I couldn't access the original story - linuxppc.org wouldn't come up. I probably don't really need to point out that one '/' needs to be changed to a '.' in the address you gave. As the the quoted website, I got the impression from the text of your e-mail that it was meant to be an impartial comparison. In the context of this list, and given the source of the site, I don't believe that's really what was meant. With that disclaimer, I'll proceed with my rant about the site. :) More Microsoft FUD. The basic content is, "Embedded Linux isn't viable because it doesn't support our proprietary protocols, even though it supports these other ones that aren't really as good. Oh, and in our benchmarking, we didn't test XP embedded, we tested XP Pro instead, comparing them to our older, buggier, slower OSes. Meanwhile we didn't collect any data on Linux for comparison." I'd like to see a more impassionate comparison. Not to mention a better-researched one. -- Pacem in terris / Mir / Shanti / Salaam / Heiwa Kevin R. Bullock Paul Overby wrote: > If anyone is interested in how XP stacks up against Linux for embedded > systems go to. > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/xp/evaluation/compare/