That being said, I can understand why the linux weenies are all about the dist-upgrade dance. When your OS is obsolete every 6 months, what choice do you have? Doing a clean install and getting back up and running takes many hours over a few days to get everything just right again.

Same deal with Windows, save that the time frame moves from months to YEARS. Spending many hours over a few days to get Windows the way that you like it once every 4-5 years is hardly arduous – assuming that you’re not the sort of person who just buys a new PC every 4 years and donates the old one to a pentium-inflicted relative.

Of course the freetards then drag out the bit rot argument. You know the one: Windows performance degrades and you have to reinstall every 6-months/1-year/etc to get your performance back.

Hello? 1998 called and they want their “Top 10 Reasons Why Windows 98 Sucks” list back.

I’ve not felt the need to reinstall an OS for performance or cruft-buildup reasons since 2001 – when I dumped 98. I’ve only seen performance degradation on systems where users are installing spyware infested internet games and have so many free toolbars running in IE that they can’t even read the damn web pages any longer. Clean out the crapware and things improve.

That example is a user education issue, not an OS flaw.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/15035/5_reasons_why_ubuntu_9_10_is_better_than_windows_7

Kerberos, we (i) LIEK u! <3