It’s been a while since the latest Microsoft-should-open-source-Windows article, so SJVN felt compelled to write one. “Although Microsoft may claim otherwise, Vista, from both from a technical and business point of view, is proving to be a failure. Why not turn it over to people who have shown time after time that they can deliver the goods?”
I just spend a billion dollars developing software so that I can give it away? In other news, IBM announces z/OS, z/VM, z/TPF, System i are now open-source.
They could still sell support licenses like they already do (ever wonder why OEM’s are so much cheaper and you can still buy them without being a hardware manufacturer?).
But I imagine they would lose a lot of sales and I really can’t see them even considering it either. Besides, if Windows is truly the nightmare of security problems many claim it to be, and the FOSS many eyes principle truly works then given open sourcing Windows the few months it takes to distribute repairs would be a nightmare of zero day exploits.
Give away shitty, clunky technology in exchange for free manpower to fix it for you? Doesn’t sound that bad of a deal.
Microsoft would actually have more to gain from it than the open source community, because I can guarantee you that there is most likely not a single useful thing to learn from vista’s source code – except that a sprawling bureaucracy managing an army of developper does result into an horrifying, towering heap of utterly shitty code.
Of course, it will never ever happen. Microsoft is determined and inflexible. If they end up in a hole, they’ll keep digging no matter what.
Edited 2007-04-13 21:16
There’s tonnes to learn! Then, unless your Novell, get your #$@ sued for.
Edited 2007-04-14 15:37
Replying only to the title of your comment: Going only by the amount given away by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, and the average development cost of $5B for a version of Windows, Bill Gates has effectively given away 2.5 different versions of Windows over the years.
Sure we could turn the Windows Source over to the Debian team, and then the operating system could take 2 years to come out. Oh wait that already happened so what is the gain. And what is this nonsense about open source developers delivering the goods? Honestly both open source and closed source have seen their fair share of failures as well as success.
Open source != success, Closed source != failure, and it is a little insulting to everybody from the software developer to the CEO that works on a software product for profit to insinuate this.
There are more OSS projects than Debian, and giving it to Debian might result in delays, but probably less delays than Vista suffered. They might also use some of their quality control talent.
Open source and closed source, yes. Technologically, however, Microsoft is widely seen as a failure even by those who applaud their business suckcess. Whoops. Freudian slip.
That goes both ways: Open source != failure, and closed source != success.
It’s also a little insulting to everyone with a modicum of intelligence and/or honesty, not to mention Redhat (not to say they aren’t members of either group) to insinuate you can’t make a profit from free software.
Is that the really the only way you know how to argue by twisting what I say to fit your view of the world. There is no difference between Open Source and Closed Source software, just different methodologies for getting the same job done. In addition my statements were in response to the original poster, and they were a reply.
Sure you can make a profit from Open Source, but you can also make a profit from Closed Source. That was never what was in debate, my comment was how insulting it was to say that for profit software automatically equals failure.
Also open source software wouldn’t be were it is right now if wasn’t for the tons of money that companies like AT&T, Xerox, IBM, Sun, and Microsoft poured in to universities for research on software and hardware. Nobody has ever analyzed what it would mean if all software went open source, and the distribution was free. The development of new software and research benefiting computing would slow.
You may disagree and you are entitled to, but one thing you can’t disagree with is that money = research and research = new developments. So maybe you should think twice about your view of the world.
Because the benefits of Microsoft Research are in your home right now. Especially if you have digital TV which is based off the Microsoft research on IP-TV, which is based off Microsoft’s research in to streaming video over the internet. But nobody uses that, (www.youtube.com, video.google.com), do they?
Nice try. Nevertheless, the insinuation that open source software robs developers of profits stands there in black and white.
Oh, but there’s a big difference. Open Source depends on standing on the soldiers of giants; closed source centres on reinvention of the wheel.
I fail to see the relevance of this.
Actually, open source would be a lot better off if Microsoft were not the company it is. Sun also is not blameless in the proprietary technology department, even in software.
I think you will find that the first sentence above invalidates the second.
I don’t remember ever posting that I’m against research. Maybe you should think twice about your view of what I write. In fact all editions of UNIX upto and including Seventh Edition were research – and THEY were open source.
So Microsoft actually made one contribution to the world outside itself, did it? Wow. That overshadows all the effort they have spent destroying competitors. Not.
But where did the money come from for that research. Yes companies who’s practices weren’t open. I believe AT&T was the father of UNIX, and they are hardly close to an open company. So don’t get up on your high horse and pretend to be above everybody, you are using software that may be open, but the research was bought by the proprietary software you now speak against.
And when did it all start to go wrong for UNIX? When it was made proprietary?
UNIX was always proprietary, maybe you should re-read your history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix , it wasn’t until Berkley decided to make BSD that the UNIX idea emerged from the proprietary idea. Then from BSD emerged NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Solaris. Then Linus came a long and took the same UNIX ideas and made Linux.
But in the beginning UNIX was a commercial product for commercial purposes and AT&T licensed it out for many years until SCO bought the rights to the license during the break up of AT&T.
So with out the funding of mega proprietary organizations like AT&T and GE UNIX would never exist. So do us all a favor at OSAlert and read a book or at least a wikipedia article.
UNIX was always open source until System III. See “A Quarter Century of UNIX”, or “Twenty Years of Berkeley UNIX”.
Which happened around 1978, or the same timeframe as V6/7.
No, in the middle UNIX was a commercial product, because before AT&T’s breakup (and the release of System III) it wasn’t allowed to make money out of UNIX. See the sources cited previously. And actually SCO was only one of many licensees, such as Sun, during and after the breakup. It wasn’t until AT&T sold the rights to UNIX to Novell (in, I think, the early nineties) that it became a non-AT&T product.
So I’ve never read a book on UNIX or even a Wikipedia article, eh? Well even if that’s true it seems I still have my facts more right than you on the subject.
That is great that you believe, it is even sort of cute. Go back and re-read the article and maybe take a big look at the picture, and the first couple sentences of the History of UNIX on the wikipedia page.
Dear Mr Gates, throw away the billions Microsoft invested into Vista and essentially give away the primary work your company has been doing for the last 5 years.
Perhaps someone should tell that guy to give away his house or his car? Better idea, someone give away his computer so he can’t post this nonsense.
Give me a break!
Microsoft has already thrown away millions on Vista, all open sourcing Windows would mean is an admission of what we already knew–Microsoft is better at languages and “business math” than it is at actually producing something useful…
Why keep throwing more good money after bad when you can open source and (hopefully) reap the benefit of having your code worked on people passionate about code?
–bornagainpenguin
Should be titled: Dear Mr. Gates, your company has proven itself incompetent at securing a proprietary operating system, so why don’t you open it up and really let the black hats have their way with your customers?
You can’t open a proprietary software system unless it is relatively secure against white-box attacks. Windows can’t even stand up to black-box attacks. Open source is an incredibly efficient development model, but it is not a silver bullet for quality and security problems. In fact, the reality of distributed open source development raises the bar substantially in both of these areas. The code has to be clean, and it has to be robust. Otherwise nobody is going to be able to contribute, and everybody is going to be able to exploit it.
Since you are an AIX developer, could you say that the code is higher quality than what is available for example in GNU/Linux or BSD?
I think it’s not a matter of proprietary vs open source but more like high-quality vs low-quality. In this respect Windows doesn’t stand a chance but AIX, HP-UX, OpenVMS and MVS will continue to exist because of their proven quality.
And nowadays it’s a fact that most commercially-available proprietary software (especially) for Windows is not very good although there are some good ones mostly from other companies than Microsoft.
In this sense third parties keep the Microsoft ecosystem alive while they could so easily kill it off by releasing versions for multiple platforms. GNU/Linux at least sets the bar high enough that something like Windows cannot compete.
It depends how you define quality. AIX doesn’t depend on code quality to produce a high-quality release. It’s put through millions of hours of pre-release testing with almost 100,000 test cases run in various workload patterns across our entire hardware product line. The service team says that 95% of all customer issues result from a customer choosing not to apply a fix we issued in response to internal testing.
I won’t comment specifically on our internal defect rate, but suffice it to say that we cannot use a “release early, release often” strategy with AIX. The AIX kernel is significantly more sophisticated than any other UNIX kernel. The code quality is inconsistent across subsystems and generally mediocre. We don’t often do proactive code cleanups. If it’s working, we leave it alone until we discover defects or update the functionality.
I’ve hacked both the Linux and AIX kernels, and the differences in how they achieve a quality product are like night and day (or likely the other way around). The Linux kernel code is like a work of art compared to AIX, but AIX provides a much higher assurance to the customer that we’ve done everything in our power to ship a quality OS.
Another AIX developer put it best: AIX kernel development, for better or worse, is for black-belts only. That’s why we can’t open source it like Sun has done with Solaris. It wouldn’t be productive, and it wouldn’t have the best interests of our customers in mind.
If Vista source code was released, tens of thousands of programmers would die laughing.
I’m talking Monty Python’s “Killer Sketch” becoming reality.
Nobody wants that, I hope.
LOL….
I don’t think Vista needs to be saved yet, and at one point I agree it would be need to be open sourced but please not under GPL.
Edited 2007-04-13 17:12
at one point I agree it would be need to be open sourced but please not under GPL
Why not? It’s not as if it would make sense to produce closed-source derivatives in this case…
Because the less contact with the FSF the better, at least to me.
You don’t need to have contacts with the FSF to license software under the GPL.
As long is related to the FSF like GPL is, its a problem to me.
The GPL is not related to the FSF. It’s a license.
I think you’re letting ideological concerns cloud your judgement, here.
Erm… they are intimately related, as the latter owns the former. Here’s the first three lines of the license:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (c) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
The latter may have the copyright on the text, but that doesn’t mean you owe them anything if you use their license. I could make a video game where you could throw eggs at RMS, Moglen, etc. and license it under the GPL, and – as immature as that would be – it would be perfectly legal and neither the FSF nor anyone would be able to prevent the game’s distribution.
The GPL is a legal text. Use it or don’t use it depending on your needs, that’s fine. On the other hand, refusing to use it on ideological grounds (which basically boil down to: “one should be able to profit from the labour of others while denying others the same opportunity from their own”) seems a bit silly to me.
Erm… refusing to use copyleft code boils down to a belief that using another person’s code without the author’s permission or granting them recompense is amoral. Having a copyleft license may protect the copier in a legal sense, but it doesn’t justify it in an ethical sense.
I’m trying to parse your sentence (it’s quite convuluted) but I’m still not sure as to what you’re trying to say.
Are you saing that those who do use copyleft code believe that using another person’s code without the author’s premission or granting them compensation is moral? Because logically that’s what you’re implying, and it’s completely false.
Copyleft is *very* ethical, since it expresses the desire of the copyright holder. You’re not making any sense whatsoever.
I don’t think Vista needs to be saved yet, and at one point I agree it would be need to be open sourced but please not under GPL.
I agree. Why would I want Windows to be released under the most successful open source license ever? I would rather see it whither and die under a lesser open source license.
Linux users waste their time saying that Vista just suck, and now they want it open source.
I think I missed something …
it does suck.
but it would probably suck less if some modifications could be made.
Yes, and the evil force of republicans/democrats are out to get you with their welfare/big corporations.
Linux != FOSS
FOSS != Linux
Linux people != FOSS people
Linux people is not a subset of FOSS people
FOSS people is not a subset of Linux people
Call me confused because I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.
What do you mean by “Linux != FOSS”
Linux IS free and open source software, but not all free and open source software is Linux. I thought that was one of the major selling points of linux is that it is free and open source for anyone to use provided they give back any modifications made to the source.
The same goes for this statement too “Linux people is not a subset of FOSS people”.
There is a large group of Linux advocates who are not FOSS advocates. I’m referring to groups of people (not the systems themselves) and by equality I mean that the right is a subset of the left and the left is a subset of the right (right and left side of the equation).
Linux is open source, but not everyone advocating and making Linux is pro-open source. The same goes for the other side.
That makes more sense, thanks for clearing it up.
Sorry but the news is published on linux-watch.com and if you click on the name of the author you will see:
Ziff Davis Internet Linux & Open Source Editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
omfg – somebody pays you while writing such nonsense? Ziff Davis is indeed a very rich company.
By chance, in this quarter’s UKUUG newsletter a Microsoft spokesperson was quoted as saying something which, in the form it appears below, crystallises the opinion of the way Microsoft does business I’ve held since at least the day I left Windows 98:
Microsoft make a lot of money out of closed-source. They do not care how crap their software is, as long as it makes them money.
Therefore as long as they can get away with preloading Vista onto new computers, they will do so no matter what people think of it. And there is not a hope in hell that they will opensource Vista soon.
Maybe the fact that I only realized this yesterday (in the form presented here) makes me dense; but it doesn’t make it untrue.
“Crap” is a noun, not an adjective (or adverb, while we’re on the subject). You’re looking for something like “crappy.”
He might have meant their products can be compared to crap,(noun), because installing their products “might”, have the same effect as someone dropping their bags and having a massive dump on the motherboard.
See, that is the problem with spellcheckers in general. They can check the words for misplaced letters, however, they cannot check the context the words are in.
Edited 2007-04-14 06:58
ROTFL. Oh, man, that is funny.
“crap” used as an adjective is perfectly acceptable in British English (though not in American English), as is “shit” – so it would be also be acceptable to say:
Microsoft make a lot of money out of closed-source. They do not care how shit their software is, as long as it makes them money.
For those still in school, you could try taking these two variants into your English class, as a way of sparking a fascinating debate on the many subtle differences between British and American forms of English.
Although personally, I would find “shitty” more acceptable than “shit” here, but “crappy” equally as acceptable as “crap”.
Interesting language!
Well, if those guys “can deliver the goods” why don’t they deliver something better than Windows (Vista)?
You know, those guys are “delivering” Windows replacement for the last 10+ years.. yet we’re where we are: Windows is on 90%+ desktop computers and according to EU comission dealing with MS, Windows Server is on about 75% workgroup servers..
Linux? Solaris? MacOS X?
I’m going to steal that comment somebody made just today, because it’s so good: To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD’s is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there.
One word: Preloading. I thought SJVN’s article was the mark of an ignoramus, but Jeeze.
There are computers with other OS preloaded like Linux and OSX but the marked rejects them because in someway they fail to give what the user needs.
Oh please. Are you seriously trying to tell me “the user needs” viruses, spyware, crashes, spam, and handholding to the degree Windows provides them?
If, and only if, Linux is offered on an equivalent number of models to Windows, by major manufacturers, out in the open like Macs, and still doesn’t sell, then you can start telling me that Windows is better than Linux. Not before.
Edited 2007-04-13 17:34 UTC
I did’t say Windows was better or not I said it gives what user needs and the other fail to do that, and about the security I have zero problems with spyware or virus and I have zero problems with stability because is rock solid, actually crash less than Ubuntu on me, but you see, the computer experience and productivity it is more than just the OS, is also the 3th party programs that makes you productive and those programs makes the OS irrelevant and till those options exist in alternative OS the market will keeps rejected them.
There are plenty of people who would do well with a noob-friendly version of Linux instead of Windows because they don’t use anything beyond what a typical desktop version of Linux would install anyway and anyway I know people who use their computers less than 3 hours a day six days a week and still get spyware and just because Ubuntu crashes doesn’t mean that Windows is a better OS it could be your configuration and their are other Linuxes out there and if the OS makes it impossible to uses the 3rd party programs because of viruses or spyware or crashes then it doesn’t matter how many more thousans or millions more apps the OS has now does it and anyway plenty of people now are switching to MacOS X and it is as feasible to put Windows in a dual boot or virtualized configuration with Linux as it is with MacOS and anyway the number 1 request for an application to be ported to Linux is about to be ported to the Web where it will be accessible not only from Windows and Linux but also from BeOS and AmigaOS and RiscOS and any other OS and lastly next time please use punctuation I’m running out of brea–
There are plenty of people who would do well with a noob-friendly version of Linux instead of Windows
Yes and they still choose windows as their os.
I know people who use their computers less than 3 hours a day six days a week and still get spyware and just because
That’s their problem, not mine.
and just because Ubuntu crashes doesn’t mean that Windows is a better OS it could be your configuration
It doesn’t but in my opinion it is.
and their are other Linuxes out there and if the OS makes it impossible to uses the 3rd party programs because of viruses or spyware or crashes then it doesn’t matter how many more thousans or millions more apps the OS has
And here we go with the same song over and over again, and actually that’s a lame excuse.
OS has now does it and anyway plenty of people now are switching to MacOS X and it is as feasible to put Windows in a dual boot or virtualized configuration with Linux as it is with MacOS
I told you before but I’ll repeat it again, the OS is irrelevant, the application you need is waht matters and it doesn’t exist in other OS, vitualization? needs to much hardware, to much configuration and waste of time, sorry.
and anyway the number 1 request for an application to be ported to Linux is about to be ported to the Web where it will be accessible not only from Windows and Linux but also from BeOS and AmigaOS and RiscOS and any other OS
1 application 1432432 to go.
and lastly next time please use punctuation I’m running out of brea–
I guess you are dislecxic and can’t read the commas.
Yes and they still choose windows as their os.
Please, those people don’t even know what an OS is (and why should they, they just want to use a computer), they use windows because they went to a shop, asked for a pc and received a pc with windows preloaded.
Actually no, in my experice they know what they want, for example if the pc comes with Lotus Wordpro they ask for MS Word, I’ve seen user who bought macs for their kids asking how to install windows on it, and that’s just and example, so what you say is just a myth.
I’ve seen user who bought macs for their kids asking how to install windows on it
It seems to me that this is the proof they don’t know what an OS is. If they did know, why did they buy a Mac to run Windows applications?
Is not a proof they know what an OS is, is a proof they know what they want.
It doesn’t mean they have chosen it. Most are not aware that there are alternatives.
In any case, I wouldn’t say that the market has “rejected” Linux, because its usage keeps growing. With market share numbers similar to Mac, I think it’s presumptuous to declare that the market has spoken. Growth doesn’t have to be quick, as long as it’s constant.
Is not a proof they know what an OS is, is a proof they know what they want.
No, it means that they went to a computer shop, they liked the Apple design, they bought a Mac, took it home and then they tried to install on it the windows software they had bought for their old computer or the windows software they found in that “pirate CD-R” they had received from a friend or a colleague.
When the software didn’t work they asked a computer-literate nephew or son of their neighbors for help and discovered that they needed “windows” to run it. That’s why they wanted “windows” on their Mac.
If they had known that there’s something like an “operating system” on a computer and that not all the computers are the same, they wouldn’t have bought a Mac to run “windows” on it: they would’ve bought a pc with windows.
GhePeU: If they did know, why did they buy a Mac to run Windows applications?
This is just a guess… But maybe they heard that they could use Windows on a Mac. Then maybe they decided to buy a Mac because they 1) liked the hardware, 2) liked the appearance, 3) found a good deal on the Mac, 4) liked the community, 5) decided they wanted both Mac OS and Windows, etc…
“Yes and they [plenty of people] still choose windows as their os [instead of a noob-friendly version of Linux].”
No, they don’t choose.
First, they don’t know that it’s possible to choose, second, they don’t know what to choose from then. They take what is preinstalled. There is nothing else than “Windows”, didn’t you hear it? And Linux is a game.
The intention is simple: People want it working right now, with no work to be done before. It has to run by itself. And they want to have the same “pictures” at home as they might know it from their place of work.
School did not teach them. Life does not teach them. They don’t teach / educate theirselves.
Maybe you’re considering my statements harsh or even impolite, but that’s reality I had to deal with every day. Maybe it’s different in the US, but in Germany people just don’t care. Don’t care about what they’re doing, don’t care about viruses, about security, about interoperability, about anything…
People are not interested in OSes because they don’t use the OS, they don’t work with it. Instead, they’re using applications, and these should be the ones they know from work or from their neighbor (who gives them pirated copies of “Office” or “XP”). The basic demand is simple, the applications are available on Linux today, they are easy to use – but nobody knows them. Know “Nero”? Sure. But know KB3 (K3B)? No, never heared of it. The “Explorer”? Of course, I have it at work. But what’s Thunar? What’s a Konkveer (Konqueror)? A Carfine (Kaffein)? Or a Dshearst (YaST)?
Opinions are like a$$holes – everyone has one. You might think your opinion matters, but in reality, it’s an opinion in a sea of voices.
The primary problem is to do with applications – which is why I’ve been mandating for many years now that Microsoft must be forced to not only support OS X users with Microsoft Office, MSN Messenger, Windows Media Player etc, but also support Linux and BSD. The numbers are there. If they want to argue that Linux doesn’t have enough numbers, then why the hell is Microsoft porting code to OS X, which has just as many users as Linux, probably less?
MS Office is the stumbling box to Linux becoming more main stream. Period. Imagine how many businesses would dump Microsoft Windows and run Linux on their corporate desktop if MS Office ran on it. And I don’t mean virtualisation. Once Linux penetrates the business market, it will start to gain ground elsewhere. I’m already seeing more and more people aware of Linux, but many are afraid to move because it means learning a new operating system (always hard), finding new applications (and learning them), or trying to make Windows applications run in a Linux environment.
I guarantee Linux would take off if the above listed applications, and also Photoshop and AutoCad were ported to it. These big software vendors won’t make a move to port until Linux users probably number 25%, and that won’t happen because Microsoft uses it’s illegal monopoly on office suites to force users to continue to have to use Microsofts poor operating system offers.
I have a 2 month install of XP that is already falling apart…and no, I don’t visit any nasty sites, yes I have anti spyware software running, anti virus software running, and no, I don’t click on things willy nilly either. It’s just plain unstable in so many ways. I ONLY use Windows XP because I’m a photographer on the side that uses Photoshop CS2 and also Capture One Pro and Neat Image. None of them either run on Linux under WINE/Cedega/Crossover office, or run very well. Open source equivalents simply do not match the above applications and my needs, imho. As a user, I’m being dictated to as to what operating system I can use and I don’t really like it.
Oh, and it’s dyslexic and I didn’t find that comment very funny. Dyslexia is not a very funny thing for an individual to suffer from, a bit more respect for those unfortunate people wouldn’t hurt you.
Dave
Why don’t you run Windows in VMware Workstation or an equivalent virtualisation solution then? Automatic snapshots in particular are a very useful addition so you can always go back to a previous point in time.
In my own experience it causes a lot less grief both for the user and the admin that way, even when they are both one and the same person.
Windows power users like to tout that their time is a precious resource so the purchase/acquisition of a virtualisation solution would be a good investment from that point of view. No more administration necessary
Yes, I had considered that. I also like to play games, and whilst some of my games play OK with WINE or Cedega, not all do. VMWare’s support of DirectX is sadly lacking, so there goes games. I don’t play the latest and greatest games, my faves are:
StarCraft and Starcraft: Broodwars (plays fine under WINE)
Diablo: known issues, installs, but does not play properly, or save properly [WINE and Cedega]. There are partial work arounds, but they are a pain in the a$$. I would have expected Cedega to get these working, especially since this game was truly massive in its day and was also game of the year 1997 I believe. No excuses.
Diablo II – runs under Cedega, but from memory has (or at least had) some minor issues.
Ultimate Doom (graphics suck these days, but hey, it’s a fun game, and that’s *all* that should matter). Might run under one of the DOS emulators, never tried to be honest.
Aliens VS Predator 1 & 2 – forget it, doesn’t run at all.
Of course, I play modern classics like Morrowind and Oblivion from time to time, which I believe are well supported
I also work from home (and use my home PC in the process), and whilst the main applications I use (excel and a web based application) work OK, they’re definitely not perfect. OpenOffice screws up the format, it’s not good enough for solid usage imho. For the casual user it’s fine. The web based applications for some reason keeps crashing, it’s unstable with firefox, won’t work with konqueror at all. I had to use Nutscrape navigator to get it working, and even then, it was still a tad unstable.
Oh, and my camera, the EOS1D, isn’t supported at all by libgphoto2. Sure, I could use a memory card reader, but that’s a hack. It doesn’t solve the issue that the camera itself, doesn’t communicate with Linux etc. The hardcore Linux users say “that’s not Linux’s problem, it’s Canon’s” or “Canon sucks” – they are technically right, of course. But, you know what, I don’t care. It’s Canon’s product and idiots like that have no right to dictate to Canon what they should be doing. It’s probably why Canon says FU to Linux. Of course, I’ve asked Canon to port drivers/applications to Linux, that’s all I can do. The old saying “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink” really applies here. An end user doesn’t care how something works, as long as it works. Many hardcore Linux users would do well to remember this.
Dual booting isn’t really something I’m interested in – I work on images daily, and with the work from home scenario, I’d be rebooting so often between the 2 operating systems that it would be a massive waste of time and a loss of productivity.
Linux is damn well good, I do personally believe that it’s the best operating system overall (taking into account personal freedoms and total flexibility etc). But – from a users point of view, OS X and Windows beat it, due to the availability of popular applications running natively on that platform with an absolute minimum of issues. This is critical for success, and if Linux can’t get those applications ported across, then it won’t advance any further. In all honesty, I personally believe that Linux has reached critical mass.
If I hadn’t bought Photoshop CS2 for Windows, but instead for Mac, I’d have long ditched Windows for OS X. I’ve only relatively recently acquired an older PowerMac G4 1ghz though, and I’ve had Photoshop for longer. Pity. The older PowerMac lacks RAM/speed anyways, so isn’t a serious unit, just a temporary solution for me (I also use it for work related purposes).
VMWare is good I believe (never really used it), but it is expensive. With Microsoft limiting what you can do with virtualisation with its new operating systems and software, VMWare will lose even more ground over a period of time.
Dave
If, and only if, Linux is offered on an equivalent number of models to Windows, by major manufacturers, out in the open like Macs, and still doesn’t sell, then you can start telling me that Windows is better than Linux. Not before.
Well, you’d have to be able to get Windows for $0 too, to make it fair, right?
But.. why is it (Linux) not offered by major manufacturers, ask yourself please. Because Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, etc. don’t know about Linux? Really?
No conspiracy theories in your answer, please
Dell and HP offer Linux.
Most OEMs are wary of retaliation from Microsoft, however. In the past this was commonplace (offer something else than Windows and you lose your Windows OEM discount…)
This is no conspiracy theory, either, but the reality.
Dell and HP offer Linux.
Yeah right. It is so insignificant that I’d be ashamed to make that argument.
Come on be realistic – when was it last time you saw HP desktop PC preloaded with Linux at, for example, Best Buy or Staples, etc.
Most OEMs are wary of retaliation from Microsoft, however.
Yeah, right.. How come they sell it on servers then? It just not correct. Maybe they were, some 9-10 years ago, but today? Can’t believe that.
Dell seems pretty serious about their latest Linux offering. Also, realize that outside of the US market there is a bit more demand for it. I recently learned that Lenovo *does* sell Linux laptops, but only in China…
I was thinking more of B2B offerings, not B2C.
Because Servers are a totally different beast altogether. The market used to be mostly UNIX, so it’s only logical that there would be demand for Linux. Also, the profit margins are not the same in that market, and OEMs are less vulnerable to MS in that area.
For someone so arrogant, you don’t seem to know your stuff that well.
Nor your grammar.
It’s certainly less severe today than it used to be, but I wouldn’t say it never happens. Anyway, “once bitten, twice shy” says the proverb. Even if MS is less aggressive on that front (which is debatable) that doesn’t mean OEM are not wary of it.
For someone so arrogant, you don’t seem to know your stuff that well.
You know, I could say the same for you.
Have you ever actually lived in one of those countries (where most of the software is pirated)? I did.
Tsk. I’m arrogant, but unlike you I do know my stuff.
Anecdotal evidence is non-scientific. I have no reason to believe that you are trustworthy source, or that your survey methods were sound.
So I gather you don’t actually have sources to back your assertions up?
Troll.
Tsk. I’m arrogant, but unlike you I do know my stuff.
You’re not arrogant, you’re ignorant.
See you can’t even describe yourself properly, that’s how ignorant you are.
Nor your grammar.
Hahaha, that makes you smartass, does it not?
Niiiiiiceee, high five!!
That makes me a smartass, yes. A smartass who knows how to write.
Mods, please mod me down as well as gonzo. This is off-topic.
That makes me a smartass, yes. A smartass who knows how to write.
I never said English is my strong point. Who cares really? Troll like you.
But.. why is it (Linux) not offered by major manufacturers, ask yourself please. Because Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, etc. don’t know about Linux? Really?
Actually, Dell are about to and HP do (the one to large clients, and the other with an obscure version).
Some facts in your replies, please.
Actually, Dell are about to and HP do (the one to large clients, and the other with an obscure version).
As I said already, when I see HP (Gateway, Acer, Lenovo) preloaded with Linux and sold at Staples, BestBuy, etc, then it will make a difference.
Oh please. Are you seriously trying to tell me “the user needs” viruses, spyware, crashes, spam, and handholding to the degree Windows provides them?
No, the user “needs” to be able to get an e-mail from somebody, click on a link and watch the funny video. The user “needs” to put their DVD’s on their video iPod. The user “needs” to use the all-in-one software for their all-in-one printer/fax/scanner/copier. The user “needs” to let their kids play the computer game that came on their box of cereal.
It is nice to dream though.
I’m not trying to troll or anything. I run Gentoo Linux on 3 of my 4 computers and run Gentoox on my xbox. I keep my 4th computer running Windows around when I need to do any of the stuff mentioned above plus I’m sure I missed some.
As far as I know, all of these can be done in Linux (as long as the printer/fax/scanner/copier is a HP or an Epson).
For the game on the cereal box…well, I’d hardly call that a selling point. There’s a reason these games are given out inside cereal boxes (I should say were, because the fad has kind of gone by): they suck. Big time.
Kids today play games on consoles. Gaming is less and less an issue for Linux adoption.
Why did you feel the need to mention this? Either an argument stands on its own, or it doesn’t. Whatever you run (or claim to run – no one can verify if it’s true or not, after all) is irrelevant.
Is Linux for everyone? No. Neither is OS X, for that matter. Yet both are viable alternatives for an increasing number of people. The idea that Linux needs to be a *total* replacement for *everything* Windows does is fallacious. Those whose needs are satisfied by it will use it.
Incidentally, I am noting an increased interest in Linux and OS X around me as people are more and more fed up with viruses, spyware and crashes with Windows. They may not be ready to switch, but they sure ain’t happy about their current situation. That’s a reality you shouldn’t deny.
You can do all of that by running Windows virtualized.
Oh, and the first by running any GUI mailer in Linux.
Oh please. Are you seriously trying to tell me “the user needs” viruses, spyware, crashes, spam, and handholding to the degree Windows provides them?
If, and only if, Linux is offered on an equivalent number of models to Windows, by major manufacturers, out in the open like Macs, and still doesn’t sell, then you can start telling me that Windows is better than Linux. Not before.
Are you telling me if you put one <insert luxury restaurant here> next to every McDonald’s and the latter sells more, they’re a better placer for eating?
Sorry, but a successful product and a good product aren’t the same thing (ok ok, there might be some correlation but that’s not the point).
The market doesn’t reject them. The market hardly knows the existence of these options. Try buying a PC in Denmark with Linux preloaded. It’s not possible, and sale of Linux isn’t advertised nor aimed at ordinary users.
A more active strategy in regard to selling PC’s with Linux/*BSD preloaded has just begun. It’ll take a few years in order for this to seriously take off. OTOH there’s a lot of dual-booting going on. Especially Ubuntu is popular with the younger next-generation power users. You’d be surprised to see how many youngsters are advocating use of Firefox, Gimp, Inkscape etc. – even on Windows.
A few more years and Linux/*BSD will see a surge in installed bases when the youngsters are grown up.
And then curmudgeons like us will complain about environmentalists who steal our profits by writing green source
What is “green source”?
“Curmudgeons”? … heeey I’m not that ancient yet
In Brazil the poeple have access to computers with Linux preinstalled and get selled and guess what? they wipe out Linux and install Windows XP.
Probably with the same cracked CD of XP.
Where are your sources or are you deliberately being a gilipollas?
Probably with the same cracked CD of XP.
And ain’t sad they prefer a pirated version than a free version? I wonder why they don’t like the free version.
Where are your sources or are you deliberately being a gilipollas?
If will give you the sources if you say please.
Please :p
not you, aGNUstic.
So I don’t get to see the evidence? Boohoo, that’s so much like cheating
LOL. I love OSAlert.
The same reason why people use cracked mIRC (Charset? What’s that?) instead free XChat. They don’t know any better and everybody around use it. It’s a FACT.
It amazes me how often THEY tell me that I have wrong encoding… (In Polish ircnet iso-8859-2 is a standard, not cp-1250 /default encoding in Windows, used by mIRC/).
“In Brazil the poeple have access to computers with Linux preinstalled and get selled and guess what? they wipe out Linux and install Windows XP.”
May I ask if these “Windows XP” are pirated copies?
Does it matter?
“Does it matter?”
Not to me, I was just curious. Maybe it says something about moral judgement and development of personality…
And, yes, it does matter to MICROS~1, because they don’t get money; but they get popularity and propagation, this makes them happy, too. Again more people who believe in needing them…
May I ask if these “Windows XP” are pirated copies?
And if those are pirated copies indeed (and we all know they are), then we can say that people rather risk fines and use pirated Windows than free Linux.
Kind of says enough about Linux, does it not?
“And if those are pirated copies indeed (and we all know they are), then we can say that people rather risk fines and use pirated Windows than free Linux.
Kind of says enough about Linux, does it not?”
No, it does not. In fact, it says “enough” (at least a lot) about those people.
Nope, it says a lot about those persons.
Nope, it says a lot about those persons.
Yeah, right.. and it does not say anything about Linux?
)
Face it: people rather steal Windows than use Linux for free.
Come on, they get a computer with Linux.. and then they remove it and put pirated Windows (knowing they steal) — and that says nothing about Linux to you?
No it says nothing about the state of Linux because they are not using Linux.
It does however say a lot about the persons and a lot about Microsoft and it’s pricing of Windows. People will buy a computer without Windows and then pirate Windows rather than paying a tremendous large sum for Windows.
It says something about the vendor lock-in created by Microsoft.
Besides that: Do you have any evidence for your claims about people buying PC’s with Linux pre-installed and then replacing it with pirated Windows? And what kind of people are buying these computers? Persons interested in Linux or persons interested in running Windows without having to pay for it?
Your point is only valid if people are buying PC’s with Linux pre-installed in order to run Linux. That they don’t according to you and therefore your argumentation leads to the opposite conclusion than your own conclusion.
No it says nothing about the state of Linux because they are not using Linux.
Why aren’t they? I mean, if it is as good as Windows, plus it’s free.. ??
Your point is only valid if people are buying PC’s with Linux pre-installed in order to run Linux. T
In other words, people (some 90-95%) buy PCs to run Windows. Well, I guess, we all already knew that.
Edited 2007-04-13 20:59
I don’t see any evidence for your claims.
Don’t you have any evidence?
If we assume your claim is correct – which I doubt very much since you haven’t come up with evidence despite me asking for it – it’s probably because:
1) They don’t know about Linux – they just know the PC is cheaper without Windows
2) They don’t know they can run Windows applications on Linux – quite well in fact – including DirectX games.
3) They haven’t tried Linux and think it is too hard.
4) They are simply not interested in Linux.
It doesn’t say anything about the state of Linux – it only says something about them – and about Microsoft’s licensing policies. They rather use pirated versions of Windows than pay for it.
And I’m still waiting for some documentation for your claims.
Yes, we know that. And it’s completely irrelevant for this debate. Besides I believe nearly 100% of PC’s sold with the intention of running Windows is sold with Windows pre-installed. Of course it could be much lower, but I cannot say for sure without knowing the number of PC’s sold with Windows running pirated or Windows running legally.
Now… time for documentation, please.
And I’m still waiting for some documentation for your claims.
Yeah sure, I’ll show show the document with the thousands of signatures of people who have wipe out Linux and Installed pirated copies of Windows XP, the document is aproved by the lawers and the goverment of Brazil.
Live in denial if you want, fine that’s your problem, but that arrogance is what holds your beloved OS in mediocricy.
Surely somebody has made reports over this. At least with some assumptions and at least some circumstantial evidence.
But basically you say you have no evidence at all for your claims. Nice work :p
I’m not living in denial. I know people are pirating Windows. I also know that GNU/Linux is a very good OS. I’m running Gentoo Linux 2006.1 and Windows 2003 Server on my PC. With Linux as the primary platform (simply less hassle than Windows).
What arrogance? I’m not arrogant. I’m merely asking for evidence for some unsupported claims. You are however arrogant and insulting – on a very personal level. Nice work again
Linux market share is actually rocketing and has increased a lot recent years – even on the Desktop.
The only part so far to claim that Windows users bought PC’s with Linux pre-installed in order to replace it with pirated Windows is.. BIG SURPRISE: Microsoft. And no evidence for Microsoft’s claim – not even circumstantial.
And I’m still waiting for some documentation for your claims.
Claim was not mine originally. I don’t have any “documentation” of that kind, but I can tell you from my experience that in most countries where you still can buy Windows for like $1, people mostly do just that. See, when price is not the factor, Linux does not stand a chance.
Besides I believe nearly 100% of PC’s sold with the intention of running Windows is sold with Windows pre-installed.
According to EU, Windows Server market share is now around 75% of workgroup servers, hence the whole “EE vs Microsoft” thing. How do you explain that?
That has nothing to do with this. People usually don’t run workgroup servers and the companies that do typically don’t use pirated Windows (at least not in EU).
Apart from that the answer is Vendor Lock-In. Closed protocols, incorrectly documented protocols, incorrectly implemented open standards – all leading to Vendor Lock-In. Add to that companies that are afraid of legal issues due to Microsoft FUD and add to that this belief: “Nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft”.
I don’t know of a single place where you can buy Windows legally for $1. And if you can you cannot buy Linux pre-installed.
Where can you legally buy Windows for $1 dollar and which companies in those countries are selling PC’s with Linux pre-installed?
Do you have any data of any kind to back up your claims?
Where can you legally buy Windows for $1 dollar and which companies in those countries are selling PC’s with Linux pre-installed?
You can’t buy it legally Windows for $1, but that is exactly the point. You can easily get it “on the street” for that price and that is what everyone does. People prefer Windows when the price is equal to that of Linux. Even though everyone knows it is illegal.
Well many of those persons doing that don’t even know about the existence of Linux. And no, not everybody does that. You are living in a weird world. In Denmark you can’t buy Windows “on the street” for $1. You can always download it through p2p or get a copy from a friend but that doesn’t qualify as “on the street” (which should be reserver for illegal commercial selling just like drugs).
Fact is most Windows distributions are legal and very few PC’s are sold with Linux pre-installed and there is absolutely no evidence that this is replaced with Windows.
I bought a PC without Windows pre-installed. And what did I do? I installed a legal copy of Windows – and (at that time) Fedora Core 2 (later replaced with LFS and later yet with Gentoo).
People prefer Windows because they don’t know anything about alternatives. With a bit of luck they might have heard about Mac. But don’t expect that. Macs are hard to find.
From my experience I can say I know of several persons who have bought a PC with Windows pre-installed (because they couldn’t do otherwise) and replaced it with Linux downloaded as an ISO-file amd burnt on a CD. And these aren’t even geeks as such.
Well many of those persons doing that don’t even know about the existence of Linux.
Not correct. They do get PCs with Linux, because, for example, $50 (or $100 or $150) for OEM Windows does make a difference for everyone – sellers and buyers. They (sellers) put Linux so that people have stuff like web browser, mp3 player, access to email, etc, etc. However, when that computer arrives home, it is replaced by Windows, usually by a kid that lives next door.
From my experience I can say I know of several persons who have bought a PC with Windows pre-installed (because they couldn’t do otherwise)
Oh, this is such a crap. You can’t buy a PC with no OS? Since when?? It’s like saying you have to fix your car at official dealership’s service shop, etc.
Edited 2007-04-13 23:41
Actually it’s almost impossible thanks to Microsoft. It is virtually impossible due to OEM-deals. Even the PC I bought without a Windows license had the XP installation program on harddisk. I wiped it out and replaced it with a legal Windows 2000 Professional and Fedora Core 2.
You cannot buy a Windows free PC. You can sometimes buy it without a Windows license but only through mail order.
How come $50 dollars is equal to $1 dollar? That’s like 49 dollars more expensive
Besides that it doesn’t conflict with what I say. A PC with Linux pre-installed is cheaper than a PC with Windows pre-installed. Some of those buying it aren’t interested in Linux but merely seeks a cheaper way to get Windows. In this case illegally. Doesn’t say anything about Linux or Windows but merely something about the persons.
And on top of that: Do you have ANY evidence, even circumstantial for your claim? So far I’ve only seen the claim from Microsoft and they only claimed they believed the PC’s were used for illegal Windows.
The number of PC’s sold with Linux pre-installed are virtually zero compared with the number of sold Macs and PC’s with legal Windows.
Your story doesn’t say anything about Linux. It only says something about persons not knowing what Linux is and is capable of and that these persons have no moral standard whatsoever.
You (almost) cannot buy a PC with Linux pre-installed in a normal shop. And in Denmark it is completely impossible.
How come $50 dollars is equal to $1 dollar? That’s like 49 dollars more expensive
EXACTLY!!!
That is why they put Linux.. so that people don’t have to pay for OS. Yet, as I told you, when they get home, they put pirated Windows. A kid next door installs it (Windows) for them. And that usually costs them $1-$5, depending on your supplier :-)))
$1 for Windows and $50 dollars for Linux. They buy the expensive Linux and replace it with inexpensive Windows. Sounds like stupidity to me.
You don’t get Linux for free. Usually the price is around $99-$199 (if Gentoo is pre-installed).
Your story still doesn’t say anything about Linux. It only says something about persons with no moral standard at all. Just like Bill Gates.
$1 for Windows and $50 dollars for Linux.
No, I said $0 for Linux, and $50 (or $100 or $150 – don’t know the exact price of Windows OEM) for Windows OEM.
And nobody wants to pay $xx (50,100 or 150, whichever it is) for Windows OEM when they can have it at home for $1.
You don’t get Linux for free. Usually the price is around $99-$199 (if Gentoo is pre-installed).
You really lost it now.
This is the stupides thing I’ve ever heard in a while and makes perfect end to this conversation.
If you are buying a PC with Linux pre-installed most companies charge $99-$199 for installing and configuring Linux.
$99 for Fedora and $199 for Gentoo. Some companies charge slightly less. I’ve seen one mail-order company chargine $85 for Linspire pre-installed.
Your story still doesn’t prove that there is something bad with Linux. You have only “proved” that some people don’t have a moral standard.
If you are buying a PC with Linux pre-installed most companies charge $99-$199 for installing and configuring Linux.
I don’t give a f*** how much they charge for it. I can charge you $10,000 for installing any OS, if you’re willing to pay.
We were talking about countries where piracy level is high. No, they don’t charge for preinstalling Linux over there.
Would you charge customers for that, if you were the owner of a computer shop where you’re fighting for every single penny – it is so hard to sell a computer over there, because people simply don’t make that much.
If you were buying a computer – why would you pay for any OS when you can get computer home and have ANY OS installed by a kid next door, for $1? (Take into account, that your income is really really low – like $200-300/month, etc. Or much mcuh less in some other countries.)
You really don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t know half of it.
Edited 2007-04-14 00:35
In that case we are talking about persons with low moral standards – perhaps due to the situation in the second world. Says nothing about usability of Linux as you want it to be.
The situation you describe is very special and do not apply to major parts of the world.
PROTIP: The world goes beyond Denmark’s borders.
Ever heard of China? Ever heard of how bad the piracy is there? Now, wouldn’t you call China a major part of the world?
No, China isn’t a major part of the world – it’s a big country, but not a major part of the world. A major part is something like 25% or more of the world. And of course there is something outside Denmark – luckily I might add (love my country, but sometimes it is just too stupid).
But it still doesn’t mean that persons in the second or third world is pirating Windows because Linux is bad.
That’s what people are claiming. Without any evidence btw.
China has what, 2 billion habitants? That’s a major part of the world.
“But it still doesn’t mean that persons in the second or third world is pirating Windows because Linux is bad.”
No such thing as “good” or “bad” software.
More like 1 billion. But I was more thinking in terms of area, but okay. We are thinking population in stead. And no. China is still not a major part of the world. It is a minor part since a major part is strictly speaking more than 50%
We can make a compromise and say China is an important part of the world. That would be reasonable.
More like 1 billion.
China, and India, and most of Africa, most of Russia, North Korea, Brasil and many other South American countries, Pakistan and most Middle East countries, Indonesia.. how much is that, all added up?
But I was more thinking in terms of area, but okay.
LOL This is really funny
)
It’s the people that use computers, you know.
We are thinking population in stead. And no. China is still not a major part of the world. It is a minor part since a major part is strictly speaking more than 50%
Add all those countries and many more and tell me is it not more than 50%? It is. Majority of the world lives in poverty compared to countries like Denmark.
You really are ignorant, sorry to say that again.
Edited 2007-04-14 01:21
Fine. If we add it up it is a lot more than 50%. Agree it ‘s a major part then. But your claims aren’t true for these countries.
Poverty has nothing to do with this. You claim people are ditching Linux because it is of poor quality. That is however incorrect. They are ditching it because they don’t know about Linux and they are locked-in due to illegal Microsoft practices.
You claim people are ditching Linux because it is of poor quality. That is however incorrect.
It is correct. You see, even you can’t get rid of Windows. You need it. Yeah right, you could get rid of it.. hehehe. But you don’t. Is it Bill Gates himself that is forcing you (with a gun) to still have Windows on your hard drive?
Could’ve, Would’ve, Should’ve..
So long, I’ll talk to you again when you dump Windows. Have a nice weekend.
Edited 2007-04-14 01:30
What has this to do with Linux?
You are an idiot and ignorant and complete without any knowledge if you claim Joe Sixpack is ditching a system he doesn’t know because it isn’t good enough.
I have Windows because of Vendor Lock-In. But today it is reduced to one game and one application – which I don’t use particularly. I just don’t want to remove it – yet. Who knows, I might get a customer needing something for Windows. Just like I have some needing software for Linux.
You are extremely arrogant. Just because I don’t want to remove an OS it means to you that it is better than every other OS.
Fact is people don’t know about Linux. People don’t even buy Linux pre-installed when they can, which most people can’t. Those who knows about doesn’t buy it with Linux because they download it for free.
I meant in terms of quality. Good quality and bad quality software. Just like the atomic bomb cannot be bad or good since it is merely a thing so can software not be a bad thing or good thing.
Only the usage of things can be bad or good.
I think we agree in that regard?
And of course there is something outside Denmark – luckily I might add (love my country, but sometimes it is just too stupid).
Winning the Euro Cup in 1992 makes Denmark look good, don’t worry. We all still remember Laudrup brothers.
But your crap about Windows, Microsoft and Linux is just that – crap.
Yes, we all remember the Laudrup brothers, though only Brian (the younger brother of 2nd generation) played in EC92.
I haven’t written any crap about Windows, Linux and Microsoft. You are the one to claim that everybody knows Linux intimately and have decided against using it because it is bad quality.
In that case we are talking about persons with low moral standards – perhaps due to the situation in the second world. Says nothing about usability of Linux as you want it to be.
Yeah right. Why don’t they use Linux then? You think they would not rather use Linux, free of any troubles related to piracy, free of any charge?
The situation you describe is very special and do not apply to major parts of the world.
Major parts of the world? What world do you live in pal? You think rich countries make major part of the world?
In countries like Denmark, USA, etc.. people pay for Windows, mostly. That makes Linux look even worse – people rather pay for Windows (or Mac) that use Linux for free.
They don’t know about Linux. It is that simple. And they are locked-in through illegal practices from Microsoft – especially in the 1990’es.
In terms of IT the first world is the major part yes. In terms of finances the first world is the major part.
But it still doesn’t matter because you haven’t proved that people are ditching Linux due to poor quality as you want us to believe.
No. There is a lot of piracy. Personally I can get it for free through MSDN AA, but I’m a geek bt all standards
People are choosing Windows because they don’t know about alternatives. It’s that simple. However, the younger generations (teenagers) are quite different. They know Linux and are using it – often instead of Windows. And they are not particularly geeky. They are just young boys and girls in control of the technology.
Mac market share is equal to Linux market share so in that regard you prove nothing. Except that Mac OS X is just as poor in technological sense as Linux is.
People will rather buy Windows than Mac OS X. According to your logic it proves Mac OS X sucks. Market share doesn’t lie you say.
People are choosing Windows because they don’t know about alternatives. It’s that simple.
Well, I’m sure most of them know about Macs, no? But assuming you were referring to Linux and the BSDs, let’s follow this logic to its conclusion …
You say the reason why people use Windows instead of Linux is because people don’t know about Linux, which I guess means that if you were to stick Linux in front of the masses tomorrow, every single one of them would fall in love and switch.
But what about those of us who have tried Linux and decided not to switch? I’d be willing to bet you would say either it is because we’re stupid, or we just tried the wrong distro.
Well, I’m sure most of them don’t know about Mac. Some have heard about it – but mostly outdated information. Most people think their OS is Microsoft and the web is Internet Explorer.
People wouldn’t switch just because you gave them Linux. They’d throw it away unless you gave them a thorough understanding of it. Made them comfortable with the change. And even then they might like something else. And that’s fine for me. I’d like to see people use what they believe is best after competent consideration. Whatever OS they choose.
No. If you don’t like Linux that’s fine. Doesn’t prove you are an idiot. It just proves you don’t like it. It doesn’t mean Linux is superior nor inferior. It proves nothing but your personal preference.
It is possible it was a “wrong” distribution (I’d say that if it was Fedora you tried – that’s a bad choice IMHO). Could also be it was the right distribution and you just didn’t like it. Could also be you are an idiot, but we cannot conclude that on basis of your personal preferences.
What is stupid is to choose one thing over another without adequate consideration. But since I don’t know how you made your choice I cannot conclude anything.
I know I said I wouldn’t, but I have to.. just this last one
It proves nothing but your personal preference.
No.
The fact that you can’t run Visual Studio on Linux is not your personal preference.
The fact that you can’t run all those games on Linux is not your personal preference.
Then, AutoCAD, Photoshop, SQL Server, etc, etc. (And no, GIMP is not Photoshop, etc).
Duh…
If it was all just personal preference, nobody would want to pay for Windows. We’re not all crazy (or unaware of Linux, etc).
Edited 2007-04-14 02:34
Eeehh…?
I’m too tired to figure out how your post is relevant to my reply.
. o O ( need… coff… ee… :p )
I never claimed having to run an OS was a matter of preference.
What I replied was that liking or disliking an OS was a matter of preference.
Having to run an OS is a matter of need, and a completely different issue.
It is possible to run Photoshop, AutoCAD (great app btw. – have used it since version 9), Quake (I-IV), Doom, Wolfenstein 3D and so on on linux. Some through Wine, other games and applications can run natively.
Having to use an OS only says something about need (being forced by external circumstances) and nothing about quality of alternatives.
All of those games and applications could tecnically run on Linux. It is not lack of quality in Linux that makes these applications and games Windows-only, but deliberate choices by the companies.
Most people don’t run SQL Server btw.
(and I prefer postgreSQL any day – but that’s a personal preference).
Gimp is clearly not Photoshop. CMYK anyone?
– Gimp is however good as long as you don’t need CMYK. That’s a problem when you are working in the graphic industry (which is primarily Mac-oriented).
Completely irrelevant in regard to my reply, but whatever. Not wanting to pay for Windows has nothing to do with whether you like Windows or not. Besides that people who prefer Windows probably don’t mind paying for it. I like Beatles and I don’t mind paying for their music. Preferably on vinyl (personal preference). Most people would probably want to get things for free but since they can’t they prefer to pay for what they want rather than paying for something they don’t want.
If it was all about personal preference there wouldn’t be three major OS’es but rather 5 or 6 or 15.
However! I did not claim that running an OS was all about personal preference. It is clearly not. What I wrote was that “liking” an OS was all about personal preferences. “Having to use” is not the same as “prefering to use”. And doesn’t say anything about quality.
No of course it isn’t possible to run Visual Studio on Linux because it is a Microsoft product. Microsoft is notorious for making all of its own software depend on (parts of) its own operating system even if it is not necessary.
What is worse is that many third parties do the same thing e.g. depend on IE services even if a custom HTML component (Gecko/KHTML/Webcore) would do just as well. I think this kind of behaviour is inexcusable and also makes it a lot harder to port your application to another platform.
SQL Server is not much different from the original Sybase
and if I remember there is AutoCAD and Photoshop for other platforms.
I’d much rather run any of them in HP-UX/IRIX/Solaris under emulation than in Windows. Nowadays you can just run the Windows versions of them either via WINE or a virtualisation solution if necessary.
So you are right it is the applications that matter. Nobody cares about the OS in and of itself. But when comparing just the bare OSes Windows isn’t in the same league as GNU/Linux.
So you are right it is the applications that matter. Nobody cares about the OS in and of itself.
Agreed.
But when comparing just the bare OSes Windows isn’t in the same league as GNU/Linux.
Don’t know what is that supposed to mean? OS itself is good for what? You just said nobody cares about OS in and of itself.
Or are you trying to compare kernels? Well, I would bet my money on Dave Cutler et al any day versus Linus and friends.
And what exactly are you missing in Windows these days? Bear in mind that Windows (especially Vista or forthcoming 2007 Server) is much improved and different from, for example, Windows NT 4. In my experience, most of people are completely unaware of what Windows offers. They think it’s just a bit better Windows 9x. So wrong.
Just look at those statistics from EU comission: Windows is now at 75% of workgroup server market share, up from 35% in 1999. In just 8 years they doubled their presence. And don’t forget – you have to pay for Windows Server (and for client access licences), yet..
And you can’t really say that people that buy those servers are unaware of alternatives.
..and this guy, SJVN, is telling us Windows needs to be saved from Microsoft? Is that not a joke, really?
Edited 2007-04-14 17:11
A typical end user wouldn’t care. But since I am not I do care about the quality of the system itself even without extra applications. My Slackware based setups have always since their release been a lot more stable than any Windows version from 9x through 2000 and XP.
Windows 2000 SP4, Windows XP SP2 and Windows 2003 SP1/SP2 make each of them more stable than initial releases. But it took a few years for each of them to reach that state.
And that made me abandon all of them years ago with the exception of the possibility of running them in virtual machines but I hardly ever do. That’s the problem with Windows. As soon as a certain release becomes stable it is being EOL’ed.
Although the Linux kernel is pretty stable in my opinion (at least when unpatched!) I don’t regard it as the ultimate in kernel engineering. SunOS 5 is arguably a better kernel and also microkernels such as L4 and Minix tout higher reliability and better engineering.
Any quality Cutler’s design may have had when he initially wrote it has been diluted by any Microsoft engineering that cut corners or compromised the NT design e.g. putting the graphics into the kernel.
And it is said Cutler is not so much of a good implementer but more of a good designer. Current OpenVMS implementers were very happy when the last Cutler-written code was finally removed from it.
Edited 2007-04-14 18:54
Sorry for jumping into your hot headed discussion. You ask about documentation all the time and yet you failed to give any your self. But you do post a lot of things that would need documentation…
“They don’t know about Linux. It is that simple. And they are locked-in through illegal practices from Microsoft – especially in the 1990’es.”
Please do give some documentation for this.
Which part?
!) Not knowing about linux?
2) Lock-in effect?
3) Or Illegal practices (which may be legal in semi-communist state capitalist systems)?
They are easy to document, so I don’t care if it’s all 3 of them.
!) But if it’s so good as people say why don’t the people that uses it spread the word about it..?
2) Every time someone mentions Open Office you’ll allways see a shitload of posts saying that it’s better at opening MS formats then their own offerings. So it cant be that your calling a lock in.
3) This one i don’t need any info on. I havent been living under a rock for the last decade.
I think you misunderstood that post. I was merely asking for which part you wanted documentation
1) They do. Quite evident from the number of Linux and *BSD users. 6 billion people in the world and Linux alone has around 30 million users. If all have spoken about linux this would be 300 million had heard some sort of rumour about linux. A large group, none-the-less a minor part of the world (around 1/18th of the world population). You are overestimating the number of geeks
2) Care for proving your claim. I have never heard that OpenOffice is better at opening MS documents than MS Office. I’ve heard that OpenOffice is better at opening simple MS-documents. But put in a lot of VB-script in a an Excel document and it won’t open. Besides that it is irrelevant. There is also the abuse of the Kerberos protocol, MS strategy of EEE (Embrance, extend, extinguish) – especially in regard to networks and distributed systems.
3) You would have information, if you haven’t lived under a rock for the last 2 decades
– just follow the link.
1) Could it be that i’m not overestimating the number of geeks. Some of us have tried linux and wouldn’t recommend it.
2) You only need to look at the usual threads here on osnews to get my claim proven for you.
3) Hence why i said i did’nt need any info on it…
1) That’s always a possibility. It also depends on when a person is geek. I know there are geeks who have tried Linux and wouldn’t recommend it. I’ve stated that before. It’s called personal preference, when it’s about what one likes or dislikes
2) I have seen those threads and none of them contain anything like what you claim. These posts merely claim that OO.o often have better backwardscompatibility with older Office versions than Office itself does. And only in regard to simpler documents and not the complex documents. At the very least backup your claim to posts that claim OO.o handles complex MS Office documents better than MS Office. Especially Excel documents containing VB scripts.
3) Since you don’t know about MS behaving illegally you must have been living under a rock. I even posted a link to evidence for my claim. But that you have decided not to reply to.
1) Well here we agree it seems. No need to continue on that then
2) Guess we don’t read the same threads then or i understand it in another way then you do. I cant claim to have a lot of experience with OO but i do know that i’m not one of those who make it necessary for others to run MS Office either. Every thing i send to someone is in .pdf. To be sure that people can read it.
3) You could atleast pretend to read what i’m writing… Do you know what “I don’t need that info” is all about?
1) aye aye
2) Different interpretion is always a possibility. I also like .pdf but .rtf or .txt is also good if one don’t need fancy stuff or if it needs to be easily modifiable. Sometimes I use .doc or .odt depending on the who I’m sending to.
3) It is more (most) likely that I don’t grok what you were trying to say
Take a look at this one:
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=17692&comment_id=230931
It has the evidence you are asking for. Or at least what I think you are asking for.
Lock-In:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in#Microsoft
According to an internal memo in Microsoft to Bill Gates Microsoft created a Vendor Lock-In through close tying between applications and underlying OS. And that in an illegal way. So far court cases have resulted in settlements rather than Court Rulings so there is not court ruling explicitly stating this. The law is however quite clear, and no doubt the reason for Microsofts strategy of entering settlements rather than wait for a Court Ruling.
In regard to people not knowing about Linux I can say so much that it is not advertised for Joe Sixpack anywhere and you cannot find it on the shelf. Among people actually knowing about Linux (not just heard the term) there is a large user group – or at least that’s how it appears. But the lack of advertising aimed at Joe Sixpack is probably a major reason for relatively small (5%) Linux market share on the Desktop.
and replaced it with Linux downloaded as an ISO-file amd burnt on a CD. And these aren’t even geeks as such.
Yes, they are. Anyone that knows how to download and burn an ISO image to install OS is a geek. Or very very close to that.
And by the way, when they do that, they do not replace Windows with Linux. They install it side by side with Windows – they keep both.
Oh no. You are not a geek if you know how to download an ISO-file and burn it to CD. Not even close. You are at best a power user, but nothing more. A geek is somebody who can fix a bug in GCC, writes his own HTML-editor, or in some other way can code to fix his/her own problems.
Yes, we dual boot. But that doesn’t mean Linux is bad and Windows is good. Not anymore than it means Windows is bad and Linux is good. Besides that Power Users and Geeks are much more aware of technology than ordinary users are. The fact I have Syllable, SkyOS, Haiku, Windows and Gentoo Linux doesn’t mean they are all equally good. The primary system is Linux and Windows is used only for Counter Strike and Visual Studio 2005.
All other programming, playing and multimedia happens on Linux.
You are at best a power user, but nothing more.
Ok, what difference does it make? None. You’re still more than a regular Joe Sixpack.
Yes, we dual boot.
Why? Get rid of Windows then, I dare you to do that.
I know a lot of people that use Windows only on their computers. I know a few people that have Windows + Linux on their PC. I know a few people that have Mac + Windows on their PC. I don’t know a single person that runs Linux only. Not even you
The fact I have Syllable, SkyOS, Haiku, Windows and Gentoo Linux doesn’t mean they are all equally good.
You really have them all?
Enough said.
Enjoy all your system (are belong to us).
Yes. But that doesn’t make them geeks. Joe Sixpack may be pirating Windows and buying Linux-PC’s through mail order and replaced it with illegal Windows. But that still doesn’t say anything about Linux. It only says something about Joe Sixpack.
Why would I do that? I already have explained what I use Windows for. I use Windows for Counter Strike and Visual Studio 2005.
Yes. I’m a geek
– and I’m proud of it (say it with irish accent – sounds so much better :p )
Why would I do that? I already have explained what I use Windows for. I use Windows for Counter Strike and Visual Studio 2005.
Everyone has excuse like that: games ONLY, Visual Studio ONLY, MS Office ONLY, AutoCAD ONLY or Photoshop ONLY.. etc. Enough to make Windows a must-have OS. And then, who cares about Linux, really?
Why should people only have ONE Operating System installed?
What is wrong with several Operating Systems installed!?
Windows is not really a must-have for me. I only have VS2005 installed because i’m a senior student in Computer Science. I also have eclipse installed and Borland Delphi and Lazarus. And monodevelop. And sharpdevelop.
Counter Strike can be run in Wine.
I care about Linux. The fact you just want to appear like a stupid jerk and astroturfer doesn’t mean anything except your lack of moral standards (that’s why you are pirating Windows and selling it for $1-$5).
Windows is not a must-have. I don’t have to have it. I don’t use it particularly. I’ve used it for less than 30 minutes this month. Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP are however must-haves for me.
(that’s why you are pirating Windows and selling it for $1-$5).
I don’t have to. I make more than enough to buy it. Just like other tools that I need.
Windows is not a must-have. I don’t have to have it. I don’t use it particularly. I’ve used it for less than 30 minutes this month. Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP are however must-haves for me.
Yeah, but it was you who said you have Windows and you use it for CS and Visual Studio. Now, you’re dancing sir
Now, you’re like … “I don’t really need it.. except for my classes 
Well.. get rid of it then if you don’t need it.
It only says something about persons with no moral standard at all.
Since all Linux is, basically, rewritten Unix, offered for free, please stop talking about moral standards. They copied every single idea from Unix, yet they call it “GNU” (GNU’s Not UNIX.. really?
. How moral is that? Not saying MS is better, but I didn’t call them names either.
Just like Bill Gates.
The guy that also runs one of the biggest charities in the world?
The guy takes from rich and gives to poor. That is not good moral standard? What is then?
WTF!?!? Who are you to decide what I’m going to do!?!? What I do or don’t do is none of your business.
Linux is something I need. Because it is IMHO better than Windows. And because my business depends on it. Windows is pretty much irrelevant for me. Technologically it has no edge over Windows. It only survives on Vendor Lock-In through illegal behaviour from Microsoft.
Just like I use Skyos, Syllable and Haiku for fun I also use Windows for fun. And OS/2 (eComstation) and whatnot. My PC, my life, my decision.
There is nothing unethical about utilizing ideas from other systems. You cannot steal ideas. You can – depending on the country steal implementations of ideas. But it still isn’t unethical. The only unethical thing is to claim ownership of an idea.
Bill Gates are not running the biggest or one of the biggest charities in this world. What he is giving is pennies comparing his fortune. And add to that it stems from illegal behaviour. Like worshipping Al Capone.
Bill Gates takes from the poor and gives to himself, and lets a little trickle back to persons turning them into Windows addicts. Sounds like communism to me, pal.
Bill Gates takes from the poor and gives to himself, and lets a little trickle back to persons turning them into Windows addicts. Sounds like communism to me, pal.
That is not correct. Poor people do not pay for Windows. They use pirated copy, as I already explained to you.
You think Gates made all that fortune by selling Windows/Office, etc, in third-world countries?
No, not really. Rich people pay for Windows.
And Gates is basically now helping poor people though his charity.
So because people in the third world pirates windows this means Linux is a bad OS?
Nice logic…
So because people in the third world pirates windows this means Linux is a bad OS?
It proves that when Windows and Linux are priced equally, people prefer Windows. Even though they know it is illegal what they’re doing.
In developed countries, people still choose Windows over Linux. Even though Windows is priced much more than Linux.
Nice logic…
Undeniable logic. Market share proves it is correct.
Edited 2007-04-14 01:05
It still doesn’t say anything about Linux. It just proves that people don’t know about Linux.
Yes, because people:
1) Don’t have a moral standard
2) Don’t know about Linux
3) are locked-in by illegal practices of Microsoft.
It still doesn’t say anything about the quality of Linux.
Market share has nothing to do with quality. People prefer Windows because they don’t understand the technology and don’t know about alternatives. That’s why almost 100% of PC’s are sold with Windows. Most people don’t even know it is called Windows. They just want Microsoft running on the PC.
Now, my father which isn’t a PC-geek by any standard is running Gentoo on his machine – solely. Nothing but Gentoo. There is no Windows.
Now, my father which isn’t a PC-geek by any standard is running Gentoo on his machine – solely. Nothing but Gentoo. There is no Windows.
All of China is not good enough for you, but one single person – your father – should be representative sample for the world?
))
Like father, like son; may I add. Nothing really surprising here then
No, it is not representive for the world. It is just a prove that not “everybody” needs Windows. And not only geeks are running Linux. Also some Joe Sixpack’s are running Linux.
LOL. You don’t know him so call him what you want. Just proves you are evil, demented and completely indecent.
You haven’t proved a single of your many sick lies. No documentation as is the usual behaviour of Microsoft-shills.
“You are living in a weird world. In Denmark you can’t buy Windows “on the street” for $1.”
Hi. Denmark is a developed country. Things are different here in the third world. I’m not proud of it, but that’s how things are. Here in my city I can literally buy Windows on the street, meaning every corner I can find someone with a small display selling Windows, Playstation 1 and 2 games (LOL what is a Playstation 3?) and movies. It will cost me more than $1 though. Probably 5 USD (R$ 10,00).
You’re right about Linux though, the masses don’t know it.
Macs are out of question, only for the eccentric people in upper middle class.
Also, most of the time, we buy OS-less computers.
In b4 racism and nordic black metal.
Edited 2007-04-13 23:56
What is an original copy? Never heard of it here in Brazil…
Maybe you should go out more then.
A bit touchy aren’t we?
Anyway, you can’t deny that piracy is out of control here in Brazil.
“What is an original copy? Never heard of it here in Brazil.”
I cannot remember to have used such a term, because it’s completely nonsense… an original copy… A copy is a copy, not an original. I was just curious if the wiped off Linusi would be replaced with licensed copies (which is the opposite of a pirated copy).
Come on, don’t ruin the joke…
Well, to answer your actual question, very few home users buy legal copies of Windows here.
Sources please, otherwise it’s only FUD.
–Fixed for spelling and grammar.
You are assuming that:
1.) The market works and does this.
2.) The market has had enough time to do it.
I’ll let you have number one since so many people agree with it, but I’d like to see evidence for number two.
And how much time do you think the market needs?
“To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD’s is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there.”
If you’re working long enough in the field of data processing and information technology, you’ll soon recognize this law:
The worst solution always prevails.
(In German: Das schlechteste setzt sich durch.)
You can easily figure out the implications of this law.
Furthermore, I’d pay attention to use all-quantified statements including “everyone”. Give one contra-example and the claim is proved to be untrue. Applied simple logic.
Heh. I think it needs to be amended to “the worst adequate solution always prevails”. Any more releases like Vista and Microsoft are in serious danger of becoming an inadequate solution – witness the complete lack of apps targeted to Vista, for example.
Either that, or the increasing popularity of Linux and Mac shows that they are the worst solution: I can live with that!
“Heh. I think it needs to be amended to “the worst adequate solution always prevails”. “
Take the example of media sizes: disks: 8″, 5.25″, 3.5″ (decreasing), CDs: 5.25″ again. Alternative: MD (mini discs), safe handling because of cartridge. Did not prevail.
Take the example of the PDs (as the “mother” of DVD-RAMS), coming in a cartridge, hard to destroy data, reliable. Did not prevail.
Take the examples of video tape recorders with automatic indexing and archiving function. Did not prevail.
You can surely get more examples of solutions that were good in fact, but did not make it to the customer because of bad marketing or stupid pricing. On the other hand, you can get examples of crap that made it to the customer for years because of good marketing.
“Any more releases like Vista and Microsoft are in serious danger of becoming an inadequate solution – witness the complete lack of apps targeted to Vista, for example.”
It still is to new, I think. Developers would have to spend money again to get a development environment to create “Vista” binaries.
“Either that, or the increasing popularity of Linux and Mac shows that they are the worst solution: I can live with that!”
Oh come on, where’s the good and fine oh joy “market share” statement? Neither Mac nor Linux have one!
But I fear, if Linux is getting more and more like some strange MICROS~1 product, it really might get worse… let’s see how this tendency develops.
I for myself can always live with the result because I’m not using any MICROS~1 product, any Mac or any Linux (last two ones just for my individual entertainment).
Linux is not getting worse at all. There might be some distributions such as Ubuntu that attract Windows people but thankfully there are still distributions like Slackware, Debian, Arch and Gentoo.
And there is always BSD and Solaris too
“Linux is not getting worse at all.”
Maybe “worse” was not a good description of what I’d like to mention. Let me say it more verbose: While some aspects of security and ease of use are getting better, other ones are fading. You might consider them not neccessary anymore, obsoleted or unusual, but some of them are intended. In many cases, Linux is far ahead in comparison to its competitors. The mentioned loss of aspects of security and ease of use is one means of making Linux more user friendly, I think.
“There might be some distributions such as Ubuntu that attract Windows people but thankfully there are still distributions like Slackware, Debian, Arch and Gentoo.”
Distributions that look (and maybe feel) like “Windows” are Linux’s chance to get more usage share (and therefore, maybe oh joy oh market share), that’s why I welcome them. They have a certrain group of (potential) users they’re targeting at, but I’m convinced there’s not “the one Linux of choice”. The different distributions may have their advantages and disadvantages, so one has to look and even try which distribution fits best.
“And there is always BSD and Solaris too :-)”
I’m aware of this fact for years now and I am happy to still have the choice what OS to use.
Is that a reference to BetaMax? Again, single supplier/higher cost.
True – but then that was also true of DOS, Windows, Win95, WinXP… I don’t recall any of those suffering from a dearth of apps at the time of launch, with the possible exception of Windows 3.0.
Tell that to the people that use the latter in servers…someone also on this site I think made the point that in some areas, Mac marketshare is really very high.
I too used to fear that. In fact DIY distros like Debian and Arch seem to be doing just fine.
Oh come on, where’s the good and fine oh joy “market share” statement? Neither Mac nor Linux have one!
Tell that to the people that use the latter in servers…
1. MacOS costs money and you need new computer to run it (legally). And people want Apple hardware too.
2. Linux is free and runs on your existing PC.
Linux then should have much larger market share than Mac. It does not. Why? Because it is crap.
I bet if MacOS was available for $0 and Apple made it legal to run it on any PC, it would have much much higher market share than Linux, it is kind of obvious. Heck, I’d get it too, just for fun.
Edited 2007-04-14 17:19
Hmm, let’s see. 25% of market share on servers and 5% on desktops (Linux) versus 5% on desktops. When I went to school 30% was 6 times higher than 5%. Perhaps if you went to school you should get a refund?
And if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a wagon. Besides, I doubt it would unless they open-sourced Aqua, which is another thing that isn’t going to happen until hell freezes over (again).
Obviously, then, you enjoy being shafted by proprietary companies. I for one do not share your sexual appetites.
Methinks you doth protest too much. Or just confuse Linux with what you come out with here.
Hmm, let’s see. 25% of market share on servers and 5% on desktops (Linux) versus 5% on desktops. When I went to school 30% was 6 times higher than 5%.
Why are you mixing desktop and server market share numbers? Obviously, you’re desperate. No, MacOS is not popular choice as server given that there are already Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc.
Perhaps if you went to school you should get a refund?
Where I went to school, they told us $0 (Linux) is less than $xxx (MacOS). You seem to forget that. Maybe you should go to school again.
Why are you mixing desktop and server market share numbers? Obviously, you’re desperate.
You didn’t say “desktop market share” or “server market share”, you said “market share”. Thus it’s perfectly legitimate to point out that despite your contention, Linux marketshare is higher than MacOS.
Where I went to school, they told us $0 (Linux) is less than $xxx (MacOS). You seem to forget that. Maybe you should go to school again.
Yes, and MacOS is exhibited on computers which can be bought at a lot of high-street stores; Linux is not.
Not that any of this matters to you, of course. You’ve made it quite plain that there’s no point in trying to change your mind, should you ever wish to acquire one.
Oh, let’s not forget, you said:
Sonny, Linux is more popular on servers than anything else.
And I wrote:
Well, I’m sure Microsoft would like to use that argument in EU. Alas, they can’t.
..
The Commission said Microsoft had a 35 percent 40 percent share of the workgroup server market in 1999 when the EU executive began its investigation. Between 2001 and 2003 that grew to 60 percent, and now Microsoft has 70 to 75 percent of the market.
Feel free to ignore the facts, again.
Edited 2007-04-14 17:43
Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house. I asked you for sources to back up one of your earlier claims and you chickened out, changing the subjects and indulging in ad hominem attacks.
MS sure isn’t getting their money’s worth with you…
Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house. I asked you for sources to back up one of your earlier claims and you chickened out, changing the subjects and indulging in ad hominem attacks.
Which one?
If you’re talking about the fact that people in less developed countries replace Linux with pirated Windows, then here are some numbers for you.
For example:
The countries with the highest piracy rates were Vietnam (90 percent), Zimbabwe (90 percent), Indonesia (87 percent), China (86 percent), and Pakistan (86 percent).
or..
In Central/Eastern Europe, the piracy rate declined in 15 of the 18 countries included in this year’s study. Notably, Ukraine dropped six points to 85 percent during the past year.
Hahah, piracy in Ukraine (that’s around 50M people country) dropped to 85%
http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/3042
What are they pirating? Well, it sure ain’t Linux and other free software
Believe me, I know well – I lived in one of those countries for a long time.
Some irrelevant numbers, you mean.
Piracy rates have nothing to do with the percentage of Linux installs that are wiped off and replaced with Windows. That’s nothing more than conjecture on your part.
BTW, the most pirated software are apps like MS Office and Photoshop, as well as games. Actual OSes…sure, when there’s a new version coming out, some people will replace their existing Windows install with it, but that tells us *nothing* about computers pre-installed with Linux.
Also, the fact that you lived in one of those countries for a long time doesn’t prove anything either. Read what I wrote about anecdotal evidence earlier. Personal experience does not provide a sufficiently large sample to be representative.
Give me some numbers showing the proportion of people who buy Linux computers to wipe them and install Windows instead, and then we’ll talk. Otherwise your numbers are nothing more than a meaningless distraction.
BTW, the most pirated software are apps like MS Office and Photoshop, as well as games.
And those apps and games run on Linux?
Yes, I think piracy rate is good indication of that thing we were talking about. But, I’ve already told you – I know it well from my own experience, you can believe it or not.
I think you’re simply avoiding to see the facts.
Again, that’s irrelevant to the original assertion you made, i.e. that people who bought Linux pre-installed wiped it to replace it with Windows.
I’m not saying this does or doesn’t happen. I’m sure it happens to a degree, but until I see some hard numbers I’m not going to make assumptions about it. You, on the other hand, were quite categorical, and so I asked you if you had any numbers. You didn’t. Instead, you presented a half-assed argument that, because piracy is rampant in those countries, then it follows most Linux installs would be wiped to install Windows instead. I argue that you simply can’t make a blanket statement like that without more evidence, but you’ve chosen to ignore that blatant hole in your argument.
It’s not. The link between the two is based on conjecture.
BTW piracy is rampant *everywhere*, only in the US people don’t buy pirated software from street vendors, they get it from friends or from bittorrent.
And I’ve already told you, personal experience is irrelevant because the sample size is too small to be statistically valid. Stop trying to use it as an argument, you’re only highlighting the fact that you *don’t* have any numbers to support your assertion.
You haven’t presented me with any facts that supported your initial claim. When you do, we’ll see.
Since you obviously think I’m as stupid and deceitful as you, let me spell it out for you.
When I wrote that sentence, it might well have been more advisable to say “….popular ON servers…”, because the gist of the sentence was that servers are the most popular environment for Linux, not that Linux is the most popular environment for servers.
Geez, you can’t even catch me out when I’m half asleep. You’d think you’d give up, but then trolling astroturfers never do.
Yeah right
You know, now that you don’t have a single fact to support your crap, now you’re becoming ridiculous.
The End.
Well, that argument will convince anyone. Braindead.
“3.5” floppies prevaileds.”
I didn’t claim they did not prevail. Now, they are obsoleted; USB storage sticks or SD cards have taken over their function.
“MD’s didn’t prevail because (a) they weren’t enough of an incentive over CD’s to switch (most MD’s sold, I think, were used for home recording rather than off-the-shelf music) (b) they were single-supplier aka proprietary (c) because of (b) they wree expensive.”
(a) up to (d) are the results of bad marketing, I think. In aspects of handling security and usability they were superior to the CD.
“Again, they were more expensive than CDs and less cumbersome.”
Expensive, yes, see reasons above. Cumbersome, no, they could be accessed directly (direct access storage device) via standard SCSI or ATA commands and could hold any file system needed (FFS, EXT2, even DOS) or no file system at all (tar).
“Is that a reference to BetaMax? Again, single supplier/higher cost.”
No, I didn’t talk about BetaMax, I saw this feature on a VHS video tape recorder. Single supplier, yes, closed standards… but a useful feature, don’t you think?
“True – but then that was also true of DOS, Windows, Win95, WinXP… I don’t recall any of those suffering from a dearth of apps at the time of launch, with the possible exception of Windows 3.0.”
This tells a lot about the OS. And I agree, DOS programs could only be run until “Windows ME”, I think…?
“Tell that to the people that use the latter in servers…someone also on this site I think made the point that in some areas, Mac marketshare is really very high.”
Have you notices “:-)”? It indicates a humous statement. Of course Linux and MacOS have noteable market shares, but in most cases if someone suggests using Linux or MacOS, some MICROS~1 guy comes along and shouts out there’s no market share.
MacOS and Linux are still present in niche markets only. The reality shows that this state is changing, and I welcome this development.
I like to introduce the difference between market share and usage share. The first one is connected to money, the second one is not.
“I too used to fear that. In fact DIY distros like Debian and Arch seem to be doing just fine.”
What does “DIY” mean? In fact, I like Archlinux and Slackware a lot, but I prefer BSD.
OK, let me state my point again, since you seem to have missed it: All the products you quoted failed because they were proprietary and/or too expensive, without offering significant enough benefits over the entrenched ones. The fact that 3.5″ floppies (as well as 5.25″ ones) are now obsoleted by USB sticks is irrelevant, since USB sticks weren’t around when the technologies you quoted were.
“OK, let me state my point again, since you seem to have missed it: All the products you quoted failed because they were proprietary and/or too expensive, […]”
Iagreed to this point and added the poor marketing of the manufacturer. Open specifications, good pricing and better marketing would have lead these products to a higher usage share, I think.
I’d like to add that in professional settings pricing does not count very much, especially when it’s up to security and reliability. Would you trust a backup on a CD? I would not. Therefore, “obsoleted” and “old” tape drives are used in such settings for backup purposes.
“[…] without offering significant enough benefits over the entrenched ones.”
This is correct concerning the home market. Here, long life products are not intended, furthermore, data processing equipment is outdated very fast and gets replaced quickly (gamers’ equipment: very fast).
The benefits are obvious, but the home customer was not interested in them, I think.
BTW, do you still know what CDi was?
“The fact that 3.5″ floppies (as well as 5.25″ ones) are now obsoleted by USB sticks is irrelevant, since USB sticks weren’t around when the technologies you quoted were.”
Maybe, that was a bad example, or an example for another circumstance called evolution.
But today, SD, Mini-SD and CF are around, and I think SD will prevail, I’m not quite sure what’s bad about it.
“””
I’m going to steal that comment somebody made just today, because it’s so good: To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD’s is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there.
“””
An oldie but a goodie. If Operating Systems Were Soup:
http://tinyurl.com/37zz8u
Edited 2007-04-13 18:33
Hahah! Thankyou, that was hilarious (yes, even the bit about Linux!) 8D. Beats a Youtube Microsoft video any time!
Linux? Solaris? MacOS X?
I’m going to steal that comment somebody made just today, because it’s so good: To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD’s is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there.
Don’t forget that both Linux and Solaris are free. Windows is not, it is far from that.
One word: Preloading. I thought SJVN’s article was the mark of an ignoramus, but Jeeze.
Even on servers? People that buy servers don’t know about alternatives?
Companies that sell desktop PCs, don’t know about Linux? They don’t know they could preload it?
Yeah, I agree: Jeeze.
It’s effectively “free” with a new computer.
One word: Preloading. I thought SJVN’s article was the mark of an ignoramus, but Jeeze.
Even on servers? People that buy servers don’t know about alternatives? [/q]
Sonny, Linux is more popular on servers than anything else. In fact the growth rate of Linux on servers is higher than that of Windows.
I mean that customers don’t know about Linux because companies don’t preload it. When you have to completely miss the point in order to make yours, you don’t really have one.
Sonny, Linux is more popular on servers than anything else.
Well, I’m sure Microsoft would like to use that argument in EU. Alas, they can’t.
Not really, according to EU comission dealing with Microsoft these days. That is one of the reasons why EU is pressuring MS so hard to deliver the specs on the protocols.
Since 1999, Windows server market share has increased from 35% to around 75% today in the workgroup market.
See it for yourself:
The Commission said Microsoft had a 35 percent 40 percent share of the workgroup server market in 1999 when the EU executive began its investigation. Between 2001 and 2003 that grew to 60 percent, and now Microsoft has 70 to 75 percent of the market.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6169555.html
Microsoft has deals with company’s like Dell, Gateway, or Hewlett-Packard so that their latest software is pre-installed with a new PC. That’s what gives them the market share. It’s not that users are holding on to their seat in anticipation to go out and buy the latest boxed version of their operating-system.
True, some do. But most of the time, they deal with what they got out-of-the-box. If that was untrue, then why don’t people go and remove OS X on the new Intel-based Macs, and put Vista on instead? It’s because Windows is not a superior product. At one point it was, but no longer is.
If that was untrue, then why don’t people go and remove OS X on the new Intel-based Macs, and put Vista on instead?
I didn’t say nobody uses MacOS or Linux. They do have about (max) 5% of desktop market. You will always have that.
I am sorry, but I fail to see the point of your article. Again.
… straight from fantasy land
>> throw away the billions Microsoft invested into Vista
There was a recent article on OSAlert by an ex-MS developer saying that his total years output was about 200 lines of code – because of the many layers of management flip flopping on every decision. So the billions invested are partly because they have billions to burn…
>> from a business point of view …
Microsoft has so much influence on the channels for new machines that this will inevitably be a financially rewarding for them. Apple has definitely lost an initiative with the delays to Leopard.
>> from a technical point of view …
It is early to say, and there are complex influences. Those that like Windows XP will adjust to like Vista.
One complex issue is that some fast machines that aren’t “Vista ready” will be turned over to other operating systems much earlier than would otherwise be the case.
Naughty Bill G. Off for another caning from headmaster Steven J. Vaughan Nichols, I see.
Hmmn, Vista may or may not be much good but, hey, let’s keep an open mind here. I haven’t tried it yet and probably won’t for many months or until 2008. But I think I’ll form my own judgement on it rather than listen either to the boosters or to the mongers of doom. After all, Vista may turn out to be very good – for me, though maybe not for you. Each to their own.
In the meantime, SJVN is in danger of becoming the John C. Dvorak of open source. He still does post some good and helpful stuff (unlike Dvorak) but boy is it interspersed with rants and nutty pieces (only too like Dvorak). At the moment his two hobby horses of fear and loathing seem to be Debian and Vista. Let go of them, mate. They’re only operating systems and by 2012 we may all be using Solaris anyway, for all we know. Life’s too short.
Hmmn, Vista may or may not be much good but, hey, let’s keep an open mind here. I haven’t tried it yet and probably won’t for many months or until 2008. But I think I’ll form my own judgement on it rather than listen either to the boosters or to the mongers of doom. After all, Vista may turn out to be very good – for me, though maybe not for you. Each to their own.
There are 2 things you already can know about it without testing it yourself.
1) it’s to expencive
2) the system requirements are to high.
Enough reason to no bother testing it for yourself.
What he was smoking, because that must have been what he was doing when he wrote it.
It’s been a while since the latest Microsoft-should-open-source-Windows article
Even the staff of OSAlert are making fun of OSAlert for reporting on this… wow.
Please don’t opensource that monster. Not that you could, or would, or needed, or wanted, or thought of it.
You should rush to fix the problems Vista has because at the end of 2007 XP (truly the best OS to have come out of Microsoft’s labs) stops shipping with new PCs you will probably see a surge of pirated copies and that’s not all. Of course there will be fugitives to Linux and Apple.
Although I only use Windows at work, I would like to see a better Vista. It is to everyones advantage. But if we don’t it is of good to no one. Just your pockets for a little while, until people understand the extortion and switch.
Point of this article is simple: page views.
People hate microsoft and love to read stuff like this, no matter how crazy an article might be.
Everybody’s happy: “geeks” get their quick fix not realizing they are being manipulated, article writer gets his ad dollars and “news” aggregators like osnews get thousands of more page views with yet another pointless flame war.
Actually, I take back some of what I said before: Most of the article is good. But that crazy idea that MS will open source the crown jewels – whoa!
(Yes, I realize that in this case the crown jewels are made of cubic zirconia and paste!)
You’re right, of course. I could see from the title of the article that it was a troll. Since I expected it would hook many readers into posting some knee-jerk reaction, I had to peruse the comments. I was not disappointed.
Millions of copies sold at hundreds of dollars each is now considered a “failure” from a “business point of view”? I want a business failure like that!
Mmmm… invest a couple of billion dollars. Sell a couple of million copies at a couple hundred bucks.
You’d really want that?
P.S. Not saying Vista only sold a couple of million copies or that they invested 2 billion dollars either. Just saying beware of vague figures and consider what they invested to argue if it’s a failure or not
>>Mmmm… invest a couple of billion dollars. Sell a couple of million copies at a couple hundred bucks.
You’d really want that?
>>
No I would not! You’re right, I didn’t think about the development investment. But let’s not forget that Vista has only been publicly released for a few months, I’m fairly sure it will rapidly increase its market share whether it’s a piece of junk or not.
Open source is good for things like Linux because emphasis is on good design and engineering. Open source is bad for things like Vista because emphasis is on market profitability. The author wrongly assumes Vista’s emphasis is good design.
Edited 2007-04-13 17:59
Quite correct. (of you)
That’s why closed source software will never compete – the marketing types just don’t understand the technical things, they just want a pretty thing that sounds good, and will sell and make lots of money.
Dave
Of course… to ask to open source Vista is just wishfull thinking… but the article is a nice condensation of many things that are wrong with Vista (with hyperlinks and all). I’d point that article to my Microsoft-loving friends (I just did, by the way) so they can get the picture (horrible picture, dare I say) of Vista.
Wow. Finally someone who understood the article.
It’s an article about how vista is a failure and about how this shows that open source is a better way to develop software.
The call to open source vista is just the rhetorical icing on the cake.
An open-source Vista would be pointless. At this point, I don’t think anybody outside of Microsoft could even maintain the bottomless pit of complexity that is the Windows source base.
Windows now contains over 50 million lines of code. Judging from how long it took to get Vista out the door, its apparently not even maintainable by their tens of thousands of programmers who are intimately familiar with the system. Heck, Microsoft could probably open source it without any worry of people stealing their ideas. I mean, who’d ever be able to find anything in there?
@jessta : “it does suck.
but it would probably suck less if some modifications could be made.”
If Vista needs to be open-sourced for improvement, why not yet focusing on improving Linux first which is open-source for far longer ? Vista “sucks” but obviously you can’t get it out of your head…
Kochise
Lately I’m coming to the conclusion that SJVN has been smoking crack. And quite a lot.
Open-sourcing Vista. Yeah, right.
for business, but the code remains closed.
I have to agree with most of the other post in saying that it’s not even a pipe dream.
I think Microsoft should “give away” Windows and sell support and such, but asking them to open source Windows is like asking the open source community to close source their stuff. Simply put… it ain’t gonna happen.
On the off chance Microsoft did actually open source Windows it would at least give some credibility to that notion that open source code makes it easier for hacker to find exploits. (Which is why I’m amazed that Windows ever gets hacked… being closed source and all.)
* Churches stop taking offerings, switch to ad-supported model
* Bears discovered using public facilities
* Pope declares he’s actually Episcopalian
* RMS on cover of G.Q.
The day Windows goes open-source is the day I switch to SkyOS. (I already have the disc just in case.)
Don’t worry, I hear Dell will be offering it pre-installed.
Holy potatoes!
Are you serious? If so, then I’m buying a Dell… where have you heard this?
Edited 2007-04-13 19:49 UTC
Sorry, I was kidding. BUT…
I hope that is the kind of choice we have soon. Dell is trying the waters with Linux. Who knows, users may someday have a lot more choices. However, the whole support thing would have to be worked out. This may be one of the ways some of these communities can make a living – by offering support for their product to customers of OEM’s like Dell. That way the OEM doesn’t have to have technicians on staff for all the OS’s they offer.
I doubt any major computer company is going to outsource support again anytime soon. Look at the recent India debacle — using outsourced support resulted in a loss of quality most of the time, with resulting losses in reputation and business.
You have a good point there! However, I just can’t imagine Dell technicians getting up to speed on Linux (or other OS’s). In this instance, I would see Dell as selling the laptop, but the user (as part of their purchase) would also be buying support from the creator of the OS – Novell, Redhat or Canonical (creator of Ubuntu). The contract would be between the user and the creator of the OS. Of course, the problem would be if Dell thinks something is Novell’s fault, and Novell says something is Dell’s fault.
Edit – changed Suse to Novell, since it is the company.
Edited 2007-04-13 21:29 UTC
LOL, ow shucks, I was hoping Dell would pre-install Haiku first. Maybe even Syllable……! No dearth of competitors to Windows.
I very seriously doubt that SJVN really thinks that Vista would ever be open sourced, or was even very serious about his suggestion.
The real point of the article is three-fold:
1) As has already been pointed out, page hits, which leads to, more importantly …
2) Pointing out Vista’s very very very serious flaws, and how MS’s empire of desktop OS monopoly is gradually crumbling, and to further espouse …
3) The open source vs proprietary development models – that the open source is superior for fixing bugs and security holes.
Sometimes, SJVN can seem to off the deep end, and a total fanboy. But his pieces are usually well though out, and well backed up with lot’s links. Thus, I think he’s too smart to think Vista could ever be open sourced, or to seriously suggest that.
He’s just making an extreme statement in order to make more serious, and quite valid, points.
So get over it, folks.
Edited 2007-04-13 18:55
Microsoft has an army of programmers that understand how an operating system works. They employ about 70,000 people. I understand not all of them are programmers but I’m sure a fair number are. But if Microsoft were to open source Windows who is going to look through the millions of lines of code with a good understanding?
Microsoft has teams to work on individual parts of the OS. Open source programmers are capable of working on an OS but do they really have the resources to do it? Outside of the core linux and bsd developers the rest are application developers. The core teams are small compared to what Microsoft employs.
I think 70,000 people is well beyond the negative return threshold. Having more people is a liability not an asset.
I don’t know about programming and operating systems… but I know when I have to develop, work on, or work with a website, I prefer a clean, standards-based website over a mass of table hacks and transparent pixels any day!
So actually, I’m not sure that Linux programmers (Linux end-users usually aren’t going to program anyway, that’s a silly argument) would be so happy to have the ‘pleasure’ working on Vista?
hmm. Although this idea seems like the uttmost nonsense to me and I don’t see Microsoft doing anything like that in their entire corporate life (they will die before that… unless they survive past 2100)… If, in some alternate dimension, that was ever to happen…
Part of me would like to say “no thanks, you can keep it”.
Also, play the guitar on the moon while underwater breathing in pure chocolate with a large rapid snake wrapped around your pinky toe and singing the words to the Zimbabwe National Athem backwards in pig latin while chewing on 22 carat diamonds taken from heart of Mt. Colima.
It could happen!
First, letter should be addressed to Mr. Balmer, not to Bill Gates.
Microsoft will make profit from Vista, so they are not motivated to opensource it. As long as there is money in it, MS will keep things the way they are.
They could fix the flaws, if they realy wanted to. I think that their OS is just good enough to bring them profit. Higher quality would mean higher costs. The quality of Windows is just above the acceptable limit. It is not good enogh for me, but seems to be good enough for the majority of consumers.
Bugs in Open Source software are not always fixed promptly. I would not like to mention names, but there are people on ego trips that take an idea of bugs and flaws in their software as a personal insult. I remeber once the other person fixed a bug and he was called a thief by the author.
Hints: well known email software and network adapter driver. Some of you will probably recognize what is it about.
In the end, it might be just my personal opininion, but, if I wanted Windows, I would use them, Open Source or not.
Microsoft, the least technical solution in almost all markets, maintances it’s market position by secrecy, blocking api’s and backroom deals. Open sourceing Microsoft OS would allow the User Base to FIX all the BLOCKING tech Microsoft has implemented.
Meaning, greater interop and an easier market for competetion.
So, yes, I’m for it. But, will it happen? Not a chance.
Until David Copperfield “open-source” his magic trick, Bill Gates will never do. He will take vista source code with him to grave, well encrypted it with TrueCrypt might be.
It hasn’t happened, it isn’t happening, and it’s never going to happen.
If moaning that Jobs should open-source OSX is useless, I don’t even want to think about how utterly worthless this effort is.
What is Darwin then ?
What is Darwin then ?
The crippled, bastard stepchild of OS X*? You don’t get Aqua with Darwin, do you (rhetorical question). Indeed, seems to me that interest in Darwin has declined recently.
*Not that I have anything against crippled stepchildren, seeing as I am one. Or bastards – in the technical sense (which I ain’t).
why is open-source always touted as the magic bullet solution to [insert your problem here]?
vista isn’t doing well because it creates just as many or more problems for the average person than it actually solves. i don’t think open sourcing it would resolve those problems any faster than if MS were to just admit its problems and address those issues themselves.
they’ve invested too much in anti OSS hype and the “vista is doing great!” hype to turn back now. and while the typical (i hope) human can see mistakes they’ve made and be open about making them, corporations typically can’t lest their finances suffer.
the only question left is.. why on earth did i spend time replying to this article… [ponder]
From my experience I can say I know of a few people who have bought a used PC with no OS pre-installed, then call me to help them set it up. When I get to their house, they say they want Windows installed and I ask if they bought it. Of course not, they thought I would supply it. I tell them I don’t have it either and then offer to install Linux.
Most of these people are not tech savvy and once I install linux, their pretty much satisfied because all they want to do is surf, email and maybe know how to write a letter or whatnot.
How about Microsoft taking a page out of Apple’s book and opening up the kernel while keeping a hold on the UI “eye-candy”, if you can call it that.
Of course we all know this article is nothing more than to stir controversy, and Microsoft will never allow anything like this to happen. It’s about control and predatory business tactics.
Apple? Why would they even need that pile of bugs and bloat?
I think this proposal is very valuable. Every good citizen on earth should take care of poor ailing Vista.
I wonder why Microsoft would oppose such a shining idea.
Simply brillant.
What’s with the J, Mr. Nichols?
Mumbo Jumbo?
Steve the Jester?
Steven the Linux Jingo?
You give the FLOSS world a bad name.
Why don’t you discuss how Ubuntu’s, Fedora’s, Mandriva’s betas are doing? How about some talk on under the hood technology? Is that too technical? Some previews on what’s new (no, I don’t mean screen shots).
Microsoft is irrelevant to us.
Leave them alone.
Edited 2007-04-14 07:30
U R an IDIOT …
It would still suck and therefor I wouldn’t use it.
But yes, I agree with the author that at some point Microsoft will have to give up on his hous brand to stay competitive. The rest of the article is just stating the obvious: That Vista is a disappoinment for many – nothing new here.
… spares me reading the article, very sensible of you. Anybody who fails to see that Vista CANNOT fail because in a few month time it comes preinstalled on just about any PC that would have shipped XP otherwise is a lunatic. Where is the business failure in that? MS is doing fantastic for they get bashed for their crappy software since the DOS days.
Having said that, I can hand-count the times W2K crashed on me in many years and the same is true for XP in 2,5 years. I won’t make the switch to Vista though, all good things have to come to an end eventually
Even if Microsoft, after some impossible event, decided to release Vista under an Open Source license, there is a very small chance that there would be many unpaid volunteers who actually understand enough of Windows code base to be able to make major improvements to it. It’s neither the way things are done in the Windows ecosystem, nor would the tens of millions of lines of code be very accessible to newcomers.
I think MS should open source Vista under the BSD license, since
99% of windows vista code comes form FreeBSD.
Edited 2007-04-14 15:06
Look at Codeplex*, Microsoft’s competitor to Sourceforge and Freshmeat. They hardly get any traffic.
If Microsoft were to go open-source, they’d start with their own first-party site, perhaps inviting specific teams to work on specific parts of the Windows engine. But if they can’t get their own open-source software to work, there’s no reason to expect them to make Windows open-source.
* http://www.codeplex.com/
I think that’s the first thing you’ve written that I agree with.
I remember when XP first came out and everyone way talking about how they were never going to upgrade. Windows 2000 was great, and XP sucked.
Well, it did. Compared to 2000, there were lots of proplems with XP that had to be ironed out. After several years of bug fixes, Microsoft managed to eliminate many of the stability problems and turn XP into not an excellent but reasonable desktop OS, comparable to, say, what you get from Ubuntu right now.
Vista is Microsoft’s attempt to play catch-up with MacOS X Tiger. And after a few service packs, they may get there, at least on the surface. Microsoft isn’t interested enough in good engineering to actually try to complete with MacOS at all levels. Fortunately for them, most users of Windows don’t understand or care about the difference; they just want to use MS Office and see pretty animations. Of course, by the time Vista’s all fixed up, circa service pack 2, Leopard will be old news.
But that’s the way of the tech industry. Microsoft plays catch-up to Apple, and everyone else plays catch-up to Microsoft. Basically, they all suck, and Vista isn’t really any kind of sore thumb here… it’s just another beta-quality OS that just happens to be new, so it’s getting a lot of attention.
It seems to me that people spend way too much time screwing around, complaining about Microsoft. They are what they are, a monopolistic giant of a good-idea-imitator. There are better things that people can do with their time, such as identifying the problems with Free Software operating systems like GNU/Linux and FIXING them. Of course, they don’t, and that gives Microsoft more time to catch up.
It’s much easier to complain than to actually DO something.
Well I used 2000 for 18 months and it wasn’t until SP2 that it didn’t suffer from the most stupid bugs I had seen since abandoning 98.
My intention was to go to Linux after 98 but SUSE didn’t really work on my hardware and I didn’t know enough about it at that time to fix it. So 2000 was my refuge from a horribly unstable Windows 98 experience until I got Linux working the way I wanted.
I first dipped my toes in the water with Mandrake 8.1/8.2. Mandrake 9.0 has very big performance problems. So in 2002 when Red Hat released version 8 I switched to that.
The Xft support made the system usable for my family as well. Then having gone through Red Hat 9 and Fedora Core 1 I landed onto Slackware Linux in 2003 and have been using that ever since.
I have been doing exactly that for the last few years. I am of the opinion that many distributions are patching too much unnecessarily so it could also be something like “don’t patch/fix what isn’t broken”.
Unsatisfied with any system before I have settled on Slackware Linux and am building packages for it to make it a complete system usable for end-users. I also contribute to Slackware/Armedslack development.
My friends, relatives and customers are very happy because they get a stable, fast and complete system that doesn’t require any maintenance to keep running unlike their previous Windows eXPerience.
Edited 2007-04-14 20:11
It seems to me that people spend way too much time screwing around, complaining about Microsoft. They are what they are, a monopolistic giant of a good-idea-imitator. There are better things that people can do with their time, such as identifying the problems with Free Software operating systems like GNU/Linux and FIXING them. Of course, they don’t, and that gives Microsoft more time to catch up.
Have you been tracking the progress of Linux desktop distros recently? Indeed, the progress of Linux itself is phenomenal compared to that of Windows.
It’s much easier to complain than to actually DO something.
Particularly when you have no control over the way the software is developed and/or packaged…
What a load of bullshit.
It is naive to believe that open source Vista is the solution to all problems. It is easier to dump Vista and rewrote all MS applications for Linux.