>>44
You just WANT it to work so much you convince yourself when you can't do something on X, you don't need to do it.
>>48
Sure, make everything complicated and waste your time. That totalitarian (lol computer politics) guy is more efficient, and I don't want to waste mine.
open-source software generally requires configuration and recompilation for any application you wish to act in a specific non-default way
The "default way" is one that ALMOST WORKS or plainly sucks. And recompilation is sad. Because of my work, and hobbies at home, I try all sorts of software and lots of it, and use the computer for a hundred purposes. Do you have an idea how many times more comfortable I found Windows to work on? Even when it screws up, it's much easier to fix and harder to seriously ruin the thing (unless you're a total luser and browse porn sites with MSIE).
which is not a bad thing if you plan on using a computer for a few years
Which is not the desktop scenario, where you do a lot of things and update very frequently. Recompiling every new version of Mozilla to install it would be a royal pain in the ass.
the result of proper customization of your open-source operating system will do everything you want and nothing you don't want
I could make the OS myself too, that way it'd be 100% custom and do absolutely everything I want and absolutely nothing I don't want. Only I'd take 25 years to get Mozilla running.
pretty GUIs aren't the answer, understanding and hardening your system is the answer.. and its really not that hard
I understand my pretty GUI, as well as the system. User friendliness is not opposite to programming or understanding. That's a Unix-derived misconception.