Linux Lunacy

After closing off comments at Linux in the long run (I closed them off because nobody was saying anything new), I did receive one final email..

I'm not going to publish this person's name or email to save them embarrassment (and perhaps harassment). I do want to show it to you because it shows how ignorant some folks are about Linux.

Here's how it starts:

 The  essence of the pudding is in the eating.
 Why did Suse, Red Hat and many other version gone out of the market?
 Fedora is stagnant...
 

I didn't know that any of these folks had given up and gotten out of the market. It's probably news to other readers, too. I wish they'd take down their websites, don't you?

 I agree Windows is stupid. But why didn't Linux replace that stupid
 product?
 
 Linux (5+ versions or brands) people should have addressed this long
 long ago!
 

I'm not sure what this actually means. Is he complaining about the "5+ versons" (maybe he should check Distrowatch and see how many "versions" they think there are!) or something else? That's definitely the kind of question where you have to shrug your shoulders, isn't it? Yes, somebody certainly should have addressed this long, long ago! Whatever "this" is..

 I have seen several editors (not word processors) from IBM 370,
 Honeywell, HP and finally Windows...None of them is worse than vi! One
 has to be a totally crazy person to even consider vi! Vi was born in an
 age when Unix was developed using an old PDP-8 or 11 machine. The field
 has gone forward,, but not vi! There is no shortage of manuals...anyway
 thanks for the primer link!
 

I thought that only emacs people had such hatred for vi and vice versa. In fact, vi has changed a little, but the real point is that it hasn't changed radically because it didn't need to. It's a powerful programmer's editor. If you don't understand WHY vi remains popular after all these years, then you either don't need a powerful editor or you are already using one.. or you are too hopeless to ever undetstand.

 I didn't say Windows is better than Linux as a Webserver. But the
 attraction for ordinary people was lost when you could test a Webserver
 even on an XP.
 

I guess the fact that most hosting companies use Linux or BSD webservers isn't important. He's right: XP makes a great webserver.. if you like low uptimes.

 I did install StarOffice on Linux (in 2000).. was a disaster! Now in
 2008, things might be somewhat better.. but eight years is a long time..
 

Right: Open Source office Suites have remained absolutely stagnant. Don't bother to go download anything - nothing's changed since 2000!

 Linux and to a certain extent Unix too are for hackers! On commercial
 platforms, the modern software application development (Oracle, Java
 etc) is a failure.... empty buzzwords like SOA etc dominate the market!
 This failure is the main reason for the Outsourcing business ... The
 failure of application development in the USA and Europe,  is covered up
 by outsourcing the development to India by most companies!! A kind of
 ostrich syndrome!
 

Oracle must have gone out of business around the same time RedHat and Suse did, right?

 The first Unix clone (you might know it already) was not Linux. In fact
 there was a beautiful product called COHERENT sold for 100 dollars in
 early 90s.  Coherent was a fantastic product with a 1000 page manual...
 Far better than any of the initial versions of Linux. But it went out of
 the market because it was not a free product!
 

You mean this: 1991 Review of Coherent?

Coherent did have a good manual, and it was good value at $100.00. But it was a crappy, very broken product..

I don't know.. is this typical of Windows users? Are they really this ignorant, this out of touch with reality? If so, it's no wonder Windows remains popular.