As someone who has struggled with linux on a 386 as my introduction to the *ux world, I remember boot and root disks, a very limited hardware pool, and explicitly adding every piece I would need.

Now, it seems that someone could legitimately put in a CD, choose "desktop" or some other similar name, select a few options ala M$, and have a running system in as few steps.

Now, for those who have manually mucked through every Makefile they have ever seen, this may seem like a horror, but the beauty of Linux is simply that.

If someone wants something, they can get an RPM or some such package, and within a few months, I believe that someone will be able to browse an application menu online and choose what they want, and all dependencies, etc will be a matter of course.

I think that is the push of Lindows, but I have not seen it yet, so I can't say.

It looks like RedHat is dropping their push on the desktop, but luckily, Mandrake is picking up the flag and running with it. Their UPRMI package management system is just as easy as RedHat, and their auto-update function is a mirror of the RHN.

Still, if you wish, you can manually hack together a kernel, and put binaries and libraries down on a custom machine that would make Linus himself cringe.

Windows could never compete with that range of functionality.

Their CE product shows that. They CAN'T make something simple. There is too much overhead involved.

But I believe that similarly to Apple, Microsoft COULD make a great GUI system that relied on a much more robust core kernel.

Every month they waste trying to get their own core kernel as stable as BSD or Linux is another month lost.

Apple figured that out, and their OSX, regardless of anyone's feel for the Macintosh, is VASTLY superior in stability and functionality to their previous OSs as well as to any current M$ products.

It is stable, and it is secure, and it is just as functional as it ever was.

Look at Novell. They are putting their networking security and functionality on top of a Linux kernel, and I believe that with that in mind, their push after the enterprise network file and security will be much stronger and more enterprise-worthy than 2003Server could ever be.

/rant

sorry. I LIKE Microsoft. They make a great browser, a great office productivity suite, and a very popular GUI interface. Its their pride that is their greatest weakness. There is a better solution for the underlying functions of a computer. It is Linux. And Microsoft is welcome to use it and abide by the GPL.

Wishful thinking.