I want a divorce from technology. Somebody write up the papers... I'll sign.
In all my messing around with Linux... it's fun and all. I learn stuff. I can setup pretty much any of the various distributions with my preferred setup in a matter of hours. Sure they all have their quirks, but no big deal. I had my machine booting into six different Linux versions. All set up and working nicely.
Then I had to stop and ask myself, what's the point? I mean really. Why would one run Linux instead of Windows unless they HAD to? Windows works so well. What's not to like? I know that it's popular or somehow "hip" to be anti-Microsoft. But I see no benefit in that.
Linux might make sense to me if my wife was open to using it. We have two desktops (her's and mine) and a laptop. It's just not that great to have one Linux system and two Windows machines. If they were all Linux I think it wouldn't be so bad. But nothing cooperates with a Windows machine as well as another Windows machine running the same software.
I am quite torn over the issue really. Because messing with Linux is a lot of fun. And I mean a ton of fun. But if I want something more than a toy to play with... something that will actually do all the things I want it to do... I have to keep coming back to Windows. So it's the difference between being fun or being useful.
Linux might be nice if I wanted to learn PHP, Perl, or certain other programming languages that are non-Microsoft based. But what's the point of setting up something like dual-boot with Windows and Linux when I have to boot into Windows to do certain things? What's the upside to that hassle? I don't know that there is one.
It is kind of funny though. When I get Linux all set up nicely and working they way I want, I feel like I've really accomplished something. But when it comes to Windows... that sense of accomplishment is not nearly so pronounced, because it comes so much more easily. Maybe that's why Linux is fun and Windows is useful.