Heh, trust me when I say that the arguements over Kerberos during the Win2k Dev cycle where bloody at best. I can't argue that MS has a history of doing things whatever way is easiest for them, and I'm not trying too. My only point was that there is continuity between all MS OS's, knowlege from one can be transported to a different version. With Linux this is true across all distros except RedHat, or at least, it is less true about them.

I also think that I am infulenced by the fact that most of the anti-MS zealotry and OS bigotry I have experienced comes from people who prefer RedHat. I dislike zealotry in any form, especially when it comes in the form of bashing the "enemy" more than pushing your own views. So that probably has influence on my viewpoints :)

Update: It just occured to me to explain myself a little better. This thread is not about MS vs Linux or anything like that. It is more What I Expect vs. What I Get, and with RedHat I don't always get what I expect :)

Again, the biggest beef I have with RedHat is that I, personaly, find it frustrating to work on. The syntax on many things is tweaked just enough that I have to re-remember that difference every time. I also dislike that the RPM packages put things in weird places compared with all of the other *nixs I am familiar with (Apache is a prime example of this). It just makes things harder than it should for me.

"Nothing is sure but death and taxes" I say combine the two and its death to all taxes!