The real battle the RIAA has ahead is proving that Napster was set up specifically to transport ILLEGAL MP3s. If they can do this, I think they have a very good case on their hands. What Napster has to do is focus on the fact that MP3s aren't illegal. There are many places you can get legal MP3s (see MP3.com), they have to show it's not the format, or their software, but they people using it. If the RIAA can convince a judge that Napster was written with the intent of transporting pirated MP3s, they can win this battle hands down.
As much as I like the idea of buying things on the net without paying any taxes, we will eventually need to have internet taxes. Everyone pretty much agrees that E-commerce will continue to grow. Some go so far as to say it will eventually be the primary shopping experience for people (although I would tend to disagree). Now think about where a large majority of government revenue comes from...sales tax. Six percent on the dollar (which is what it is here locally) is a damn large amount of money. Now if even 50% of sales become internet sales, that is a HUGE loss. Whether you like the way the government spends it's money or not, if it's going to keep going it NEEDS this revenue.
As someone who didn't know a whole lot about the WTO and it's protesters before this whole thing (and still doesn't claim to know everything), I wonder what the protesters are REALLY trying to gain. Their methods in general are barbaric. Trying to shut down an entire city to protest the WTO shows nothing except that they can creat chaos. There has been mass destruction, violence on both sides (the protesters and the police), and in general nothing accomplished. As for the what they are trying to accomplish, I wonder how many people have really thought about what they are trying to do. I wholeheartedly agree that child labor is a horrible thing, but the majority of child labor is not in the manufacturing areas. It's in agriculture and service areas. If we sanction these already poor and underdeveloped countries, they will continue to be poor and underdeveloped, instead of having a chance to move forward. The same goes for the environmental issues. I agree that MANY corporation do many unbelievable things to hurt our environment. But at the same time if you are a country with no money, no real industry, how can you put strict environmental sanctions on the 2 or 3 corporations you have? You run a very real risk of loosing everything. A country like the US can afford to put tough envirnmental laws out there, but a small third world nation simply cannot afford to do that. And the fact is trade between nations is not what encourages or helps environmental destruction. China is a perfect example. With very little outside trade they have managed to become one of the worst environmental harmers in the world.
I completely agree with the right of the protesters to have their voices heard and try to change things. Everyone has (or should have) that right. But I have to question their methods and their thinking...
While I fully support the ability of people to protest, there is a limit of how far protests can go before something must be done. It was a stated objective of many of the groups involved to shut down Seattle completely. If you want to protest, that's fine, but when you want to shut down an entire city to justify your own agenda, something has to be done. Why is it ok to block intersections and shut down a city? I don't agree with the police if they were as violent as has been said by the protesters (but the truth is probably somewhere between what the police and protesters have to say), but something had to be done. I completely support people expressing their opinion and protesting, but when you start affecting everyone in the city, whether they are involved or not, something has to be done to bring things back under control.
I find it amazing so many people are in favor of hacking out a Napster-clone to use their servers. This is what MS did with it's IM, using the AOL servers, and that was completely blasted everywhere (and justifiably in most cases). Yet, now that someone is doing it to the Napster servers it's okay, because it's a Linux clone? Seems to me if using someone's servers is a bad thing, it's a bad thing for everyone, for any reason.
It never amazes me to hear people say that computers shouldn't be made for the average person. This sentiment mainly stems from the fact that that is how Microsoft became the juggernaut they are, making computers so EVERYONE can use them, not just the "computer elite". People seem to forget that before Joe Average got a home computer, they weren't all that great. You could do a lot, but not nearly what you can today. The Internet was a collection of academic text pages you could go see with Lynx. Without the average "stupid" computer user, we wouldn't be making money in the computer industry. And in general this is because of Microsoft. MS made their software so you didn't need 5 years of experience and 6 manuals to install and run software (I know other people did it to, but MS is the big name people see and recognize and associate with it). Without MS, computers wouldn't be nearly as wisespread as they are (no, I'm not saying they are the sole reason, but they played a big part in it). The average computer user is what drives the market now. The average computer user likes games, so there are a lot of games. The average computer user like ease of use, so everything is becoming easier to use. As much as everyone would like to dismiss the average computer user, they are what the computer industry is about.
I find it amazing that everyone so quickly says MS did this on purpose. Every Linux zealot squeals about how everytime there is an MS fix, it breaks something else, but when it's someone else's program that gets broken, they must have planned it. If this bug had affected MS Exchange, everyone would have laughed at how dumb MS was, because they broke something while fixing something else. Instead, it's in a third party software, so MS MUST have done it on purpose. I have no idea how Lotus Notes works, it could be that have a screwy authentification system, that just doesn't work anymore. Or it could be that MS did it on purpose. I refuse to pass judgement without at least having a few more facts.
As for MS testing their service packs, I refuse to hold any software makers responsible for making 3rd party software work on their system. Linux doesn't run everything, but is that because Linux doesn't work hard enough, or because the 3rd party manufacturers don't work hard enough to make their software run on Linux?
Judge Jackson, First Finding Of Fact: 'Three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.'
Now if this is the definition of a monopoly, we may be in trouble. There are a LOT of companies that can fit into this definition. By these standards, Apple has a monopoly. There share of Apple computers is large (every Apple shipped ships with the MacOS, much like people complain about PC's shipping with Windows). They also share the same cost of entry safety as MS (even moreso really, since they make the computer and the OS). And there is no commerically viable alternative (Linux is even less prevalent among Mac users than PC users).
Seems to me while everyone is cheering, we should stop and look at exactly what they are saying.
I completely agree that the web should be a vailable to the blind, but there's going to be a point when it just can't be done. How do you take a sight completely in Shockwave and convert it? If we make it a legal obligation for sites to be available for the blind, then much of the innovation on the web will be gone. As things more farther away from plain HTML, we are going to reach a point when it just isn't feasible to make a sight for the blind. Yes, it's a sad thing, and it will be a lose, but it's just something that I think will happen.
Re:Golden Chocolate Bars (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on 06:57 PM November 2nd, 1999 EST
lesse, assuming a candy bar cost $0.40 when NT was released... 4000/150 = 26 0.40 * 26 = $10.40
Wow... Even tolberone chocolate doesn't cost that much... Chocolate bar price increase (real): 0.8 / 0.4 = approx. 1 times increase...
That's great, except your still getting the same chocolate bar you could have bought for $.40 back then. Comparing the original WinNt and W2K Advancaed Server is like comparing the very first Linux kernal with the current one....there is no comparison (yes, we all know Linux is free, but this is just a comparison so chill). Anyone who thinks W2k Advnaced Server doesn't have at least 20X the functionality of WinNT is fooling themselves.
Microsoft has been steadily increasing the prices on its software. Once people are trapped using it, all they can expect is more price increases.
Once upon a time there was only Windows NT.
WindowsNT, beget Windows NT workstaton and windows NT Server. and they prospered and soon after WindowsNT Prof was born. To be followed by Windows NT Server, Windows NT Advanced Server, and Windows NT DataCenter.
NT -> $150 NT Wkt -> $150 NT Server -> $500 W2k Prof -> $300 W2k Server -> $1000 w2k Adv Server -> $4000 w2k data center -> ? ($16000 ? )
Do you notice a trend here?
Yes the cost has risen from the original cost, it's been a few years since then. I also notice th price of candy bars rising since I was a kid, but no one complains about Hersey's gouging the market price. The price for W2K is the same price as for NT4 (plus at max $2000 if your dumb enough to use your OS to authenticate outside web users, and then only if this is real, since no one has been able to find a mention of this licensing anywhere else).
What it comes down to is that NT Workstation has doubled in price over the years, and probably doubled in function, while server has come up 6X over the years and added probably 10X the functions (and this isn't counting inflation at all). It's great to compare the price of the original WinNT and W2K, but don't do it without comparing what you actually get from the two...
so to upgrade the microsoft network it costs: $57,792
and a new microsoft network costs: $95,792
while a new linux network only costs: 15,120
Once again the idea of total cost of ownership comes up. You have to include the cost of upgrading all software to Linux (including anything specifically designed for the company). Plus the cost of retrianing everyone on Linux (because most people have never even heard of Linux, much less seen or used it). Usually it's almost always cheaper to stay with your current software than to change to something else, that's why so many places are still running software written 20 years ago in COBOL.
This seems like a really great idea, and will go over well when (and if) it really starts. The problem comes that after these people get their computer, they are eventually going to want to do something more on it (what they want to do really isn't important, it could be a database, games, whatever). Once they reach this point (and most people do want to do more eventually, even if it's only play other solitaire games) they won't have anyplace to go. These really will be disposable system, because people will outgrow them, and most people will outgrow them fairly quickly (look at all the senior citizens doing email, and writing letters and learning more and more). Once someone has outgrown them they will want a real OS, with real applications, and they'll be back to running Windows, because that's what has the apps they have heard of (in general).
This may be a shot to MS, but I don't think it will be the end of them, not by a long shot.
Actually you know EXACTLY what the service pack is installing, if you read what the service pack fixes and updates. There's a txt file that tells you exactly what is being updated, and why. I completely agree that the test should of had all patches installed, but I also agree that service packs are a good idea (and if you don't like service packs, all the fixes are available as hotfixes prior to the services, which can be installed singlely)
What I find laughable about this whole arguement is that NSI is claiming it doesn't want to "advertise" for these dirty words. The only way to get to one of these sights would be to type it into a browser, just like any other site. The don't want to "promote" these dirty words, yet they will register domain names that are more offensive (see any of the racist/homophobic sites) and they will register sites that they know will be used to luring unsuspecting people into porn sites (see www.whitehouse.com). I wouldn't care as much if they would just register domains that were offensive in general, instead of pointing the finger at 7 words, which aren't considered all that shocking anymore.
I can't say I worry about anything on the net coming back to haunt me. I go by the same rules on the net that I do in public, don't say anything you wouldn't want to repeat. People seem to think the net is a private place, when in fact it's a completely open forum. Most people would never go into a crowded restaurant and loudly discuss how crappy you're boss is, or who you slept with the night before, but these same people have no qualms about saying these same things on the net. People seem to think that if your face is hidden when your talking that no one can ever find you, kind of the ostrich syndrome.
People just need to realize the net isn't their living room, it's a lot closer to a crowded mall where anyone can here you.
By the time most Linux vulnerabilities could hit the press, they've been fixed. This is an example of that. The crond hole has been fixed. By the time a Windows exploit hits the press, they're determining how much to charge us for the fix. Put simply, bugs get fixed faster with open source. You don't have to wait on a corporate timetable to get fixes that you _need_.
This is a big load of bunk. Most MS bugs are fixed before anyone knows how to exploit them. And they fix them for free, just like Linux (I know I never paid for a Service Pack or Hotfix).
I find it amazing that almost no one has pointed out that there are some real issues in the MS article (and no one has pointed out the rebuttal is the biggest piece of flame-bait I've seen in a long time). MS is far from right on the money with everything they have to say, but then again their agenda is to promote their product, so that's what their goal is. What I find interesting is that (most)everyone on/. has a similar agenda (the promotion of Linux) and they can turn a blind eye to similar things that MS does, as long as they are done with the well-being of Linux in mind.
MS sites benchmarks that NT is better than Linux. I don't doubt for a minute that is how the benchmarks turned out. I also don't doubt for a minute that's what they were looking for when they started the benchmarks. Any set of benchmark (not just one where MS wins) is slanted. There are NO benchmarks that test everything equally and will actually tell you OVERALL which OS is better (they all test small parts, and as we all know, the whole is greater than it's parts).
As for the reliabilty of Linux, it is very reliable, but there are no real studies (that I've seen). This is a valid point. I run an NT network where I work, and it runs well. I'm not going to say there is never a problem, but there are no major distasters on a weekly basis that many people would have you believe happen. I have also run Linux and think it's about as stable as they come. But anecdotal evidence will never be able to compare to real-world studies. Just because my network runs well doesn't mean all NT networks do, just as your Linux system running well doesn't translate to all Linux systems.
MS also claims NT is more secure than Linux. I can't say it is or isn't, but then again I don't think anyone really can. Every OS is insecure. There is a way to hack everything, and there are always new ways to hack things. The government security testing of NT is a major plus to MS though. Once again it comes down to real-world testing vs anecdotal evidence.
What everyone needs to do is look at this not as an MS propaganda piece (yes, I know it is, but most/.ers assume anything coming from MS has no validity at all) but as a simple comparison and see that it has good points (the real-world data for NT) and bad points (the TCO and benchmarks, which vary completely depending on who does the study). Instead everyone seems to think that bashing MS and talking about what Linux will have will change peoples minds. We shoudl be trying to make COMPUTING better, not Linux.
I hate to be a party pooper here, but talking about how good/bad Quake runs on a server is a pretty irrelavant issue. Last time I checked, if your smart, you shouldn't be gaming on your server anyway, since it will slow it down. I don't care if Linux or NT runs Quake better, as long as we're talking about the server environment.
I would agree about it not having a floppy if it was a PC, but for a MAC the floppy is basically obsolete. Anything of worth is to big to fit on a simple floppy. The real use of floppies on PC's is for booting from them (and that will soon be gone with bootable CD's. MAC were never able to boot from a floppy, so by taking it away the only thing they're lost is the ability to store small files off the hard drive (which wasn't utilized that much anyway). Me, I'd prefer a floppy, but that's more for booting then for anything else.
I can't see this as a conspiracy theory anymore than someone putting up a contest and NT gets hacked first would be a conspiracy theory. But I also don't think it proves much of anything either, other than the fact there are holes in ANY OS (for how long has UNIX been hacked successfully?). What I think this whole thing proves is that neither OS is completely untouchable, which for a lot of people is an affront to their senses, since there are so many anti-MS people who feel Linux is the next big thing and MS can't do anything right. There may be more whole in NT, but that doesn't mean there aren't any in Linux.
I can sympathize with your troubles, but because it came pre-installed correctly doesn't really mean it will re-install correctly. I love Dell machine (I support about 100 at work), but I have come to realize that a LOT of the hardware Dell sells has been tweaked by Dell. They have video cards specially made for them (they are basically the same as another card the vendor makes, but with a special driver, or some other small change). I true test would be to install both OS's on a PC with very generic software (stuff that almost everyone has) and see how it works then. Also, from what I've read, Linux wasn't installed on the system that gave Win98 so much trouble, so there's no saying it wouldn't have had a lot of problems alse. In general, we all need to remember that our experiences aren't enough to generalize on. Everyone has had good or bad experiences with an OS, but that doesn't mean you can expand your experiences to the whole of the OS's userbase.
I find it amazing people are so willing to say everything the media has fed us about these killings in wrong, inlight of this new evidence. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that this "evidence" came from a media source just like all the old "evidence". Sure, it's based on what the writer considers "facts" but so were the first reports. I put as much faith in this "evidence" as I do the stuff the came before. The truth is it was most probably a combination of factors that caused them to do it, and we'll never know forsure, since they're not here to tell us anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
The real battle the RIAA has ahead is proving that Napster was set up specifically to transport ILLEGAL MP3s. If they can do this, I think they have a very good case on their hands. What Napster has to do is focus on the fact that MP3s aren't illegal. There are many places you can get legal MP3s (see MP3.com), they have to show it's not the format, or their software, but they people using it. If the RIAA can convince a judge that Napster was written with the intent of transporting pirated MP3s, they can win this battle hands down.
As much as I like the idea of buying things on the net without paying any taxes, we will eventually need to have internet taxes. Everyone pretty much agrees that E-commerce will continue to grow. Some go so far as to say it will eventually be the primary shopping experience for people (although I would tend to disagree). Now think about where a large majority of government revenue comes from...sales tax. Six percent on the dollar (which is what it is here locally) is a damn large amount of money. Now if even 50% of sales become internet sales, that is a HUGE loss. Whether you like the way the government spends it's money or not, if it's going to keep going it NEEDS this revenue.
I completely agree with the right of the protesters to have their voices heard and try to change things. Everyone has (or should have) that right. But I have to question their methods and their thinking...
While I fully support the ability of people to protest, there is a limit of how far protests can go before something must be done. It was a stated objective of many of the groups involved to shut down Seattle completely. If you want to protest, that's fine, but when you want to shut down an entire city to justify your own agenda, something has to be done. Why is it ok to block intersections and shut down a city? I don't agree with the police if they were as violent as has been said by the protesters (but the truth is probably somewhere between what the police and protesters have to say), but something had to be done. I completely support people expressing their opinion and protesting, but when you start affecting everyone in the city, whether they are involved or not, something has to be done to bring things back under control.
I find it amazing so many people are in favor of hacking out a Napster-clone to use their servers. This is what MS did with it's IM, using the AOL servers, and that was completely blasted everywhere (and justifiably in most cases). Yet, now that someone is doing it to the Napster servers it's okay, because it's a Linux clone? Seems to me if using someone's servers is a bad thing, it's a bad thing for everyone, for any reason.
It never amazes me to hear people say that computers shouldn't be made for the average person. This sentiment mainly stems from the fact that that is how Microsoft became the juggernaut they are, making computers so EVERYONE can use them, not just the "computer elite". People seem to forget that before Joe Average got a home computer, they weren't all that great. You could do a lot, but not nearly what you can today. The Internet was a collection of academic text pages you could go see with Lynx. Without the average "stupid" computer user, we wouldn't be making money in the computer industry. And in general this is because of Microsoft. MS made their software so you didn't need 5 years of experience and 6 manuals to install and run software (I know other people did it to, but MS is the big name people see and recognize and associate with it). Without MS, computers wouldn't be nearly as wisespread as they are (no, I'm not saying they are the sole reason, but they played a big part in it). The average computer user is what drives the market now. The average computer user likes games, so there are a lot of games. The average computer user like ease of use, so everything is becoming easier to use. As much as everyone would like to dismiss the average computer user, they are what the computer industry is about.
As for MS testing their service packs, I refuse to hold any software makers responsible for making 3rd party software work on their system. Linux doesn't run everything, but is that because Linux doesn't work hard enough, or because the 3rd party manufacturers don't work hard enough to make their software run on Linux?
Now if this is the definition of a monopoly, we may be in trouble. There are a LOT of companies that can fit into this definition. By these standards, Apple has a monopoly. There share of Apple computers is large (every Apple shipped ships with the MacOS, much like people complain about PC's shipping with Windows). They also share the same cost of entry safety as MS (even moreso really, since they make the computer and the OS). And there is no commerically viable alternative (Linux is even less prevalent among Mac users than PC users).
Seems to me while everyone is cheering, we should stop and look at exactly what they are saying.
I completely agree that the web should be a vailable to the blind, but there's going to be a point when it just can't be done. How do you take a sight completely in Shockwave and convert it? If we make it a legal obligation for sites to be available for the blind, then much of the innovation on the web will be gone. As things more farther away from plain HTML, we are going to reach a point when it just isn't feasible to make a sight for the blind. Yes, it's a sad thing, and it will be a lose, but it's just something that I think will happen.
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 06:57 PM November 2nd, 1999 EST
lesse, assuming a candy bar cost $0.40 when NT was released...
4000/150 = 26
0.40 * 26 = $10.40
Wow... Even tolberone chocolate doesn't cost that much...
Chocolate bar price increase (real):
0.8 / 0.4 = approx. 1 times increase...
That's great, except your still getting the same chocolate bar you could have bought for $.40 back then. Comparing the original WinNt and W2K Advancaed Server is like comparing the very first Linux kernal with the current one....there is no comparison (yes, we all know Linux is free, but this is just a comparison so chill). Anyone who thinks W2k Advnaced Server doesn't have at least 20X the functionality of WinNT is fooling themselves.
on its software. Once people are trapped using it,
all they can expect is more price increases.
Once upon a time there was only Windows NT.
WindowsNT, beget Windows NT workstaton and windows NT Server.
and they prospered and soon after WindowsNT Prof was born. To be followed by Windows NT Server, Windows NT Advanced Server, and Windows NT DataCenter.
NT -> $150
NT Wkt -> $150
NT Server -> $500
W2k Prof -> $300
W2k Server -> $1000
w2k Adv Server -> $4000
w2k data center -> ? ($16000 ? )
Do you notice a trend here?
Yes the cost has risen from the original cost, it's been a few years since then. I also notice th price of candy bars rising since I was a kid, but no one complains about Hersey's gouging the market price. The price for W2K is the same price as for NT4 (plus at max $2000 if your dumb enough to use your OS to authenticate outside web users, and then only if this is real, since no one has been able to find a mention of this licensing anywhere else).
What it comes down to is that NT Workstation has doubled in price over the years, and probably doubled in function, while server has come up 6X over the years and added probably 10X the functions (and this isn't counting inflation at all). It's great to compare the price of the original WinNT and W2K, but don't do it without comparing what you actually get from the two...
and a new microsoft network costs: $95,792
while a new linux network only costs: 15,120
Once again the idea of total cost of ownership comes up. You have to include the cost of upgrading all software to Linux (including anything specifically designed for the company). Plus the cost of retrianing everyone on Linux (because most people have never even heard of Linux, much less seen or used it). Usually it's almost always cheaper to stay with your current software than to change to something else, that's why so many places are still running software written 20 years ago in COBOL.
This may be a shot to MS, but I don't think it will be the end of them, not by a long shot.
Actually you know EXACTLY what the service pack is installing, if you read what the service pack fixes and updates. There's a txt file that tells you exactly what is being updated, and why. I completely agree that the test should of had all patches installed, but I also agree that service packs are a good idea (and if you don't like service packs, all the fixes are available as hotfixes prior to the services, which can be installed singlely)
What I find laughable about this whole arguement is that NSI is claiming it doesn't want to "advertise" for these dirty words. The only way to get to one of these sights would be to type it into a browser, just like any other site. The don't want to "promote" these dirty words, yet they will register domain names that are more offensive (see any of the racist/homophobic sites) and they will register sites that they know will be used to luring unsuspecting people into porn sites (see www.whitehouse.com). I wouldn't care as much if they would just register domains that were offensive in general, instead of pointing the finger at 7 words, which aren't considered all that shocking anymore.
People just need to realize the net isn't their living room, it's a lot closer to a crowded mall where anyone can here you.
This is a big load of bunk. Most MS bugs are fixed before anyone knows how to exploit them. And they fix them for free, just like Linux (I know I never paid for a Service Pack or Hotfix).
MS sites benchmarks that NT is better than Linux. I don't doubt for a minute that is how the benchmarks turned out. I also don't doubt for a minute that's what they were looking for when they started the benchmarks. Any set of benchmark (not just one where MS wins) is slanted. There are NO benchmarks that test everything equally and will actually tell you OVERALL which OS is better (they all test small parts, and as we all know, the whole is greater than it's parts).
As for the reliabilty of Linux, it is very reliable, but there are no real studies (that I've seen). This is a valid point. I run an NT network where I work, and it runs well. I'm not going to say there is never a problem, but there are no major distasters on a weekly basis that many people would have you believe happen. I have also run Linux and think it's about as stable as they come. But anecdotal evidence will never be able to compare to real-world studies. Just because my network runs well doesn't mean all NT networks do, just as your Linux system running well doesn't translate to all Linux systems.
MS also claims NT is more secure than Linux. I can't say it is or isn't, but then again I don't think anyone really can. Every OS is insecure. There is a way to hack everything, and there are always new ways to hack things. The government security testing of NT is a major plus to MS though. Once again it comes down to real-world testing vs anecdotal evidence.
What everyone needs to do is look at this not as an MS propaganda piece (yes, I know it is, but most /.ers assume anything coming from MS has no validity at all) but as a simple comparison and see that it has good points (the real-world data for NT) and bad points (the TCO and benchmarks, which vary completely depending on who does the study). Instead everyone seems to think that bashing MS and talking about what Linux will have will change peoples minds. We shoudl be trying to make COMPUTING better, not Linux.
I hate to be a party pooper here, but talking about how good/bad Quake runs on a server is a pretty irrelavant issue. Last time I checked, if your smart, you shouldn't be gaming on your server anyway, since it will slow it down. I don't care if Linux or NT runs Quake better, as long as we're talking about the server environment.
I would agree about it not having a floppy if it was a PC, but for a MAC the floppy is basically obsolete. Anything of worth is to big to fit on a simple floppy. The real use of floppies on PC's is for booting from them (and that will soon be gone with bootable CD's. MAC were never able to boot from a floppy, so by taking it away the only thing they're lost is the ability to store small files off the hard drive (which wasn't utilized that much anyway). Me, I'd prefer a floppy, but that's more for booting then for anything else.
I can't see this as a conspiracy theory anymore than someone putting up a contest and NT gets hacked first would be a conspiracy theory. But I also don't think it proves much of anything either, other than the fact there are holes in ANY OS (for how long has UNIX been hacked successfully?). What I think this whole thing proves is that neither OS is completely untouchable, which for a lot of people is an affront to their senses, since there are so many anti-MS people who feel Linux is the next big thing and MS can't do anything right. There may be more whole in NT, but that doesn't mean there aren't any in Linux.
I can sympathize with your troubles, but because it came pre-installed correctly doesn't really mean it will re-install correctly. I love Dell machine (I support about 100 at work), but I have come to realize that a LOT of the hardware Dell sells has been tweaked by Dell. They have video cards specially made for them (they are basically the same as another card the vendor makes, but with a special driver, or some other small change). I true test would be to install both OS's on a PC with very generic software (stuff that almost everyone has) and see how it works then. Also, from what I've read, Linux wasn't installed on the system that gave Win98 so much trouble, so there's no saying it wouldn't have had a lot of problems alse. In general, we all need to remember that our experiences aren't enough to generalize on. Everyone has had good or bad experiences with an OS, but that doesn't mean you can expand your experiences to the whole of the OS's userbase.
I find it amazing people are so willing to say everything the media has fed us about these killings in wrong, inlight of this new evidence. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that this "evidence" came from a media source just like all the old "evidence". Sure, it's based on what the writer considers "facts" but so were the first reports. I put as much faith in this "evidence" as I do the stuff the came before. The truth is it was most probably a combination of factors that caused them to do it, and we'll never know forsure, since they're not here to tell us anymore.