A thought. Yes, another one. 13

There are a number of issues alluded to obliquely in this thread that deserve more focus, I think. But first let me speak to some of those mentioned.

Linux is difficult to configure. Windows is impossible to configure. If function depends on configuration, and it does for all OS's, which do you prefer, the difficult or the impossible?

For Windows configurability, it's a matter of buttembling the hardware most likely to function together correctly. That's what computer OEMs do, and they spend a good deal of time and effort doing so. Which is why the end user believes that Windows is not difficult to configure: it's already been done!

No such service is readily available for Linux, as few OEMs offer Linux already installed. Nevertheless, most of the modern distros make installation a breeze for most common hardware setups. If the automated installation routines fail to configure at installation, things can get difficult for the uninitiated. It requires the owner of the system to learn enough to do it for him-herself, or hire it done; a normal and expected situation, by and large.

Operating software for today's PC computers is far from trivial or simple. Whether it's Windows or any other OS, those systems are remarkable achievements in any case. To regard them as properly easy to manage by the lay public is fatuous. The rule of thumb is something like: the more automation, the more chance of dysfunction. Windows is fully automated and has the greatest likelihood of screwing up. Linux much less so, though it can be observed that automated distros are more prone thus than those that are not. (Which is why I've used Slackware for years...)

The presumption has been that as long as one only wishes to use one's computer as an appliance, and is willing to do so well within the boundaries of Windows' capabilities, Windows is adequate. That presumption is no longer valid; it buttumed a standalone system, unconnected to a network of any kind.

Now, personal computers are most likely to be connected to the global network, and there lies a huge problem. Windows was designed to be fully open to external influence, such that it could import software and data along with presumably suitable functionality. That means it was designed to allow the operation of executables sourced elsewhere. The rationale was that Windows was intended to operate in a "trusted environment", a reasonable sounding intention.

The reality is that no such environment exists.

Trusted environment presuppose fully trustworthy human components, where time is not a parameter. That means fully trustworthy human components *at all times*. I suggest that few situations would even be candidates for such parameters: even for standalone computers running Windows, in most cases all one has to do is turn the thing on, and every bit of data is available, regardless of who is looking. The situation is more complex with regard to a connected PC, but not less insecure.

Even when Windows systems are as fully secured as they can be, another problem arises. Because Windows is proprietary, even installation is identical. It is thus trivial to deploy malware against all Windows driven computers, once the malware is proven against one. This is what gives rise to "infected" PCs, despite the best efforts of Microsoft and all the specialty software intended to combat the problem.

Microsoft has made it quite clear that it does not intend to market a secure product because that would obviate the original intention of full "interoperability". It plugs what security holes it can, but cannot ever fully succeed in doing so; it certainly cannot guarantee a system against future intrusion!

All of which means that Windows consbreastutes a clear and present danger on the global network (the Internet, WWW, etc). A good example of this is that a significant portion of network traffic is the result of insecure Windows computers being used without the owner's awareness, much less permission. Windows "'bots" (robots) spew spam with no control, and if you are using Windows on a network connected computer, your machine could easily be a 'bot without your slightest suspicion.

Computer security is thus a very important issue in these discussions.

There are other issues relevant here. Some are philosophical and some are not. Some are arguably profound. I will not raise them here, however.

But what of Linux? Well, it's UNIX compatible, which means it is intrinsically secure by design. Files are configured with permissions, many of which are available only to the administrator and thus accessible only by use of a pbuttword. No pbuttword, no access. No file is granted executability except by its owner, which means that no file can execute automatically upon opening, as is the case with Windows. Hence, no Linux viruses; viruses require automatic executability in order to function, and cannot replicate without functionality.

The same is true of all other malware that depends on executability. There are other vulnerabilities that have been observed in the UNIX type systems, but they have long since been designed out of all of them. When a UNIX application displays a vulnerability, it is remediated immediately if the code is available, as is the case with Linux. No such remediation can be expected from Windows, even with the intermidable and endless stream of patches. It has been observed that Windows patches tend to cause more new problems than they fix old ones. The basic problem is one of design, as I've mentioned, and according to Microsoft, that will not change.

So the OP's well intended discussion invitation has garnered information that he appreciates. Hope this adds to his bounty.

Longfellow