Catching up on reader comments

This week we'll follow up on comments generated by a couple of previous columns. First, regarding last week's column, about online cons and VeriSign, reader Brad Andriese commented:

"You're right on the money, Mark, but it clearly does not take a bad (and likely illegal) marketing campaign to identify a bad company. I don't think we need to spend too much time on VeriSign regarding these practices. If VeriSign stays on track, they're headed right into the ground all by themselves. By the way, do you know any other good organizations to hold my domain names? I'd love to move all our domains to another organization, but I'm just not sure (yet) which one to choose. I want one that is simple and reliable. Not a fly-by-night outfit."

Anyone got a suggestion?

Also regarding last week, Tony Porasky wrote regarding my comment that even the government could run a less bureaucratic and more responsive operation. He added: "The only thing missing from that quote, to make it perfect, is to add 'and make a profit while doing it, too!' I sure hope you don't believe what you wrote."

Next, following on from the column from the week before, reader Ken Blair complained that the price of Lindows isn't low enough:

"[The] $99 price for Lindows is the same as Windows XP Home Edition upgrade version, so that's the same price assuming one already has a Microsoft operating system that's upgradable to XP Home. If the prices are the same, there's little reason for some people to switch."

He goes on to say: "I have attempted to replace my Microsoft-based workstation with Linux a couple times and have mixed results. The greatest problem was no direct access to the Exchange server. And even when I could access it, I'd still be using a Microsoft license when I accessed it. The only 100% [solution] is to get rid of the Exchange server and thus the licensing it requires."

Another reader commented: "I am reading your column using my Lindows system, which coexists very nicely with Windows ME. I am pleased with the stability of the program, and I have most of my existing Windows programs running under Lindows. . . . I use Win 2000 at work and if I had my choice, I prefer Star Office under Lindows, as it seems much more secure. I have not yet had a program crash to the extent under Lindows where I have had to reboot the computer. . . . To have a stable operating system without having to worry about individual programs corrupting the system on a crash is well worth the $99 I spent on the program."

Rick Berenstein opined: I do indeed believe that Linux on the desktop will eventually break the Windows monopoly, especially with its low total cost of ownership in the current difficult worldwide economy.

"It is unfortunate that you chose to offer up Lindows as the Linux operating system that is spearheading this movement. The Lindows operating system has now been roundly lambasted and criticized [in the press] . . . the partial Windows compatibility offered by Lindows' WINE technology has been superseded by other programs, including CodeWeavers Cross Over Office.

"The most stable element in the whole Lindows package is the Linux core that it runs on, which was developed by Xandros in Canada. The proof of the pudding is that when you start up the Lindows operating system the first splash screen you see says 'Lindows OS - Powered by Xandros.' I believe that when you see the Xandros Desktop you will be getting your first look at the real Linux product that will break Microsoft's Windows."

I hope to get my hands on both Lindows and Xandros soon, so expect to see reviews if I can get Gearhead to stop with the music.

Groove to backspin@gibbs.com. Yeah, baby!

RELATED LINKS