Dear Martin,

You wrote...

WCIUW?... Err, nope... can't guess that one!

I had written, "Gee whizzz, why can't I use Windoze????  (WCIUW?)"

Get it?

Obviously, a more productive question would be, "Why *shouldn't* I use
Windoze????

You wrote:

... linux tends to be a lot more sympathetic towards
old hardware. It will also reliably tolerate high
system overloading of slow old hardware.

You mean it will take forever until it finishes a process, which is at least
better than crashing.

Mandrake confirms:
-------------------

Recommended hardware for Mandrakelinux 10.0:

Processor: an x586-class or above processor is required. This includes

Intel Pentium I/II/III/IV, AMD K6/II/III, AMD Duron, AMD Athlon/XP/MP. SMP
multi-processor machines are supported.

A quick Google suggests that "SMP" is a Linux term.  Might be an acronym for
Symmetrical Multi-Processing.  Resources exist regarding which
multi-processor motherboards are capable of SMP.  Probably not an issue with
my 200 MHz firewall computer.

A version of Mandrakelinux 10.0 for Athlon64 is released separately.

That's French for, "A separate version of Mandrakelinux 10.0 is available
for Athlon64."  After browsing their webpages a while, you learn to
translate on the fly.

You wrote:

And then you have to clobber performance further for
Windoze by adding various 'third party' 'protection'
with anti-virus and individual firewalling.

That sounds like a catch-22.  For an old computer dedicated as a hardware
firewall, what is the method for firewalling the firewall-computer?  I found
the answer:

According to Mandrakelinux:

In over ten years of widespread use, only a few rumored
viruses have ever been recorded that affect Linux. This
strong immunity can be explained by the fundamental
architecture of the system which consists of independent
layers that have specific features and strict permissions.

That's a pretty strong selling point.  If they only had a few viruses, they
probably updated the operating system as required.  It sounds like any
"anti-virus software" for Linux is probably much less bloated than is
required for Windoze.

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188  Linux vs. Windows Viruses - "To
mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box,
you just need to work on it." - Scott Granneman.  He continues:

Even if the OS has been set up correctly, with an
Administrator account and a non-privileged user
account, things are still not copasetic. On a Windows
system, programs installed by a non-Administrative
user can still add DLLs and other system files that
can be run at a level of permission that damages the
system itself. Even worse, the collection of files on a
Windows system - the operating system, the applications,
and the user data - can't be kept apart from each other.
Things are intermingled to a degree that makes it
unlikely that they will ever be satisfactorily sorted
out in any sensibly secure fashion.

It's better not to leave the computer running with all the Permissions
turned on, just in case a hacker tries to break in and perform functions -
such as install spyware.  If you're logged in as an administrator, it's much
easier for a hacker to start doing things.  I see criticisms about Windows
XP that give the installing-user Administrative privileges, with hardly a
mention about setting up User accounts, no less advising against running as
an Administrator.

Also, maybe it's on this newsgroup that I read that it's a badly kept secret
that WinXP has problems with different users logging in and logging off, and
trying to hot-switch between users.  I don't know if 2000 shares this
problem.  I assume Linux has this issue well under control.

There's a function in Win98 that provides for separate users, but I've
always thought it was just a silly toy so everyone can have their own
wallpaper, etc., so I never played with it.  Unless I'm wrong, all users
have administrator privileges on 98, even unwelcome visitors.

Regards to 53N 1W.

-Neil-