[Am-info] Boston Globe piece this AM

[Erick Andrews]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:31:37 -0700, T. Guilbert wrote:

>In a message dated 2002 July 29 (Monday), timestamp 08:43 AM, 
>   on the topic [Am-info] Boston Globe piece this AM,
>   "Erick Andrews" <eandrews@star.net> wrote:
>
>"|Microsoft poised to lead .Net shift 
>
>"|http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/210/business/Microsoft_poised_to_lead_Net_shiftP.shtml
>
>    Still, with Linux, an open-source alternative that operates many 
>    server computers, still too unreliable for average PC users, 
>    customers have little alternative but to stick with Microsoft.
>
>    "There are plenty of customers who are irritated and want to go 
>    away from Microsoft, but they recognize and admit that they have 
>    no options," said Al Gillen, a research director with IDC, the 
>    Framingham-based market research firm. 
>
>Too unreliable? 
>
>Too unreliable? 
>
>Too geeky:  that I'd accept. 
>
>Too complicated for the average user:  that I'd accept. 
>
>Unfamiliar application programs:  that I'd accept. 
>
>But "too unreliable":  compared to what? 
>
>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>/*\   T. Guilbert
>\ /   "Ethical at One of One dot Net"  
> X    Portland, Oregon, United States of America  
>/ \     [ASCII Ribbon Campaign against HTML postings] 
>-----------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly what I thought when I read it.  Then I thought
maybe he was using "unreliable" in some other sense, though
now I can't think of one that's clear.  Maybe "unreliable" because 
an average Windows user couldn't/wouldn't use Linux?

-- 
Erick Andrews