Why Windows Isn't Hell Or Why Linux Isn't Bliss

I tend to think the latter. Not because I am not a Linux fan (I happily set up my Computer with Mandrake about two years ago, they are still merrily in love), but because I have not heard anything new in the past two years. It is always "my god, not another security hole in Windows 95/98/98SE/ME/2000/XP/Server 2003", "Microsoft aggressively bought company X", "Microsoft launches another way to protect their software" and "Microsoft software is too exspensive". And Linux, on the other hand, is all bliss.

Well, I think Linux is not all "bliss". Linux would be all "bliss" if we forget the slow boot-up/shutdown times, if we forget the lousy hardware support for, let's say, Ati products (Ati being the number two in graphics cards!), if we forget the "geek" image of Linux, if we forget the fact that some distributions suddenly have to be paid for, if we forget that some distributions suddenly get discontinued, if we forget the crappy way software is installed (with the exception of apt-get, or so I've heard).

You can go the same way when it comes to Windows. Windows would be all hell if we forget the ease with which it is installed, if we forget the great hardware support, if we forget the uniform look of all the programs, if we forget InstallShield and look-a-likes, if we forget the clear structure (Program Files, My Documents etc, and of course this only goes for the not-so-technical end-user), if we forget Windows Update (still beats the Distribution-specific update tools, in my opinion).