usually associated
with some desire to be accepted in some fraternity as opposed to being done
out of practicality. Most people that I know (including myself), play with
Linux because software is fun to play with, but its use is in the context
of a dual-boot system or where an MS system is readily available.

I expect flames over this, but I won't have anymore to post in this thread.

 

[Rob]

I am not opposed to Linux (I'm hoping the IBM push eventually makes it
"fully" ready for primetime). I'm also not biased against / opposed
to MS in all things they do. Both have their good / bad points. They
have all been mentioned before.

Yes, Windows and Linux both have their strong points and weak points.

As far as the good points made by posters here regarding Linux, they
appear to be mantra (with "some" credibility), but mantra
nevertheless. See here for the mantra which has been available for
some time now in various forms on many different websites:

http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/myths.html

The site has some good information if you are inclined to make the
switch, but certainly consider all sides to the story before jumping
in.

This web site is way out of date. It is based on information written in
1997.
For example, it states that there is a lack of Office software. This is NOT
true.
There is FREE OpenOffice, AbiWord, etc. But of course, since the web site
is out of date,
these software packges are NOT mentioned on the website.
Personally, I would take the comments on this web site with a grain of salt.

If you have a circle of friends who use Linux, you will become

part of the inner circle. However, your computing life may become a
series of compromises until Linux becomes as ubiquitous as MS, at
which time we'll have the same people who now make the Linux claims
jumping ship to promote some new flavor of esoteric OS.

Some
of the things taken for granted with MS can't be done now, or are
compromises at best, with Linux. My recommendation would be to use
Linux as a server and MS as a front-end.

Can't you be more specific, What compromises are you talking about?

Scenario:

If you are a Linux user and an acquaintance or colleague asks if you
use this or that latest software / hardware because it definitely
makes life easier, you'll be able to say, "No. I don't [can't]. I use
Linux. My choices aren't "limited" by the choices forced on me by
Microsoft's monopoly (but, you say to yourself as you dare not say it
aloud, they are limited by what's currently available for use on
Linux). I am, however, much safer than you are."

The same argument can be reversed. There is lots of great software ONLY
available to Linux users.
So if an acquaintance or colleague asked you to use this or that latest
software / hardware because it definitely
makes life easier, the Windows user would respond "No. I don't [can't]. I
use Windows"

I agree with you that in general MS's monolpoly does NOT limit the choices
in the variety of software. But the MS's monopoly on the closed source
proprietary OS does limit what one can do with Windows to fix up all the
security holes. It would appear that MS is suggesting that all you need to
do is run a firewall and an anti-virus program. (Did you know that MS's
latest SP2 for XP to be released later this year will prompt you to download
and buy third party Firewalls and AV software?).

In my view, this is a smoke screen. The problem with MS Windows is that it
was NEVER designed from day one to be used on a Network let alone a public
network like the Internet. One cannot fix this problem with patches. A
complete re-design of the Windows OS must be done. (I understand that is
what MS is doing. It is starting from scratch in many areas. Or should I
say it is starting by looking at how linux and other Network based OS's do
it).

As mentioned earlier, each OS has its strengths and weaknesses. There is NO
such thing as the best OS. It really depends on what you are using it for.

If you are using the OS to play games, I would suggest keep using Windows.
There is so much game software out there. (Or better yet, use Playstation
or Xbox!)

If you plan to just do word-pro etc on an internal LAN (with NO public
internet access or web surfing), then sure stick with Windows. There is no
need to switch. But you can if you want since Linux has lots of great
software compatible with MS Office products.

But if you are like most desktop users, you probably use your desktop to
surf the internet, for office applications like word-pro, etc. In this
case, Windows is clearly NOT the best OS. With all its security holes (many
created by its inherited design and cannot be fixed ever), Linux is much
more robust and secure for these applications especially those applications
that involve accessing a public network like the Internet. To boot, Linux
is a lot less expensive!

You may be asking yourself, why Windows is so popular? The answer is
marketing and very coercive marketing practices (some have argued that
these practices are anti-competitive and violate competition laws in many
countries). If you have enough money and will you can make any product
succeed even an inferior one. Remember the VHS vs. Beta war. Beta was
always better but it lost the marketing and licensing war.

Rob