Reply to post: Re: Obviously...

Re: Obviously...

I did notice the icon, but that is not how things were at the time. Although the Linux kernel pre-dates NT, practical Linux distributions arrived at a similar time. PCs came with DOS/Windows/95/95/98/ME bundled. NT cost extra and if you wanted Linux you near enough had to assemble your own PC from supported components. To start with, Penguins were few and far between and likely to have dual boot machines.

I think the hatred (from both sides) started around the time of XP. Microsoft decided that home users would use a cheap DOS based OS and that business users had to buy XP. Linux was a minor irritation because it was came with all the software you needed for free, had a proper CLI and better GUI but few people had even heard of it. Microsoft knew they had to crush it so they could charge monopoly prices for XP.

For me it was no contest: my legacy DOS software would not work with XP but did work with DOSEMU on Linux. Microsoft trying to trash the boot loader to prevent dual boot systems was not appreciated. The hate came from Microsoft forcing EOMs to bundle their OS with new computers. That could be avoided by building your own desktop but Linux laptops (when you could find them) had the extra cost of Windows without the price reduction from crapware. The FUD and lies from Microsoft got tiresome really fast, went on for years and became SCO vs World.

At some point, Microsoft noticed they were fighting the wrong battle and their real problem was Android - Linux with the best bit (the license) circumvented. My own hatred for the Microsoft tax faded years ago because I no longer need a desktop, Vista meant I got my laptop cheap and now that it is starting to fall to pieces I am building a sturdy wooden modular replacement from components. (That project is more because of EOMs deciding that I have to buy thin and fragile than anything I can blame Microsoft for.)