Andrew: You probably know this and are just trying to get a rise out of someone like me, but just in case not, let me point it out: In any environment where the funny code names would not be suitable, the official names ought to satisfy anyone's sense of dignity: Ubuntu 7.10, Ubuntu 8.04, etc. The funny code names shouldn't be an issue.

mschira: 64-bit Hardy? Did you not realize that Hardy is still beta? And that there still are some things that don't work on 64-bit systems?

Linux IS ready for some desktops. There are lots of people happily using Linux on their desktops.

There isn't anything wrong with you deciding to use XP on your shiny, new Dell. But, that does not imply that Linux isn't ready for the desktop.

Clearly, Dell can get Linux running on your hardware (in some countries), so Linux IS ready for your hardware. Maybe Dell isn't ready to support it everywhere, but that's a different matter.

Thanks for the anecdote, M. Clearly my 5 working U 7.10 systems are a figment of my imagination.

I recently got a new laptop and since I aimed at 4Gb RAM and VISTA wasn't going to touch my harddrive I installed hardy heron x64 on it. Since it was an XPS 1330 where Dell offers Ubutu in some countries (not in mine..) I thought it should all work out. Well It didn't. Some stuff works, but a lot of stuff just doesn't. when browsing the screen occasionally shows nasty twitches and shivers. Azureus doesn't run, the integrated microphone doesn't work, and a couple of other stuff. I find myself using windows XP, missing out 0.5 Gb of my memory and everythging works without a hitch. And while I am not a Linux freak - I run a Linux 64 Server for serious number crunching and as a file server - so I got some Linux knowledge. But as a desktop 64 bit Linux just isn't there. 

M.

Yeah, I've always wondered how that myth got started.

Linux is basically an implementation of the UNIX SYS5R4 fork, and *BSD descendants of the BSD fork.

There are differences in some arguments at tat level, but not so much as can't be easily dealt with b detecting the of level in scripts. 

As an old UNIX jock that's why I like the free *nixes, it allows me to use major league os functionality for extremely low cost on commodity hardware.

X windows derives from efforts to make a portable GUI that will function on any system, so you can install Ubuntu or FreeBSD, start gnome, and look at the same GUI.

Funny, I'd recently been suprised to find out how little if any differences there were between cli linux and unix commands.

Because I'd been led to believe that they were like - really different.