Actually, I really wanted to thank you for posting this topic. I was just getting ready to cave in and take someone I didn't want, when I hit that remark about turning 40 and having run out of conversations.

Considering I'm turning 30 shortly, 40 isn't far enough off for me to want to be out of conversations with my chosen lady. I'm going to keep looking, and you should, too.

My friends set eachother up - not me. I think I laughed at them too many times when they failed the setups and exploded. Well, we were all younger, back then. Thanks to your question I asked a couple why they never try to set me up. Half of them just laughed at the question, and the other half asked me if I was feeling OK. In that "We don't understand - were you replaced by a pod person?" kind of way.

The first one implies a desperate, possible stalker, and the other implies that the person is bad at pillow talk and might accidentally end up in a relationship, much as they don't want one.

Or, said another way, you put up with that sort of thing from your friends all the time without realizing it. Partly because the reactions aren't as severe when it's not a Significant Other, and partly because you know your friends better - well enough to spot and correct the triggering event.

All I'm suggesting is give the person a chance. I know everyone wants quick answers and easy solutions, but sometimes it's better to just let the person know you see what happened, and give them space to sort things out for themselves, trusting that they will resolve the issue, or let you help them resolve it.

Not sure if anyone else pointed it out or not, but I've noticed in my time that most "game playing" is really created by something your partner is insecure about, affraid of, or been hurt by in the past. Not necessarilly something you did, but some element of the situation sets off an alarm in the person's mind, placing them on the defensive without them realizing it.

It took a very special person sitting down with me recently and going over an event from each of our viewpoints to turn out that little treasure. One hell of a lot of trust, there. So I thought I'd share the idea with you all and let you come up with opposing arguements :-)

Agreed.

There are quite a few varients out there, as mentioned - one for virtually every desire and purpose. I've worked with a lot of Operating Systems in my time - I've even played with things like the Amiga and C64 interfaces which weren't really OSs (closer to talking to the computer in assembler, truth be told). For sheer adaptabilliy of the User Interface and handling of it's security levels/protocols alone, Linux is one of the best I've seen.

Which brings up a point. One REALLY cool thing about Linux is Modular Design. I think we both missed mentioning that one. For the benefit of the person who asked about Linux, what I mean is that Linux is designed to impliment new changes in a seperate, controlled manner from the core of the OS. This allows for removal or retroactive changes to a program/driver/the OS itself without the risk you run with Windows systems of the OS becoming unstable. *laughs* Pulling a non-essential library out of a Linux system won't kill the machine, generally.

Mac also uses a modular format, but takes it to an even further extreme. You could think of Linux as the middle ground, in that regard. You're still installing items into the OS, but not shifting a monolith to do it like a Windows machine, and not installing changes in total isolation like a Mac.

My only gripe with the Open Source community is that they never seem to finish a project. *laughs* for a couple years now I've been trying to inspire some coders I know to work with designers - even if it's just their wives/husbands/coworkers. I realize linux is "utillity oriented", but a little spit and polish and a good installation doc for the uninnitiated wouldn't kill anyone, either ;-)

I gotta agree with that thinking. I love the design of it. I just can't get past the specs vs cost of it. I mean, heck, it's going to have the same firepower as the old IBM Thinkpads - with a better communications package, of course - but I wouldn't pay more than say $150 for one of those, used. I dunno. $300 new for the low end one isn't unreasonable, but it's not spinning me around saying "awesome deal" either :-)

I would like to add some caveats to massagetrade's post, by the numbers. Though I do want to point out in advance - this is just a different point of view - I agree in principal with much of what he said.

1) Very true. As a PC tech, I couldn't agree more.

2) Untrue. I've seen quite a lot of that massive library. Needing a coding degree to finish/recompile the software/your linux kernel just to run even the most limited, half-baked apps is not "managed automatically", in my book.

3) Don't expect that to stay true forever. With all the governments - many of which involved in internet scams and attacks - switching to linux for primary use, expect that invulnerabillity to fade.

4)See answer #2, and add is written to the barest level of function, probably lacking being compiled, an installer, or any support documents.

5) I actually do agree with this one. For raw customization and firepower, there is no superior to Linux.

6) See also: Easilly IF you have a formal programming education. or too much free time.

7) That's true. Very true. You can get reports on virtually any level of function. As a tech tool or security resource, it's fantastic.

8) Also very true - and the most commendable effort of the Open Source Community. No matter what hardware you find (well, maybe not the C64 in my basement) there's a linux distro that will make it not just run, but run well. The only problem for the inexperienced is matching the desired distro to the machine.

9) There is something new every day. Often something half written, or half baked, or very powerful but only intuitive to the designer - who did not write a user's guide, btw - or just indescribable.

Personal oppinion: lacking a marketting department - or even a person skilled in intuitive design - is not a big selling point for a product for me. It means no limitations, but some (a very few) limitations exist to HELP the customer - not just hurt them or be arbitrary for randomness sake. Linux is an OS for a person with a real desire to study, learn, and gain real perspective on how their computer really works.

It is not for:

People who want User Friendly interfaces
People who need step by step support
People who have little free time to figure out why installing that new video card disabled half of their IDE chain

But nothing said was untrue - from a certain point of view. His oppinion is that of a satisfied customer. Mine is the oppinion of a dissatisfied customer. Somewhere between the two is the truth.

Otherwise everyone would use Linux. Or no one would.

*snorts* If they release this time. I have my doubts. Personally, for $200 I was thinking "Hey, that would make a sweet 'Gameboy' and media center for trips." I was thinking all of the hardware is fairly standard - I could probably get Win 98 or 2K drivers for all of it to mesh. Run all my old games like Fallout and Wing Commander, not to mention play movies and music for road trips. And sticking 2K on it would leave it functional as a network diagnostic tool.

For $300 I'm thinking "Might as well tack on the extra $200 and buy the lowest level full-featured Dell or Asus." Or, for that matter, just buy and older refurb Mac or PC laptop. Pleanty of other ways I can get a limited tech tool and nostalgia fix in one bundle, for $200.

Hi feralcatlady - you probably just missed it, then. Snopes can be amusing to search sometimes. ;-)

Anyway, no harm, no foul. *grins* You're security consious, which is never a bad thing.