[News] Gates: "Ubuntu is a bigger threat than Mac OS X to Windows"
Roy Schestowitz
threat to Microsoft Windows than Apple's Mac OS X." -- David Gates This
newbie site has a great example of just what I mean:
http://easylinux.wordpress.com/2006/04/30/ubuntu-dapper-drake-beta-installation-from-live-cd/
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Gates:_Ubuntu_is_a_bigger_threat_than_Mac_OS_X_to_Windows_
DFS
Roy Schestowitz
Silence means "yes"?
Paul Cooke
ah... David Gates... who he???
I thought I'd better play Devil's Advocate here before the wintrolls and ms
apologists pick up on it... ;)
--
XP, unsafe on the information highway at any speed
flatfish+++
> ah... David Gates... who he???
A member of the 70's group "Bread".
http://www.classicbands.com/bread.html
> I thought I'd better play Devil's Advocate here before the wintrolls and ms
> apologists pick up on it... ;)
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
DFS
> Silence means "yes"?
On the contrary. In my opinion no desktop Linux distro is a threat to
Windows. At all. Especially not a Gnome-based one like Ubuntu. No matter
how good it is, no matter how free it is, no matter how many open source
apps and games and utilities and text editors are included. Windows has the
PC world by the balls.
As for your misleading thread title? It's very lame.
htgin
to Microsoft. If development on OSS grows unselfishly, maybe one
distribution might come out on top to tackle Microsoft in a 5-yr period
or more. By then, we dont know how forward or backward Microsoft will
be. Windows users are way too addicted to jump to another OS no matter
how pretty it is, no matter how cheap/easier/stable it is. Some people
live with a buggy pirated copy of Windows with no Antivirus, but still
they dont move to Linux - they dont care about cost, spam etc. Strange
world, but in my opinion Linux desktops are NOT threatening Microsoft
and its users; no matter how much I want to see Linux a part of
corporate desktop OS.
Chirag Shukla.
flatfish+++
If PCLinuxOS had a ton of money it could easily challenge MS for the
desktop.
The distribution is very good and works right out of the box.
I've given out about 30 copies and have had nothing but good reports from
the field.
I have NEVER had that happen with any Linux version I have passed out.
Even the guys at my Windows user group were impressed (many run Linux as
well as Windows anyway).
If Linux is to beat Microsoft, 295 of the current 300+ distributions have
got to go and the people working on them shave got to pool their resources
and work on say 5 different versions of Linux.
Server/desktop/multimedia/low resource etc....
However, MS is very well entrenched and obviously has tons of money so
Linux has to use alternative means of gaining market share.
A quality, free system is a great start.
Linonut
> On the contrary. In my opinion no desktop Linux distro is a threat to
> Windows. At all. Especially not a Gnome-based one like Ubuntu. No matter
> how good it is, no matter how free it is, no matter how many open source
> apps and games and utilities and text editors are included. Windows has the
> PC world by the balls.
That is probably about the best summary of Microsoft I've ever seen.
I'm putting it into my sig, but will take it out or modify it if you
object once you see it.
--
Microsoft has the PC world by the balls (paraphrased from a DFS post)
Cyberwasteland
DFS wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> > Silence means "yes"?
>
>
> On the contrary. In my opinion no desktop Linux distro is a threat to
> Windows. At all. Especially not a Gnome-based one like Ubuntu. No matter
> how good it is, no matter how free it is, no matter how many open source
> apps and games and utilities and text editors are included. Windows has the
> PC world by the balls.
Exactly... much like the mafia has the corner grocer by the balls, or
oil producing countries have America by the balls. Thank God there are
alternatives to Windows... and there always will be.
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On the contrary. In my opinion no desktop Linux distro is a threat
>> to Windows. At all. Especially not a Gnome-based one like Ubuntu.
>> No matter how good it is, no matter how free it is, no matter how
>> many open source apps and games and utilities and text editors are
>> included. Windows has the PC world by the balls.
>
> That is probably about the best summary of Microsoft I've ever seen.
>
> I'm putting it into my sig, but will take it out or modify it if you
> object once you see it.
Thanks for asking.
In this case I do object a bit, but only because it has my name in it. Drop
the 'paraphrased ...' part and it's a good .sig for a paranoid Linuxer.
I object because, in my mind, there's a huge distinction between MS having
the PC world by the balls, and Windows having the PC world by the balls.
This requires considering them as two separate entities: a business
organization and a product. My position is that no matter who owns or sells
it, Windows, by virtue of its ubiquity and MS Office and enormous universe
of great apps and vendor hardware support, is so entrenched that desktop
Linux has almost no hope against it. The fact that MS the organization
created and markets Windows is almost irrelevant. Without Windows, MS would
have no power. Without MS, Windows would still have great power.
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On the contrary. In my opinion no desktop Linux distro is a threat
>>> to Windows. At all. Especially not a Gnome-based one like Ubuntu.
>>> No matter how good it is, no matter how free it is, no matter how
>>> many open source apps and games and utilities and text editors are
>>> included. Windows has the PC world by the balls.
>>
>> That is probably about the best summary of Microsoft I've ever seen.
>>
>> I'm putting it into my sig, but will take it out or modify it if you
>> object once you see it.
>
> Thanks for asking.
>
> In this case I do object a bit, but only because it has my name in it. Drop
> the 'paraphrased ...' part and it's a good .sig for a paranoid Linuxer.
Okay. Done.
> I object because, in my mind, there's a huge distinction between MS having
> the PC world by the balls, and Windows having the PC world by the balls.
How so? MS made Windows, and they use it as their tool to grab vendors
and users by the balls.
> This requires considering them as two separate entities: a business
> organization and a product. My position is that no matter who owns or sells
> it, Windows, by virtue of its ubiquity and MS Office and enormous universe
> of great apps and vendor hardware support, is so entrenched that desktop
> Linux has almost no hope against it.
I sort of agree. Windows is a de facto standard, and as such will be
difficult to dislodge. I think it will take a long time for Windows to
"go away", and it might be Linux that does it in. There are still some
issues to work out, and it is not clear that the coders really want to
work them all out. I certainly don't, as I'm not a fan of the way
Microsoft programmers like to do things.
If the rest of the world begins to reject the Windows model (swiss
cheese security, your machine is part of the world network, your
computer is a tool of entertainment vendors), then MS's grip will slip.
> The fact that MS the organization
> created and markets Windows is almost irrelevant. Without Windows, MS would
> have no power. Without MS, Windows would still have great power.
Maybe. I'll believe it when I see vendors besides Microsoft maintaining
and selling Windows-compatible systems. Right now, Windows equals
"Microsoft presence on your desktop".
Nice analysis, though!
--
Microsoft has the PC world by the balls.
M
What consumers need is a choice at the point of sale. What they also need is
for the cost of their operating system to be separated out. At the moment
they are not really given the chance to make an informed choice. In the
vast majority of cases the computer is sold pre-loaded with MS Windows, and
the cost is hidden.
In spite of all the efforts that Ubuntu (and it's siblings) along with
PCLinuxOS and all the rest to make installation really easy, from the
people I have talked to, linux still seems to have a perception problem. If
people are not open minded either then that doesn't help.
It would be very interesting to see if people's perception of Linux would
change if one of the Linux vendors went on the offencive with an
advertising campaign, or if computer mags started to educate the general
public about linux.
I think Google started advertising Firefox on their US web site. Would be
really interesting to see what would happen if they also started pushing
Linux too, and the campaign went world-wide. This strikes me as one company
that could seriously undermine Microsoft if they choose to do so.
<snip>
--
Regards,
M
Roy Schestowitz
Intersting. The thoughts of Open Office promotion through US SERP's led me to
the same thoughts which you expressed above. A few days ago I even wrote the
following:
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/05/03/google-promote-linux/
Google are often criticised for giving back too little to GNU/Linux. This is
their chance to catch up while serving their own interests, which among
other things, are to hinder adoption of Windows Vista with the MSN/Live
search bars. Firefox and Opera (even Konqueror!) point to Google.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | $> apt-get -not windows
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE GNU/Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:00am up 8 days 12:57, 12 users, load average: 0.63, 0.46, 0.47
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
Ruel Smith
this to say:
> If PCLinuxOS had a ton of money it could easily challenge MS for the
> desktop.
> The distribution is very good and works right out of the box.
> I've given out about 30 copies and have had nothing but good reports from
> the field.
> I have NEVER had that happen with any Linux version I have passed out.
> Even the guys at my Windows user group were impressed (many run Linux as
> well as Windows anyway).
>
> If Linux is to beat Microsoft, 295 of the current 300+ distributions have
> got to go and the people working on them shave got to pool their resources
> and work on say 5 different versions of Linux.
> Server/desktop/multimedia/low resource etc....
>
> However, MS is very well entrenched and obviously has tons of money so
> Linux has to use alternative means of gaining market share.
> A quality, free system is a great start.
I think you're right. Linux is too splintered, IMO, to seriously take on
Windows. However, I could care less. The way I see it, part of my security
_IS_ in the obscurity of the OS. Windows is simply a bigger, greener
pasture for malicious coding. Therefore, my only wish is for Linux to get
just enough marketshare to get 3rd party OEM hardware support and maybe a
few desireable apps I can use. Other than that, Windows can have the
market.
For Linux to succeed on the desktop, it'll have to be a company like Novell,
and they'll have to change some things about their distro that they've
entrenched in it that'll make it more digestible to the public. I haven't
seen Suse 10.1, yet, but as good as it might be, I don't think they're
quite there yet to make a serious challenge. Also, I say it'll have to be a
company like Novell because they need to do some advertising. The general
public is pretty much oblivious to Linux. The only Linux advertising I've
seen has been by IBM, and it was directed at business use.
Honestly, all distros that aim to be on the desktop need to take a look at
PCLinuxOS and see what it's doing right, and then do it themselves. It's
not that it's perfect, but it's the best I've seen so far. I'm constantly
amazed that a community based distro is so good, while having limited
resources to do it with, while companies like Novell and Mandriva pour
money into it and don't have near as good of a distro.
Ubuntu will never challenge Microsoft. It's not all that good for a desktop
OS, IMO. It's not a bad distro, but it's not for the 90% of the market that
Windows serves. And I agree that whatever distro it is, it will need to be
KDE based to make a splash. Gnome just isn't going to go over well with the
general public that makes up the majority of the market. They like their
eye candy and the bells and whistles that KDE provides.
--
This post has been brought to you by PCLinuxOS and Knode, part of the KDE
family of products.
Registered Linux User #378193
DFS
> What consumers need is a choice at the point of sale.
Get to coding. Get to selling.
> What they also need is for the cost of their
> operating system to be separated out.
The vast majority of the people don't care, and in fact are glad the system
comes ready to run.
> At the moment they are not really given the chance to make an
> informed choice.
This is the only way cola nuts can rationalize away the failure of desktop
Linux: the population isn't informed or isn't given a chance (variants of
"the world is stupid"). Why aren't they informed? Whose responsibility is
it to tell me I can run Linux or BeOS or any other operating system? Why
should a vendor sell and support an unpopular operating system?
> In the vast majority of cases the computer is sold
> pre-loaded with MS Windows, and the cost is hidden.
So is the cost of every single component and app in that system. Yet cola
complains ONLY about Windows.
> In spite of all the efforts that Ubuntu (and it's siblings) along with
> PCLinuxOS and all the rest to make installation really easy, from the
> people I have talked to, linux still seems to have a perception
> problem. If people are not open minded either then that doesn't help.
>
> It would be very interesting to see if people's perception of Linux
> would change if one of the Linux vendors went on the offencive with an
> advertising campaign,
Now you're making sense. First obstacle faced in Novell's marketing meeting
is "How are we going to pay for full-page print ads [for 3/6/12mths] in PC
Magazine, Computer Shopper and Maximum PC?" They can't pay if nobody buys
Suse - I can't imagine server sales alone will support such expensive retail
advertising.
> or if computer mags started to educate the general public about linux.
Maximum PC recently wrote a good article on the experiences of one of its
editors who switched to 100% Linux for 6 months. PC Magazine mentions Linux
frequently, though with not much detail or inches of coverage.
The Linux magazines are already good, I think (except for Linux Magazine -
needs some pizzaz). I feel like Linux Format is a truly excellent computer
magazine, though at $15.99 here in the States it's too expensive.
> I think Google started advertising Firefox on their US web site.
Don't see it just now.
> Would be really interesting to see what would happen if they also
> started pushing Linux too, and the campaign went world-wide. This
> strikes me as one company that could seriously undermine Microsoft if
> they choose to do so.
Possibly. I do believe a successful desktop Linux marketing campaign HAS TO
include OEM vendors offering Linux pre-installed on a decent range of retail
systems, both online and in-store. I also believe a selection of in-store
games and apps - proprietary with a high price tag - will help drive Linux
adoption.
Rick
> M wrote:
>
>> What consumers need is a choice at the point of sale.
>
> Get to coding. Get to selling.
>
>
>> What they also need is for the cost of their operating system to be
>> separated out.
>
> The vast majority of the people don't care,
That's because they don't know.
> and in fact are glad the system comes ready to run.
Pre-installed Linux systems are ready to run.
>
>
>> At the moment they are not really given the chance to make an informed
>> choice.
>
> This is the only way cola nuts can rationalize away the failure of desktop
> Linux:
You lie again. Linux based desktop systems haven't failed.
> the population isn't informed
They aren't.
> or isn't given a chance
They aren't.
>(variants of "the world is stupid").
Ignorant (except in your case) might be more charitable and more correct.
> Why aren't they informed? Whose responsibility
> is it to tell me I can run Linux or BeOS or any other operating system?
> Why should a vendor sell and support an unpopular operating system?
Vobis sold and supported Dr-DOS until microsoft forced them to droop
DR-DOS.
>> In the vast majority of cases the computer is sold pre-loaded with MS
>> Windows, and the cost is hidden.
>
> So is the cost of every single component and app in that system. Yet cola
> complains ONLY about Windows.
Windows is one of the highest priced components.
>> In spite of all the efforts that Ubuntu (and it's siblings) along with
>> PCLinuxOS and all the rest to make installation really easy, from the
>> people I have talked to, linux still seems to have a perception problem.
>> If people are not open minded either then that doesn't help.
>>
>> It would be very interesting to see if people's perception of Linux
>> would change if one of the Linux vendors went on the offencive with an
>> advertising campaign,
>
> Now you're making sense. First obstacle faced in Novell's marketing
> meeting is "How are we going to pay for full-page print ads [for
> 3/6/12mths] in PC Magazine, Computer Shopper and Maximum PC?" They can't
> pay if nobody buys Suse - I can't imagine server sales alone will support
> such expensive retail advertising.
>
>
>
>> or if computer mags started to educate the general public about linux.
>
> Maximum PC recently wrote a good article on the experiences of one of its
> editors who switched to 100% Linux for 6 months. PC Magazine mentions
> Linux frequently, though with not much detail or inches of coverage.
>
> The Linux magazines are already good, I think (except for Linux Magazine -
> needs some pizzaz). I feel like Linux Format is a truly excellent
> computer magazine, though at $15.99 here in the States it's too expensive.
... except, of course, for the 2 CDs or single DVD that comes with it.
>
>
>> I think Google started advertising Firefox on their US web site.
>
> Don't see it just now.
>
>
>> Would be really interesting to see what would happen if they also
>> started pushing Linux too, and the campaign went world-wide. This
>> strikes me as one company that could seriously undermine Microsoft if
>> they choose to do so.
>
> Possibly. I do believe a successful desktop Linux marketing campaign HAS
> TO include OEM vendors offering Linux pre-installed on a decent range of
> retail systems, both online and in-store. I also believe a selection of
> in-store games and apps - proprietary with a high price tag - will help
> drive Linux adoption.
That may well be true.
M
Yes I have come round to that way of thinking too.
> For Linux to succeed on the desktop, it'll have to be a company like
> Novell, and they'll have to change some things about their distro that
> they've entrenched in it that'll make it more digestible to the public. I
> haven't seen Suse 10.1, yet, but as good as it might be, I don't think
> they're quite there yet to make a serious challenge. Also, I say it'll
> have to be a company like Novell because they need to do some advertising.
> The general public is pretty much oblivious to Linux. The only Linux
> advertising I've seen has been by IBM, and it was directed at business
> use.
>
> Honestly, all distros that aim to be on the desktop need to take a look at
> PCLinuxOS and see what it's doing right, and then do it themselves. It's
> not that it's perfect, but it's the best I've seen so far. I'm constantly
> amazed that a community based distro is so good, while having limited
> resources to do it with, while companies like Novell and Mandriva pour
> money into it and don't have near as good of a distro.
>
I totally agree.
> Ubuntu will never challenge Microsoft. It's not all that good for a
> desktop OS, IMO. It's not a bad distro, but it's not for the 90% of the
> market that Windows serves. And I agree that whatever distro it is, it
> will need to be KDE based to make a splash. Gnome just isn't going to go
> over well with the general public that makes up the majority of the
> market. They like their eye candy and the bells and whistles that KDE
> provides.
>
I much prefer Kubuntu the KDE variant of Ubuntu. True not everything is
there out of the box, and I suppose it would have to be, if the aim was to
compete in some way with windows. However the upside is, that a quick visit
to either their Wiki web site or the forums usually sorts most things out,
and the great thing is that you learn a little bit on the way. A nice way
to gain confidence with the OS and it's apps.
I think the point where Microsoft is likely to loose Market Share is if
companies that want to role out a new OS are faced with having to upgrade
not only their software, but also their hardware. The power of most
computers has now reached a point that only a relatively few number of
people need to remain on the tread mill of replacing kit every 3 years or
so. The question is when will companies realise this, and change their
strategy to suit a different environment.
If the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) in the UK was doing it's job, it would
be forcing OEM's to provide customers with a choice, and giving people the
necessary information for it to be an informed choice.
flatfish+++
> I think you're right. Linux is too splintered, IMO, to seriously take on
> Windows. However, I could care less. The way I see it, part of my security
> _IS_ in the obscurity of the OS. Windows is simply a bigger, greener
> pasture for malicious coding. Therefore, my only wish is for Linux to get
> just enough marketshare to get 3rd party OEM hardware support and maybe a
> few desireable apps I can use. Other than that, Windows can have the
> market.
That's an interesting way of looking at it and I kinda think you are right.
Linux is making inroads into the business world and that will result in
corporate desktops which will result in Joe and Jane getting experienced
with Linux which can result in Joe and Jane using Linux at home.
> For Linux to succeed on the desktop, it'll have to be a company like Novell,
> and they'll have to change some things about their distro that they've
> entrenched in it that'll make it more digestible to the public. I haven't
> seen Suse 10.1, yet, but as good as it might be, I don't think they're
> quite there yet to make a serious challenge.
Suse is a great distribution, but I think it is a bit overwhelming to a
new non computer tech type person.
The biggest problem is the multimedia stuff and I know the legalities, but
that doesn't change things.
Also, I say it'll have to be a
> company like Novell because they need to do some advertising. The general
> public is pretty much oblivious to Linux. The only Linux advertising I've
> seen has been by IBM, and it was directed at business use.
Sadly money is everything but fortunately IBM has lots of money and my
spies confirm that IBM is solidly behind Linux as well as desktop Linux.
> Honestly, all distros that aim to be on the desktop need to take a look at
> PCLinuxOS and see what it's doing right, and then do it themselves. It's
> not that it's perfect, but it's the best I've seen so far. I'm constantly
> amazed that a community based distro is so good, while having limited
> resources to do it with, while companies like Novell and Mandriva pour
> money into it and don't have near as good of a distro.
It's the best overall desktop distro I have used to date.
Even Ardour and Jack are setup properly so you can run them in real time
mode without having to SU and run them that way.
Suse has never been able to get this straight and while it may seem like a
minor issue, the new user is met with errors when he clicks on the
programs and will be confused.
Like I said in another post, it's the little things that PCLinuxOS gets
right that some other distros miss.
> Ubuntu will never challenge Microsoft. It's not all that good for a desktop
> OS, IMO. It's not a bad distro, but it's not for the 90% of the market that
> Windows serves. And I agree that whatever distro it is, it will need to be
> KDE based to make a splash. Gnome just isn't going to go over well with the
> general public that makes up the majority of the market. They like their
> eye candy and the bells and whistles that KDE provides.
Gnome is just to obtuse for people used to Windows.
Not that some people will not like it, obviously it has a huge following,
but kde is more like Windows interface and thus will make new users more
comfortable.
Kubuntu has never been as good as Ubuntu from my experiences.
To it's credit though, I think Ubuntu has introduced more people to Linux
than any other distribution to date which is a good thing and it does work
rather well IMHO.
M
> M wrote:
>
>> What consumers need is a choice at the point of sale.
>
> Get to coding. Get to selling.
>
>
>> What they also need is for the cost of their
>> operating system to be separated out.
>
> The vast majority of the people don't care, and in fact are glad the
> system comes ready to run.
>
Well it rather depends on your definition of 'ready to run'. Not every PC
with windows pre-loaded comes with a load of bundled applications. If all
you get is the Windows OS then it's a bit limiting. If you have got
broadband then that certainly helps.
One of the linux distros that 'works out of the box' (and there are a few),
would be a much better bet. It would also have the advantage that it comes
with a load of software packages that are free to install and use, and are
not full of payloads that you don't want.
>
>> At the moment they are not really given the chance to make an
>> informed choice.
>
> This is the only way cola nuts can rationalize away the failure of desktop
> Linux: the population isn't informed or isn't given a chance (variants of
> "the world is stupid"). Why aren't they informed? Whose responsibility
> is
> it to tell me I can run Linux or BeOS or any other operating system? Why
> should a vendor sell and support an unpopular operating system?
>
The hardware supplier pre-loads windows on the PC because he thinks he is
doing the customer a favour by having it ready to go. Although you could
equally argue that he is doing himself a favour, because he knows you will
be back in a few months time to get it flattened, and he can charge you for
the privilege. Last thing he needs is for you to be educated and to know
what he is up to.
If you have a look around you will see a *large* number of pc's being sold
with XP Home edition on it. If I have got to have windows pre-installed, I
would rather it came with XP Pro. In a *lot* of cases you don't even get
this simple choice.
You might be able to claim that it was unpopular if everyone knew about
Linux, truth is most don't. I am also willing to bet there are a lot of
people who don't know what Solaris is either.
>
>
>> In the vast majority of cases the computer is sold
>> pre-loaded with MS Windows, and the cost is hidden.
>
> So is the cost of every single component and app in that system. Yet cola
> complains ONLY about Windows.
>
>
>
>> In spite of all the efforts that Ubuntu (and it's siblings) along with
>> PCLinuxOS and all the rest to make installation really easy, from the
>> people I have talked to, linux still seems to have a perception
>> problem. If people are not open minded either then that doesn't help.
>>
>> It would be very interesting to see if people's perception of Linux
>> would change if one of the Linux vendors went on the offencive with an
>> advertising campaign,
>
> Now you're making sense. First obstacle faced in Novell's marketing
> meeting is "How are we going to pay for full-page print ads [for
> 3/6/12mths] in PC
> Magazine, Computer Shopper and Maximum PC?" They can't pay if nobody buys
> Suse - I can't imagine server sales alone will support such expensive
> retail advertising.
>
May be Novell doesn't have the money to mount an advertising campaign, I
don't really know, but Google certainly does, and could very easily go on
the offensive if they choose to do so.
>
>
>> or if computer mags started to educate the general public about linux.
>
> Maximum PC recently wrote a good article on the experiences of one of its
> editors who switched to 100% Linux for 6 months. PC Magazine mentions
> Linux frequently, though with not much detail or inches of coverage.
>
> The Linux magazines are already good, I think (except for Linux Magazine -
> needs some pizzaz). I feel like Linux Format is a truly excellent
> computer magazine, though at $15.99 here in the States it's too expensive.
>
I don't think you are going to buy Linux Format unless you are running
linux, and as you say the price, is also quite an effective deterrent.
>
>> I think Google started advertising Firefox on their US web site.
>
> Don't see it just now.
>
Has it now disappeared?
>
>> Would be really interesting to see what would happen if they also
>> started pushing Linux too, and the campaign went world-wide. This
>> strikes me as one company that could seriously undermine Microsoft if
>> they choose to do so.
>
> Possibly. I do believe a successful desktop Linux marketing campaign HAS
> TO include OEM vendors offering Linux pre-installed on a decent range of
> retail
> systems, both online and in-store. I also believe a selection of in-store
> games and apps - proprietary with a high price tag - will help drive Linux
> adoption.
--
Regards,
M
Ruel Smith
this to say:
> To it's credit though, I think Ubuntu has introduced more people to Linux
> than any other distribution to date which is a good thing and it does work
> rather well IMHO.
I'll disagree with that lone statement. Red Hat, in the early days, brought
a lot of people into Linux here in the US. Red Hat and Linux were almost
synonymous.
Also, the freely downloadable version of Mandrake, in the old days, did its
share too. When LiveCD's weren't even a thought, new users could download
and try a fairly easy to use distro for its time.
I believe a whole lot of Ubuntu users came from other distros. Many have
wanted to use Debian in the past, but thought it was too much work. Ubuntu
to the rescue... I still can't understand what it is about it, other than
being an easy-to-use Debian distro, that gives it such a following. There
really isn't anything there, IMO, that makes it particularly shine compared
to many other distros. Maybe the community?
Ruel Smith
say:
> Why
> should a vendor sell and support an unpopular operating system?
Because being locked into no choice for an operating system constitutes a
monopoly?
Linonut
> I think you're right. Linux is too splintered, IMO, to seriously take on
> Windows. However, I could care less. The way I see it, part of my security
> _IS_ in the obscurity of the OS. Windows is simply a bigger, greener
> pasture for malicious coding. Therefore, my only wish is for Linux to get
> just enough marketshare to get 3rd party OEM hardware support and maybe a
> few desireable apps I can use. Other than that, Windows can have the
> market.
Hear! Hear!
> Honestly, all distros that aim to be on the desktop need to take a look at
> PCLinuxOS and see what it's doing right, and then do it themselves. It's
> not that it's perfect, but it's the best I've seen so far. I'm constantly
> amazed that a community based distro is so good, while having limited
> resources to do it with, while companies like Novell and Mandriva pour
> money into it and don't have near as good of a distro.
That's because they're not community-oriented.
--
Microsoft has the PC world by the short hairs. For now.
Ruel Smith
to say:
>> Honestly, all distros that aim to be on the desktop need to take a look
>> at PCLinuxOS and see what it's doing right, and then do it themselves.
>> It's not that it's perfect, but it's the best I've seen so far. I'm
>> constantly amazed that a community based distro is so good, while having
>> limited resources to do it with, while companies like Novell and Mandriva
>> pour money into it and don't have near as good of a distro.
>
> That's because they're not community-oriented.
I think that the problem with most distros is lack of direction. With
limited resources, many of them seek to be a server, workstation, and
desktop OS distributor at the same time. What makes a good server OS does
not necessarily make a good desktop OS. What makes PCLinuxOS work is that
they don't have a server or corporate desktop to deal with. It's strictly a
home-use desktop flavor of Linux. Therefore, the limited resources they
have to dedicate to it get entirely focused on a great release for end
users at home. They know what their users want, because it's the only goal
they're working toward.
Large companies that distribute Linux really want to be in the corporate
market. Too often, we, the home users, are just the guinea pigs, testing
the distro before it gets recompiled to be a corporate flavor for them to
make profit off of. Witness Fedora and OpenSuse. We're just an
afterthought.
Not so with PCLinuxOS. We and our needs are everything to Texstar and Co..
flatfish+++
>
> I'll disagree with that lone statement. Red Hat, in the early days, brought
> a lot of people into Linux here in the US. Red Hat and Linux were almost
> synonymous.
True, but Redhat still appealed to techies whereas Ubuntu appeals more to
average people interested in Linux.
> Also, the freely downloadable version
of Mandrake, in the old days, did
> its share too. When LiveCD's weren't even a thought, new users could
> download and try a fairly easy to use distro for its time.
Agreed on Mandrake.
> I believe a whole lot of Ubuntu users came from other distros. Many have
> wanted to use Debian in the past, but thought it was too much work.
Agreed.
> Ubuntu to the rescue... I still can't understand what it is about it,
> other than being an easy-to-use Debian distro, that gives it such a
> following. There really isn't anything there, IMO, that makes it
> particularly shine compared to many other distros. Maybe the community?
The community is very friendly and knowledgeable and I suspect that is the
reason why Ubuntu seems so popular.
Personally, I don't like gnome, Kubuntu is not as stable as Ubuntu and I
just don't get it?
Mepis and PClinuxOS blow the doors off Ubuntu overall.
flatfish+++
> I think that the problem with most distros is lack of direction. With
> limited resources, many of them seek to be a server, workstation, and
> desktop OS distributor at the same time. What makes a good server OS does
> not necessarily make a good desktop OS. What makes PCLinuxOS work is that
> they don't have a server or corporate desktop to deal with. It's strictly a
> home-use desktop flavor of Linux. Therefore, the limited resources they
> have to dedicate to it get entirely focused on a great release for end
> users at home. They know what their users want, because it's the only goal
> they're working toward.
>
> Large companies that distribute Linux really want to be in the corporate
> market. Too often, we, the home users, are just the guinea pigs, testing
> the distro before it gets recompiled to be a corporate flavor for them to
> make profit off of. Witness Fedora and OpenSuse. We're just an
> afterthought.
>
> Not so with PCLinuxOS. We and our needs are everything to Texstar and Co..
Good post that sums it up rather nicely.
Suse/Novell seem to be trying to warm up to end users with all their tips
and tricks sections on the websites (Cooltips I think?) and they
themselves are very responsive.
The problem is that the Suse newsgroup is cold as ice.
The people, in general, are very stand offish and there is a definite
attitude in that group compared to others.
JEDIDIAH
> Linonut wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Linonut wrote:
>> If the rest of the world begins to reject the Windows model (swiss
>> cheese security, your machine is part of the world network, your
>> computer is a tool of entertainment vendors), then MS's grip will slip.
>>
>
> What consumers need is a choice at the point of sale. What they also need is
> for the cost of their operating system to be separated out. At the moment
> they are not really given the chance to make an informed choice. In the
> vast majority of cases the computer is sold pre-loaded with MS Windows, and
> the cost is hidden.
No, what customers need is for the standard ABI to be not owned
by anyone. It should be something that is freely re-implementable. It can't
be something that one entity controls (like Win32 or Java). This always gives
the company in control a support advantage.
Win32 control needs to be yanked away from Microsoft.
[deletia]
--
Sophocles wants his cut. |||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
JEDIDIAH
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 19:23:12 +0000, Ruel Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> I'll disagree with that lone statement. Red Hat, in the early days, brought
>> a lot of people into Linux here in the US. Red Hat and Linux were almost
>> synonymous.
>
>
> True, but Redhat still appealed to techies whereas Ubuntu appeals more to
> average people interested in Linux.
No, Redhat appealed more to "average people" that were interested
in a solution a little more automated than Slackware or Debian. Ubuntu is
just the continuation of that idea.
M
> On 2006-05-05, M <ihatespam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>> Linonut wrote:
>>
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> Linonut wrote:
> [deletia]
>>> If the rest of the world begins to reject the Windows model (swiss
>>> cheese security, your machine is part of the world network, your
>>> computer is a tool of entertainment vendors), then MS's grip will slip.
>>>
>>
>> What consumers need is a choice at the point of sale. What they also need
>> is for the cost of their operating system to be separated out. At the
>> moment they are not really given the chance to make an informed choice.
>> In the vast majority of cases the computer is sold pre-loaded with MS
>> Windows, and the cost is hidden.
>
> No, what customers need is for the standard ABI to be not owned
> by anyone. It should be something that is freely re-implementable. It
> can't be something that one entity controls (like Win32 or Java). This
> always gives the company in control a support advantage.
>
> Win32 control needs to be yanked away from Microsoft.
>
> [deletia]
>
You have a cunning plan to get it open sourced?? :-)
Ray Ingles
> Honestly, all distros that aim to be on the desktop need to take a look at
> PCLinuxOS and see what it's doing right, and then do it themselves. It's
> Ubuntu will never challenge Microsoft.
Can you specify what PCLinuxOS does better than Ubuntu? Are you
familiar with EasyUbuntu? I haven't had too many complaints about Ubuntu
at all. What would I enjoy more going to PCLinuxOS? Anything besides
KDE, which I'm not particularly worried about?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will
be a violent psychopath who knows where you live." - Martin Golding
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:04:14 +0000, M wrote:
> What consumers need is a choice at the point of sale. What they also
> need is for the cost of their operating system to be separated out.
Ooh, just ponder that. Hit your local reseller, buy your PC, and they
point you to the OS and Apps section:
Windows
XP Home: $249[1]
MS Office: $499
Norton SystemWorks: $ 59.99
Total: $807.95
(Includes word processor, spreadheet, email, web browser, MSN messenger,
media player, can only be used on one computer)
Linux
Ubuntu/SuSe/FC4: $0
(includes word processor, spreadhseet, email, web browser, multi-protocol
messenger, media player, video editing and production, audio editing and
production, development tools, web server, database server, mail server,
image creation and editing, document and file format conversion,
scheduling, web design tools, ftp clients, backup tools, clustering
support, ability to use on as many computers as you want - and offers easy
updating for maximal security)
Microsoft. Pay more, get less.
[1] Prices taken from local retailer's web site; prices in Canadian
dollars.
The Ghost In The Machine
<kbjar...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Mon, 08 May 2006 19:15:02 GMT
<pan.2006.05.08....@gmail.com>:
Ah, but remember the *value* and the *mystique* of the
... no, wait, that's Apple Computer. ;-)
Ah, but remember the *value* and the *monotony* of the
... no, no, wait, that's not right.
Ah, but remember the *safety* and *surety* of the Microsoft
... not even close.
Of course, there is one area Microsoft might have an edge:
the number of pieces of software available. (And that's
possibly because there's so many "fix-it" and "delousing"
programs, plus third-party add-ons. No, I'm not counting
viruses. To be fair, Linux is almost all third-party
add-ons, and there's a lot of them, too. :-) Add-ons,
that is, not viruses. In fact Linux has very few pieces
of malware.)
>
>
>
> [1] Prices taken from local retailer's web site; prices in Canadian
> dollars.
>
I'm not sure American dollars would be that much different.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Ruel Smith
> Can you specify what PCLinuxOS does better than Ubuntu? Are you
> familiar with EasyUbuntu? I haven't had too many complaints about Ubuntu
> at all. What would I enjoy more going to PCLinuxOS? Anything besides
> KDE, which I'm not particularly worried about?
Forget EasyUbuntu. PCLinuxOS already installs MS fonts, RealPlayer, Java,
Flashplayer, and your choice of 2 different nVidia drivers or ATi drivers
by default. There's no need to run something like EasyUbuntu. It works
"right out of the box". The only things missing are Acrobat Reader, which
KPDF just an admirable job of and it's available from the repositories, and
libdvdcss, which I can't blame them for installing that by default.
Plus, I guarantee you that you'll notice a speed difference in PCLinuxOS.
Hoary wasn't bad for speed. Breezy seemed slower. Dapper is definitely
slower. However, once I popped in PCLOS, it seemed like it gave my machine
a swift kick in the arse. I even had a K7 kernel in Kubuntu, but it never
performed like this.
PCLOS isn't on a 6 month turnover for releases. It gets released when
Texstar decides it's ready. This is the most stable of all distros I've
used to date. I even ran Debian Sarge when it was in the stable branch. It
wasn't as stable as PCLOS.
The artwork is absolutely first rate. Before PCLOS, I thought Suse had
everyone beat hands down for the best looking distro. PCLOS is just about
on-par with Suse.
There's no multiple repository entries in your sources.list file. One active
repo has everything. No security, universe, multiverse anything.
Ubuntu works great at setting up your system. However, when it gets it
wrong, you have to edit stuff. PCLinuxOS delivers a better solution. Not
only does it setup your stuff pretty well for you, but you also get the
PCLinuxOS Control Center, which is just a modified Mandrake Control Center.
This type of control panel utility is what's desperately missing in every
Debian derivative. Why live in the stone age editing config and rc files?
Apps like this are what separates the better distros from the lesser.
Try PCLinuxOS for yourself and see. It really is better than Ubuntu ever has
been. I've tried both the Ubuntu and Kubuntu variants all the way through
Flight 5 of Dapper. It doesn't even compare.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 08 May 2006 21:00:02 +0000, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Of course, there is one area Microsoft might have an edge:
> the number of pieces of software available.
I fire up my package manager, I see something like, oh, 8,000 packages.
Of those, many are libraries, etc, so let's ballpark it at, say, 1,500
actual applications.
Now, since finding an application (mail client, say) is simply a matter of
a local search, selecting it for installation is simply a matter of
checking the check box and installing it is simply a matter of clicking
"apply", I'm much more likely to "experiment" with Linux apps than Windows
apps, which require a lot more work per app just to install.
While there may, in fact, be a lot more Windows apps out there, Linux
presents its apps to the user in a much more direct way; Windows may
_have_ more, but Linux _presents_ more, and in a more friendly and more
manageable fashion.
flatfish+++
>
> Forget EasyUbuntu. PCLinuxOS already installs MS fonts, RealPlayer, Java,
> Flashplayer, and your choice of 2 different nVidia drivers or ATi drivers
> by default. There's no need to run something like EasyUbuntu. It works
> "right out of the box". The only things missing are Acrobat Reader, which
> KPDF just an admirable job of and it's available from the repositories, and
> libdvdcss, which I can't blame them for installing that by default.
libdvdcss is in the repository as well.
One other thing, all the stuff that gets installed WORKS.
It works standalone as well as plugins in the web browser.
> Plus, I guarantee you that you'll notice a speed difference in PCLinuxOS.
> Hoary wasn't bad for speed. Breezy seemed slower. Dapper is definitely
> slower. However, once I popped in PCLOS, it seemed like it gave my machine
> a swift kick in the arse. I even had a K7 kernel in Kubuntu, but it never
> performed like this.
It is amazingly quick on my P4 2.8GHZ.
The last distro I used that was this quick was Yoper and a quasi stage 2
Gentoo install.
Going from Suse 10 to PCLinuxOS gave a very noticeable increase in speed.
> PCLOS isn't on a 6 month turnover for releases. It gets released when
> Texstar decides it's ready. This is the most stable of all distros I've
> used to date. I even ran Debian Sarge when it was in the stable branch. It
> wasn't as stable as PCLOS.
Which is a good thing.
In my book he includes current state of the art/semi bleeding edge
packages, but unlike some other distros, these actually are configured to
work out of the box, and they do.
> The artwork is absolutely first rate. Before PCLOS, I thought Suse had
> everyone beat hands down for the best looking distro. PCLOS is just
> about on-par with Suse.
Same opinion here.
It's a toss up, but both are excellent.
When I go from Linux to Windows, Windows looks washed out looking to me.
PCLinuxOS is bright, sharp and crisp looking on the screen and the default
kde scheme is interesting without being weird and getting in the way.
> There's no multiple repository entries in your sources.list file. One
> active repo has everything. No security, universe, multiverse anything.
>
> Ubuntu works great at setting up your system. However, when it gets it
> wrong, you have to edit stuff. PCLinuxOS delivers a better solution. Not
> only does it setup your stuff pretty well for you, but you also get the
> PCLinuxOS Control Center, which is just a modified Mandrake Control
> Center. This type of control panel utility is what's desperately missing
> in every Debian derivative. Why live in the stone age editing config and
> rc files? Apps like this are what separates the better distros from the
> lesser.
Very true.
Suse Yast is also nice, but a little obtuse for a new user but as you use
it you become familiar with it.
> Try PCLinuxOS for yourself and see. It really is better than Ubuntu ever
> has been. I've tried both the Ubuntu and Kubuntu variants all the way
> through Flight 5 of Dapper. It doesn't even compare.
Absolutely agreed.
This one is a real keeper and try as I might I have not found a screw up
yet, except for the Creative zen thing, but that's a little on the
bleeding edge anyway.
I passed out a few LiveCDS and everyone I gave them to has installed it on
their systems.
Even one guy who is a longtime Slackware user couldn't believe how snappy
the distro runs.
I kinda wonder if the name might be hurting it a little bit?
I purposely never tried it before because I thought it was another
Linspire clone, which isn't bad, but I want something more "linux-ee" not
a Windows clone.
For anyone who doubts Linux can be as good or better, overall, than
Windows, or to people who might have had bad experiences with Linux in the
past, you should try PCLinuxOS because it might change your mind.
Larry Qualig
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 21:00:02 +0000, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> > Of course, there is one area Microsoft might have an edge:
> > the number of pieces of software available.
>
> I fire up my package manager, I see something like, oh, 8,000 packages.
> Of those, many are libraries, etc, so let's ballpark it at, say, 1,500
> actual applications.
The absolute number of applications is basically irrelevant. (I don't
really know what platform has the more applications.) It's really the
quality of applications that matters. Having dozens/hundreds of
unfinished or abandoned apps isn't very useful to anyone.
One platform that's always trailed behind in terms of "raw count" is
the Mac. But generally speaking, the apps that do exist on the Mac are
done well.
Ruel Smith
> libdvdcss is in the repository as well.
> One other thing, all the stuff that gets installed WORKS.
> It works standalone as well as plugins in the web browser.
Definitely.
> It is amazingly quick on my P4 2.8GHZ.
> The last distro I used that was this quick was Yoper and a quasi stage 2
> Gentoo install.
> Going from Suse 10 to PCLinuxOS gave a very noticeable increase in speed.
I understand there is a speedier variant of Suse called SuperSuse.
Supposedly it's pretty fast. Haven't tried it...
>> Ubuntu works great at setting up your system. However, when it gets it
>> wrong, you have to edit stuff. PCLinuxOS delivers a better solution. Not
>> only does it setup your stuff pretty well for you, but you also get the
>> PCLinuxOS Control Center, which is just a modified Mandrake Control
>> Center. This type of control panel utility is what's desperately missing
>> in every Debian derivative. Why live in the stone age editing config and
>> rc files? Apps like this are what separates the better distros from the
>> lesser.
>
> Very true.
> Suse Yast is also nice, but a little obtuse for a new user but as you use
> it you become familiar with it.
I used to think YaST had the Mandrake Control Center whipped and beaten. I
stayed a Suse user for a long time because I thought YaST was the bomb.
However, MCC has come a long way. I think it's a wash. Both are great
control panel apps.
> I passed out a few LiveCDS and everyone I gave them to has installed it on
> their systems.
> Even one guy who is a longtime Slackware user couldn't believe how snappy
> the distro runs.
That's saying a lot.
> I kinda wonder if the name might be hurting it a little bit?
> I purposely never tried it before because I thought it was another
> Linspire clone, which isn't bad, but I want something more "linux-ee" not
> a Windows clone.
Well, I think it's kinda a generic name. I think it sprung from the name of
the old website PCLinuxOnline that Texstar ran.
The OS came later and naturally was named PCLinuxOS. It still sounds rather
generic. But, no matter - this is the best Linux I've ever tried, bar none.
And I've tried a bunch...
> For anyone who doubts Linux can be as good or better, overall, than
> Windows, or to people who might have had bad experiences with Linux in the
> past, you should try PCLinuxOS because it might change your mind.
Agreed.
Ruel Smith
> I fire up my package manager, I see something like, oh, 8,000 packages.
> Of those, many are libraries, etc, so let's ballpark it at, say, 1,500
> actual applications.
Let's reduce that even further, as many apps are just dependencies and such,
like CDRecord, Mkisofs, etc. that are legitimate commandline apps, but
mostly thought of as background apps for frontends like K3b, XCDRoast, etc.
Let's say there's really about 800... Still, that's quite a lot. That's like
an entire software department at CompUSA and more... And it's
absolutely...FREE.
Now, I won't begin to claim that Rosegarden is equal to Steinberg Cubase, or
Gimp is quite the level of Photoshop, but...most are very usable and some
even rather robust.
Ruel Smith
> One platform that's always trailed behind in terms of "raw count" is
> the Mac. But generally speaking, the apps that do exist on the Mac are
> done well.
That's putting it lightly. Those apps that are actually from Apple are
beyone reproach, IMO.
Their talent is on software. They should have left the hardware business
long ago...
flatfish+++
> I understand there is a speedier variant of Suse called SuperSuse.
> Supposedly it's pretty fast. Haven't tried it...
I've been using Suse for a long time and a friend of mine who is really
into the bits and bytes of Linux tells me that Suse's kernel is highly
customized and is loaded with all kinds of stuff that can be removed. I
guess that is one of the reasons that Suse works with just about
everything made as far as hardware is concerned. I hope the 10.1 includes
support for the VIA 6410 RAID controller on ASUS boards. A real POS as a
RAID controller, but works great as an extra standard EIDE controller
allowing 4 more drives to attach to the system. PCLinuxOS, Fedora 5 and I
believe Mepis (not sure on this one) detected it fine.
I've never tried Supersuse.
> I used to think YaST had the Mandrake Control Center whipped and beaten. I
> stayed a Suse user for a long time because I thought YaST was the bomb.
> However, MCC has come a long way. I think it's a wash. Both are great
> control panel apps.
Yep.
I think MCC is a little more friendly for noobs, but Suse's "boot the DVD"
and recover from just about any screw up is real nice and it works pretty
well.
No single user, recovery mode or anything needed. Just check the boxes and
it fixes "things".
> That's saying a lot.
Yea, this guy is a real maniac.
The two of us installed Slack way back when it was about 30 3.5inch
diskettes.
He is still with Slack to this day!!
A real die hard!
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:32:12 +0000, Ruel Smith wrote:
> Let's reduce that even further, as many apps are just dependencies and such,
> like CDRecord, Mkisofs, etc. that are legitimate commandline apps, but
> mostly thought of as background apps for frontends like K3b, XCDRoast, etc.
Oddly, I use mkisofs a lot - directly, as a standalone app.
> Let's say there's really about 800... Still, that's quite a lot. That's like
> an entire software department at CompUSA and more... And it's
> absolutely...FREE.
Not just free. Free and "bundled" and managed by a software management
system which makes the way Windows does things look like it was designed
by a retarded chimp.
> Now, I won't begin to claim that Rosegarden is equal to Steinberg
> Cubase, or Gimp is quite the level of Photoshop, but...most are very
> usable and some even rather robust.
And some are, IMO, better. Take K3B versus Nero. I drop K3B into any box
with a burner, it works. Nero? Tried simply swapping _drives_ and it
didn't work; seems it was specific to the particular drive it was shipped
with. This is a way to convince me to buy your commercial app, by showing
me how crippled and useless it is? I don't think so. Maybe the "real
thing" is better. Maybe it's not. Point is, you had your chance to make
the impression, and you did; the impression is, your stuff sucks.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 08 May 2006 16:47:23 -0700, Larry Qualig wrote:
> The absolute number of applications is basically irrelevant. (I don't
> really know what platform has the more applications.) It's really the
> quality of applications that matters. Having dozens/hundreds of
> unfinished or abandoned apps isn't very useful to anyone.
Well, yes, true, quality of apps counts more than sheer numbers - and
Windows, on the whole, loses again. Miserably. Don't believe me? Do a
couple simple comparisons.
Konqueror. Works sort of like ie/we. You know, web browsing and file
management. Couple of differences, though. Tabbed browsing for one.
A much better security track record, for another. When used to browse,
say, an audio CD, will happily create virtual folders in which flac, mp3
and ogg format files appear, for individual tracks and the entire album,
making cd ripping a simple copy-and-paste operation. IE/WE does all that,
right?
KDE/Gnome/pretty much every wm or dm, versus the Windows GUI. You've got
the entire range from no GUI at all, to minimalist GUIs, to mid-range, to
full-blown DMs - and virtually all of them support, among other things,
virtual desktops, something Windows still needs hand-holding to do; even
MS's offering for this is plastered with "unsupported" and other such
nonsense.
Kopete. Part of KDE. Or Gaim, if you prefer. Bundled. Kopete Supports
MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, GAdu-Gadu, Novell Groupwise, IRC, Jabber, SMS messenging,
and AIM. Gaim supports a similar set. Hmm. Windows bundles MSN
messenger, right? And that works with... er... MSN.
Oh, there are alternatives, of course. Trillian, et al. However, I find
it amusing to note that the memory overhead of my multi-protocol app is
less than that of most of the single-protocol apps, yet it does more.
Amarok. I'm sorry, but last I checked, the Windows world had nothing that
remotely compares to this.
You can ignore OpenOffice, Thunderbird, FireFox, etc; those are available
on both, so don't really count in terms of which has more or better apps.
Konsole + bash. Compared to this, the Windows CLI environment is so
laughably poor it's not even worth commenting on. However, let's see,
what can I do with konsole? Well, let's start with creating multiple
sessions. Sure start/run/cmd will do that - but will it do it in a single
window? Nope. How about creating, say, five of them, use each one to ssh
to a remote server - Windows _does_ have a proper CLI ssh client, right?
Bundled, like I do in Linux? - then select one of them to be the "master"
- meaning anything I type in this console window gets echoed to all the
others? What? No can do? Oh, so if I'm updating multiple
similarly-configured servers, I can enter the commands once, using my
tools, or what, five times using what Windows offers?
Kate. Bundled as part of KDE. I use it as my equivalent of notepad,
since by default, unassociated files open in it. A few differences from
notepad, though, such as session recovery, syntax highlighting for various
apps, etc. Are such editors available for Windows? Sure - but they're
more expensive and generally not as functional, or at least, no more so.
KWallet. Nifty little gadget. Lets me retain passwords for various
things - email accounts, IM accounts, etc - in a password-protected
wallet; as long as I remember the wallet password, it remembers the
others.
KMail - well, Kontact as a whole, really, but let's check just the mailer
for now. Has all the usual bells and whistles - pop, imap, ssl
connections, assorted authentication methods, pipelining, sieve scripting,
etc. Also supports secure signing and encrypting of emails. Let's not
forget that it can manage the care and feeding of both spam and av control
- with any of several back-ends. Its filter creation understands mailing
lists, and can filter them, even if the mail manager isn't directly in the
from or to field. Does *not* render HTML by default, as that would be an
asinine and potentially dangerous thing to do. If you do tell it to
render HTML, it does *not* include remote images, as that would be an
asinine and potentially dangerous thing to do. If you do tell it to
include the images, it still won't execute any javascript, etc, in the
message, as that is such an unbelievably stupid thing to do, nobody would
ever do it. Oh, wait... most Windows mailers _do_ render HTML, _do_ pull
down remote images, and _do_ run embedded code, don't they? Certainly
MS's offerings do.
I can keep this up all day long, showing how app after app after app is
just so much better in Linux. Oh, I'm sure there are offerings in Windows
which will do the job, perhaps even as well. They're not bundled, they're
not free and they're not open, though, are they?
Does Windows have some good apps? Sure. However, I'll put the list of
typical Linux-user apps up against the list of typical Windows-user apps
any day, and in a head-to-head comparison, forget it; the few Windows apps
which are actually worth having just can't compare in sheer volume.
Of course, some of it is cultural more than anything. Take Perl as an
example, or C and C++. Linux users, on the whole, can pretty much take it
as a given they'll have support for these, and probably python as well;
while such things may be _available_ for Windows, they're not part of the
"Windows experience". Nor is decent shell scripting. Windows users get
used to doing things the hard way, then confuse "pretty pictures" with
"polished apps" - which loses track of the goal, which was not to look at
pretty pictures, but to get the job done.
Linonut
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 21:00:02 +0000, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> Of course, there is one area Microsoft might have an edge:
>> the number of pieces of software available.
>
> I fire up my package manager, I see something like, oh, 8,000 packages.
> Of those, many are libraries, etc, so let's ballpark it at, say, 1,500
> actual applications.
Double the numbers for Debian.
> While there may, in fact, be a lot more Windows apps out there, Linux
> presents its apps to the user in a much more direct way; Windows may
> _have_ more, but Linux _presents_ more, and in a more friendly and more
> manageable fashion.
Plus, who's gonna pay for all those Windows apps?
Caveat emptor.
--
Tux rocks!
M
> Ray Ingles spewed this vial garbage:
>
>> Can you specify what PCLinuxOS does better than Ubuntu? Are you
>> familiar with EasyUbuntu? I haven't had too many complaints about Ubuntu
>> at all. What would I enjoy more going to PCLinuxOS? Anything besides
>> KDE, which I'm not particularly worried about?
>
> Forget EasyUbuntu. PCLinuxOS already installs MS fonts, RealPlayer, Java,
> Flashplayer, and your choice of 2 different nVidia drivers or ATi drivers
> by default. There's no need to run something like EasyUbuntu. It works
> "right out of the box". The only things missing are Acrobat Reader, which
> KPDF just an admirable job of and it's available from the repositories,
> and libdvdcss, which I can't blame them for installing that by default.
>
I have been thinking about getting a Hard Disk for my Faster PC box and
putting linux on, so having nVidia drivers would seem to make it an idea
candidate for that box.
> Plus, I guarantee you that you'll notice a speed difference in PCLinuxOS.
> Hoary wasn't bad for speed. Breezy seemed slower. Dapper is definitely
> slower. However, once I popped in PCLOS, it seemed like it gave my machine
> a swift kick in the arse. I even had a K7 kernel in Kubuntu, but it never
> performed like this.
>
Hmmm Interesting. It would be nice to know how much faster it really is.
Armed with my original installation disk and doing a backup like this:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=81311
I think I could get back to where I am now if I wanted, or needed, to do so.
> PCLOS isn't on a 6 month turnover for releases. It gets released when
> Texstar decides it's ready. This is the most stable of all distros I've
> used to date. I even ran Debian Sarge when it was in the stable branch. It
> wasn't as stable as PCLOS.
>
> The artwork is absolutely first rate. Before PCLOS, I thought Suse had
> everyone beat hands down for the best looking distro. PCLOS is just about
> on-par with Suse.
>
> There's no multiple repository entries in your sources.list file. One
> active repo has everything. No security, universe, multiverse anything.
>
> Ubuntu works great at setting up your system. However, when it gets it
> wrong, you have to edit stuff. PCLinuxOS delivers a better solution. Not
> only does it setup your stuff pretty well for you, but you also get the
> PCLinuxOS Control Center, which is just a modified Mandrake Control
> Center. This type of control panel utility is what's desperately missing
> in every Debian derivative. Why live in the stone age editing config and
> rc files? Apps like this are what separates the better distros from the
> lesser.
>
> Try PCLinuxOS for yourself and see. It really is better than Ubuntu ever
> has been. I've tried both the Ubuntu and Kubuntu variants all the way
> through Flight 5 of Dapper. It doesn't even compare.
The only thing that has really stopped me so far, is that I have got things
set up much the way I want them to be, and the (k)ubuntu help and support
is really excellent if I need to make modifications to my setup.
This report (that Roy posted in another thread) doesn't seem to be quite a
glowing as yours :-)
http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/04/27/196256&from=rss
However I am very tempted to give it a go, especially after what you said
about it's speed.
Ruel Smith
> On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:32:12 +0000, Ruel Smith wrote:
>
>> Let's reduce that even further, as many apps are just dependencies and
>> such, like CDRecord, Mkisofs, etc. that are legitimate commandline apps,
>> but mostly thought of as background apps for frontends like K3b,
>> XCDRoast, etc.
>
> Oddly, I use mkisofs a lot - directly, as a standalone app.
I did say that it was a legitimate CLI app, but most people use something
like K3b, which is a frontend to it.
>> Let's say there's really about 800... Still, that's quite a lot. That's
>> like an entire software department at CompUSA and more... And it's
>> absolutely...FREE.
>
> Not just free. Free and "bundled" and managed by a software management
> system which makes the way Windows does things look like it was designed
> by a retarded chimp.
Yeah...Synaptic makes software installation via wizards seem like driving a
Model T in this day and age...
>> Now, I won't begin to claim that Rosegarden is equal to Steinberg
>> Cubase, or Gimp is quite the level of Photoshop, but...most are very
>> usable and some even rather robust.
>
> And some are, IMO, better. Take K3B versus Nero. I drop K3B into any box
> with a burner, it works. Nero? Tried simply swapping _drives_ and it
> didn't work; seems it was specific to the particular drive it was shipped
> with. This is a way to convince me to buy your commercial app, by showing
> me how crippled and useless it is? I don't think so. Maybe the "real
> thing" is better. Maybe it's not. Point is, you had your chance to make
> the impression, and you did; the impression is, your stuff sucks.
Well, yes the real thing is much better. The bundled version is Nero
Express. Nero Ultra Edition is an entire suite of apps - everything from
the burning app, wav editors, system backup software, label designer, media
player, yadda yadda yadda. It's a lot of stuff. The media player is first
rate, the backup software is absolutely first rate, and the burning app
itself is clearly the inspiration for K3b. I'd have to overall give burning
to Nero, but K3b is so good, who cares? Nero isn't _that_ much better.
It depends on what distro I'm using as to whether or not I can burn at full
speed or not in K3b. I've had distros that wouldn't let me burn faster than
16x on any of my drives (52X CD-R/RW and a 16X DVD +-R/RW that does CD @
48X). Some distros get it right and it runs just fine. I have no idea what
the difference is...
Nero burns it at full speed, period.
Ruel Smith
> The only thing that has really stopped me so far, is that I have got
> things set up much the way I want them to be, and the (k)ubuntu help and
> support is really excellent if I need to make modifications to my setup.
Well, consider this: Texstar, the guy that created, compiles, packages, and
maintains PCLinuxOS is not only on the forum, and you can talk to him, but
he's even been in the #pclinuxos chatroom on Efnet. Do you get that kind of
access to Mark Shuttleworth?
Of course, he's a busy guy and you wouldn't necessarily want to bother him
too much, but he accessible. How's that for support?
> This report (that Roy posted in another thread) doesn't seem to be quite a
> glowing as yours :-)
>
> http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/04/27/196256&from=rss
What's so not glowing about the article in that link? It pretty much praises
it.
"PCLOS is probably one of the most user-friendly and pleasant-looking
operating systems around."
> However I am very tempted to give it a go, especially after what you said
> about it's speed.
I'll say this: I'm not the only one that's has noticed how much snappier it
is.
I've used a lot of Linux distros, and used every version of Kubuntu from
Hoary forward and Ubuntu Breezy. In MY opinion, it beats the pants off of
(K)Ubuntu.
M
> M spewed this vial garbage:
>
>> The only thing that has really stopped me so far, is that I have got
>> things set up much the way I want them to be, and the (k)ubuntu help and
>> support is really excellent if I need to make modifications to my setup.
>
> Well, consider this: Texstar, the guy that created, compiles, packages,
> and maintains PCLinuxOS is not only on the forum, and you can talk to him,
> but he's even been in the #pclinuxos chatroom on Efnet. Do you get that
> kind of access to Mark Shuttleworth?
>
> Of course, he's a busy guy and you wouldn't necessarily want to bother him
> too much, but he accessible. How's that for support?
>
I did have a little flick around the forums, but didn't take any notice of
names, I was just looking at the substance of what was being written.
No I can't really see me bothering Texstar with my problems, I would imagine
he has got far more important problems to deal with, but it's good to hear
that he is answering people's problems.
It would be nice to see them develop their Wiki site a bit more.
>> This report (that Roy posted in another thread) doesn't seem to be quite
>> a glowing as yours :-)
>>
>> http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/04/27/196256&from=rss
>
> What's so not glowing about the article in that link? It pretty much
> praises it.
>
Yes he does, and I didn't mean to imply that he didn't.
<quote>
my all-around experience with PCLOS has been very good.
</quote>
From what you have been saying to me and Ray I think you would probable go a
bit further than that :-)
> "PCLOS is probably one of the most user-friendly and pleasant-looking
> operating systems around."
>
>> However I am very tempted to give it a go, especially after what you said
>> about it's speed.
>
> I'll say this: I'm not the only one that's has noticed how much snappier
> it is.
>
> I've used a lot of Linux distros, and used every version of Kubuntu from
> Hoary forward and Ubuntu Breezy. In MY opinion, it beats the pants off of
> (K)Ubuntu.
--
Regards,
M
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 09 May 2006 20:41:22 +0000, Ruel Smith wrote:
> Well, yes the real thing is much better. The bundled version is Nero
> Express. Nero Ultra Edition is an entire suite of apps - everything from
> the burning app, wav editors, system backup software, label designer, media
> player, yadda yadda yadda. It's a lot of stuff.
Great, just what I need. Try to get decent CD burning, I get _another_
freakin' media player. Blech.
Where do I get their CD burner that simply works? Automated Md5
validation, automated conversion of mp3s, can install it in all my
machines with burners, you know, the usual stuff I expect from my software.
> nds on what distro I'm using as to whether or not I can burn at
> full speed or not in K3b. I've had distros that wouldn't let me burn
> faster than 16x on any of my drives (52X CD-R/RW and a 16X DVD +-R/RW
> that does CD @ 48X). Some distros get it right and it runs just fine. I
> have no idea what the difference is...
Dunno. Can't say I've seen this.
> Nero burns it at full speed, period.`
Sometimes. Had one machine with a burner in it, Nero wouldn't push it
past about half the rated speed. Adaptec's app did it.
But, basically, to run Nero, I'd be paying more to get what I've already
got - and adopt a mess of stupid licensing issues on top of it. Where's
the benefit?
Ruel Smith
> But, basically, to run Nero, I'd be paying more to get what I've already
> got - and adopt a mess of stupid licensing issues on top of it. Where's
> the benefit?
Yes, and I did say that K3b is so good, that even though I feel Nero is
better overall, it's pointless to use Nero over K3b. I'd say if only the
Nero Burning ROM part of Nero was a 10, K3b is a 9-1/2. I think it's every
bit as good as a full blown commercial application.