Does this permission scheme make sense to anyone else?  Please explain it to me, because I just don't get it.

I can assign an owner.  I can set permissions for the owner, a group, and others.  For some reason, I cannot get the permissions configured to allow for both FTP access and writability via PHP.  It's one or the other, which is very inconvenient.  In fact, it's not just that, but if I turn on the ability to FTP, I can no longer read files with a web browser.  Oh, the humanity!

Which brings me on to my point to make for the day.  I was reading a bulletin board earlier to get some user experience about the notebook I've been looking at, and I noticed a discussion started with a list of reasons why a particular person did not like Linux.

The "conversation" continued for quite a bit, with two people going at each other pretty heavily.  It was somewhat pathetic, really.  The Windows guy was mostly illiterate, but his points were more valid and his facts more correct, which is unfortunate, since his poor grammar didn't help him at all.

I keep fluctuating, but I remain firmly on the "Windows is better" side.  This is not to say that I might not change my mind at a (much) later time.

Here is my main reason for holding off on Linux as a desktop:  There are no standards. 

This is an odd thing to say, because I have found that many Linux enthusiasts flaunt their multiple choices for GUIs and office software packages.  Sure, it's neat to have choice if the work you do is never going to be seen by anyone else.  But there are two immutable facts here.  First, if you want me to care what OS you're using at all, I'm going to need to be able to open your files.  Second, setting aside Microsoft entirely, you're eventually going to have to choose the file format of one of the packages on which to standardize.  So your choices are immediately limited.  Although, I ust ask, if your software saves to Microsoft format, don't you think that Microsoft's software would do the best job at that?

Standards aren't just limited to the look of the GUI or the format of office applications, but the look of applications generally.  When designing applications, ease of use is a primary concern.  In Windows, the look of things is very easy to accomplish with built-in APIs, and developers implement them.  In Linux, it may be easy to do, but for some reason - my theory is the notion of "Linux is free, therefore I'm free to defy usability to make my app look cool" - Linux programmers just don't care about this.  Imagine how much of a boon it is to Windows users not to have to read the three chapters in the manual of every application that explains, among other things, what the Close button looks like.

Likewise, at a different layer, configuring Linux is a nightmare.  The nests of config files clutter up everything, and who knows where they are or where they are supposed to be.  You need documentation just to find the documentation.  There are preconfigured directories, but there doesn't seem to be any logic in their naming or partitioning.  I may not understand it, but I feel that if it's not something that's intuitive to a computer user of my experience, then it certainly needs review.  This falls in the category of my belief wherein you don't just keep using something because you always have, especially if it's broken.

Arguments about Microsoft cheating people don't really hold up, either.  I'm not saying that what they did was morally correct or legal.  However, Microsoft never forced anyone to use Windows.  If you could get a PC company to sell you a system without Windows, you could do whatever you wanted to it.  It's just that until the dot-com bubble insurgence of Linux, who wanted a system that didn't run Windows?

And before you throw the whole Netscape/browser monopoly out there, let's be real about it.  Netscape was a dying dog.  They didn't have the personnel that Microsoft had, or the experience.  If Netscape had a superior product, the incorporation of Internet Explorer into the operating system would not have hurt them at all.  If Home Depot decided to compete with your crummy 5-man house building operation, you'd be flipping burgers.

Besides that, what is the argument?  Microsoft OSes aren't secure?  Neither is Linux.  Didn't they just release a patch to OpenSLL (one of those packages with "millions of users, so they'll find bugs more quickly") to prevent outsiders from getting root access?  I think the real difference is that Microsoft is too busy providing support to its hideously more significant user base to care about giving a hard to to whatever Linux flavor you happen to use.  Also, remember that your Linux OS was compiled with care by hundreds of 17-year-old script-kiddies.  No reason to worry about trojans or back doors in an OS like that.  And if there is a problem with OpenSSL at your business, you'll surely have someone to whom you can turn to blame, right?  Right?  Oh.  Darn.

"It's all free!" You say.  Well, if you're talking about "for no dollars" kind of free, then you're not talking about the kind of software that has any support.  Because that's the only way Linux developers seem to be making money these days - in support contracts.  Make incomprehensible software then charge for help - that's moral.

If you're talking about freedom of choosing an OS and the software that runs on it, well, I already do that.  What exactly do you want you OS to do more or less of that you need so badly to go in there and recompile it?  Transparent windows?

Well, that's the end of this rant.  I need to figure out what my permission problems are and deal with them.  Setting up my computer at home will help.  Ay de mi.