The only reason OS threads turn into wars for the most part is because "usually" one party on either side makes comments that are entirely untrue and biased. So when those statements are made it fuels the discussion in my opinion. If one seems biased and unprepared they should be called to the floor. Not silenced. For example most of the time people speak of windows in the context of 1995. People are biased against windows for one particular reason, proprietary source code. Often the actual merits of either OS go undiscussed. And it ALWAYS depends on exactly "what" you are trying to accomplish. Zealots go both ways, not just with defending Windows. Even among the Linux user base in various forms of distros you have your zealots pointing out deficiencies in other distros, even ones under dev.

People are more critical of windows. Even as Vista readys the media seems to focus on what is wrong with windows or what features are left out versus the linux distros where each release is portrayed as the second coming of Jesus. And rightly so, I suppose. Considering we are paying out the ass for windows, we want more. And it's up to MS to convince us to spend money on another round of upgrades. Some of us will be forced to because with each release of a new OS comes the impending end of their lowest platform support.

And to continue a discussion on a path of collaboration with windows and Linux: open office 2 has been out for some time now and it reads MS formatted document files like never before.