It was all just a hoax, apparently. Still, I don’t think I would be out of order, were it true.

That’s what Brent Roos’ tagline asks. I’ll answer you: he’s a troll with an inflated sense of his own importance. Think I’m being a little harsh? Maybe, but read on, and maybe it’ll take only his first few sentences to sway you.

My Ubuntu machine totally crashed –motherboard and all! I was able to save the memory and cd-r/rw drives. Besides that it is a total loss. In a related story, my brother also had a similar experience, although not nearly as severe. What does this mean? Hello XP! That’s right. I’m back on Windows. I think Ubuntu has something to do with these crashes, since both mine and my brother’s were similar, and we were both running Ubuntu. Or, it could be a total coincidence, but I doubt it.

Where to even start?

There are a lot of different parts in a system. Roos claims to have only saved his system memory and optical drive, which means that his motherboard, his hard drives, any peripheral cards (if he had them), his processor, and anything else he might have conceivably had in his box is apparently broken beyond repair. Think about the kind of catastrophe it would take to kill almost everything in a computer box. What comes to mind? Lightning? Water? Dropping the damn thing while moving it? Did “Using a reliable piece of software used by millions of computer enthusiasts and network managers throughout the world” ever come to mind as in the list of possibilities? Roos admits that it may be a coincidence that both he and his brother experience hardware failures and they both used Ubuntu, but he doubts it. Why is that, Brent? Did Miss Cleo tell you otherwise?

But what I really love is why Brent thinks Ubuntu is to blame, and I will blockquote it just to highlight the inanity.

I think Ubuntu was over-stressing my hardware.

Let that sink in for a bit. Then consider that Roos claims to be a computer expert, with years of experience using both Windows and Linux. Now, I don’t care about Ubuntu, per se: it’s my distribution of choice, but I understand that it’s not for everybody. But, when Roos says “Ubuntu,” he really means “Linux,” as though Linux is still some alpha-quality piece of software notorious for crashing system and frying hardware—if you doubt for even a second the depths of Roos’ idiocy, consider that he also seems to think that Windows XP is not only a wonderful operating system, but completely stable as well (because he’s never had a hardware failure in the five years he used XP! Conclusive, rock-solid proof!).

So, certainly Roos overestimates his technical knowledge (he has two degrees, he says, which I think reflects rather poorly on his alma mater) and his capacity to make qualified judgement. That fulfills the latter part of my initial statement. But why do I think Roos is a troll, rather than a simpleton? Because in announcing to the world that he is switching from Ubuntu back to Windows XP, he also takes considerable time to let loose some old, tired canards about Windows v. Linux, and just about have an orgasm singing the praises of that which is Windows, while at the same time of course villifying Linux as though it had killed his firstborn child instead of (ostensibly) his hardware. So, here we go:

There are some in the Ubuntu forums, but not many, who can be considered professionals –as far as having any official credentials of being a professional in the computer field. I happen to be one of those people with official degrees and certifications.

Certifications don’t mean anything—just because Roos got his silly A+ cert, or an MS cert., doesn’t mean he knows anything important when it comes to computers. If he did, he might know better than to say things like “I think Ubuntu was over-stressing my hardware.”

It is my professional opinion that Ubuntu is not even close to as polished of an operating system as Microsoft Windows XP. Not even close, especially for new users. The Linux desktop will never be what the fanboys want it to be, because of companies like Microsoft –who make better software. Sorry.

Perhaps in other parts of the world this may not be the case. However, in America, we prefer to use the best –which happens to be Microsoft.

I think it’s clear that Ubuntu has plenty of polish—it and Novell’s SLED are probably the two most polished Linux distributions there are. What Linux in general still doesn’t have is comparable third-party driver support (for certain things like Wifi or Gfx cards). Linux is also very user-friendly, but it depends on how deeply you need to delve into the system. As I’ve noted before, mid-level users are stuck between knowing exactly what they are doing, and not needing or being able to do anything.

Furthermore, what do differing countries have to do with anything? I don’t know if Roos is aware, but both Microsoft and Linux are available globally. And what the hell does “[I]n America, we prefer to use the best” mean? Some vague attempt at turning the issue into one of nationalism? But notice that Roos conflates “ubiquity” with “quality.” Here in America Brent, as in most of the rest of the world, people tend to use what’s popular, not what’s best. Just like the Billboard Top 40 isn’t a good indicator of the best music being made, neither is Windows being the dominant operating system any indication of its quality. I noticed that Roos uses Firefox and Flock—doesn’t he know that Microsoft’s browser, Internet Explorer 6, must be a better piece of software?

The fanboys complain about insecurity with Windows. This is another myth. With an anti-virus, a firewall software (or preferably a router), an anti-spyware software, and a decent HOST file, it is very easy to keep a Windows system very clean and secure. All of this software will cost you nothing. It is all free.

First, calling Linux proponents “fanboys” is textbook trolling. Secondly, Windows insecurity isn’t a myth, and to say “Windows isn’t insecure! After you install this, this, this, and this, it’s perfectly secure!” Sorry, Brent, but that means that your firewall, antivirus, and antispyware apps are secure—and Windows isn’t. Your logic is that 5=7 because 5+2=7. It doesn’t work that way.

Even though Windows is despised by many (who coincidentally hate capitalism), I have never had any single sort of hardware issues with the OS.

Ah, the old Linux=Communist canard. Serious, Brent: are you for real? Could you possibly be any more of a flailing caricature?

I can’t even go on—Roos pumps out a steady stream of horseshit for another 10+ paragraphs. Here are some highlights, which I think can stand without comment.

• I happen to find Windows to be much more stable than any Linux distro.
• I think [Windws is] great, and so does the vast majority of the rest of the world.
• [S]ince [Ubuntu] you killed two computers that I know of, I must terminate [it]
• Windows is by far a superior desktop/office operating system, by leaps and bounds.
• I have a lot of experience with many OSes, and software. The bottom-line is that Microsoft rocks.
• Most commercial apps are commercial for a reason. Most free apps are free for a reason.
• Yes, FOSS is great, and it helps standards, and all, but –standards are truly set by the products which offer the most productivity. [...] There is a reason for .doc and .xls being the standard format. Everyone uses MS Office formats, because MS Office is the best Office software[.]
• The software built for Microsoft Windows is the best.
• To say that Linux holds up to Windows, in terms of productivity, is an absolute joke!
• You shouldn’t have to tweak your operating system, just to have functionality. Sure Windows takes a few tweaks, but they are very simple, and uncomplicated.
• By the way, why do so many people hate Microsoft? I have never understood this.

I just don’t have the strength to talk about all of these. Let the idiocy speak for itself. If you’re truly that dumb, Brent Roos, then by all means enjoy Windows XP: you two deserve each other.