Oh, I don't like Ubuntu, she stated emphatically. As if that was that. I let it pass .. I suppose she is entitled to her own opinion. Later, however, I pondered just what she might not like about it. Is it the cost? Free for everyone everywhere to use? Was it the security features? The fact that it is virtually virus proof? The ease of installation and re-installation or the fact that it auto-updates everything along with the operating system? Hmm. Maybe she doesn't want to use all the free software – Libreoffice, GnuCash, Gimp and stuff like that? Perhaps she doesn't like watching Netflix on Chrome, or using the Family Search Indexing program, browsing the internet and all that stuff without having to shell out big bucks for the latest and greatest hardware. Is it the fact that it just keeps working, even on older hardware without having to reboot (or lockup or crash) like other operating $y$tems do. Or that most internet servers out there are LAMP based (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) or variants. Even many 'proprietary' windows-only programs can often be run on Linux using the free Wine windows emulation program, so that can't be it. I have only run Linux on all my business computers for a mere decade or so now, so perhaps my opinion pales in comparison. I haven't yet found a reason to go back to the evil empire. Regardless .. I refute her assertion. I think she just thinks she doesn't like Ubuntu ..

http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/features

One of our local pharmacists tells all her customers that daily vitamins and mineral supplements are a waste of money, and recommends that they should simply eat better. Is this a personal opinion or is it a standard pharmacist recommendation? Why then are they marketed (by her 'employer') and kept on the shelf for sale? Why do some doctors write prescriptions for same?