Better think twice about supporting M$ / Windows
Bill
Microsoft specs out 'pay as you go' PC scheme
http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=91
24459
Avoid EVERYTHING (buying, developing, etc.) Microsoft.
Pass it on ...
Seerialmom
> Better think twice about supporting M$ / Windows ...
>
> 24459
>
> Avoid EVERYTHING (buying, developing, etc.) Microsoft.
>
> Pass it on ...
All they did was "patent" the idea. I read the article yesterday on
MSNBC; just because Steve B. "wants" to do this doesn't mean all the
other companies that make the chips, MB's hardware, etc will play
along. MS only makes the Windows OS and Office applications, not the
computers. At this point Apple is gaining market presence and
computer users have begun to lose their fear of Linux (myself
included, the Asus Netbook I bought have Ubuntu on it). If you read
the comments from others who read the same article (on MSNBC), there
was a collective "so"?
Adam Russell
"Bill" <bill@no_thanks.com> wrote in message
news:93t6l.4065$jZ1...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
I think its just going to be an option. No way are pc mfgs going to cancel
pc sales.
Dave
> I think its just going to be an option. No way are pc mfgs going to
> cancel pc sales.
Not to mention, most hardware enthusiasts roll their own, anyway. And linux
is not for sale at any price. -Dave
Seerialmom
That's not Linux I see on the shelves at Fry's or Best Buy?? Or is it
not really Linux if it has another name like Red Hat or Ubuntu?
Dave
"Seerialmom" <seeri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47d47b8d-e9ea-4a41...@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
You can pay a premium price for a certain linux distro if you want official
install media, installation manual / user guide, premium support, etc.
But when I said that linux is not for sale at any price, what I meant
was...no fricking way would Microsoft ever make significant profit off of
this hardware/software pay per use scheme, as long as there is linux in the
world. And there is no chance that Microsoft would ever own linux. At
best, Microsoft could buy a "red hat" (fedora) or a Suse or something. But
that would just make other non-Microsoft affiliated distros of linux more
popular. Microsoft will never own linux.
And before someone screams "but linux will never replace Windows!!!!"
Right now, many distros of linux are not only faster and more stable than
any version of windows, but they are also easier (MUCH!) and faster to
install, and easier to use, than windows. The only real advantage windows
has right now is market share. But if Microsoft pushes this pay per use
scheme? That will change QUICK.
There are many people who will put up with Microsoft products just because
they (the microsoft products) are popular and not too evil. I myself run
Vista on one of my systems, and I like it. But pay per use would push
Microsoft over the edge from mildly evil to (Grab the shotgun Edna!). We'd
likely see a mass migration where linux would gain at least 80% market share
with most of the rest going to whatever Apple OS variant is most
ecent. -Dave
Tom
- Games (though ATI releasing 3D specs today is a step in the right
direction)
- MS Office (OpenOffice is fine for me, and probably fine for most
people, but it supposedly isn't as featureful as MS
Office)
- Photoshop (GIMP supposedly isn't as good)
This seems off-topic for the newsgroups we're in, however.
--
Tom
Bill
"Dave" <now...@nohow2.not> wrote in message
news:gje100$86d$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Amen!
To avoid shooting themselves (and others) in the foot,
developers might want to think twice about using Windows as
a development platform. Instead, consider using Linux.
It's much more cost effective. :-)
In this economy, management / everyone need to spend wisely.
Dumping M$ / Windows and going with Linux seems
like a wise choice for corporations / everyone.
Do not wait until you see the coffin before crying.
Pass it on ...
Dave
> Amen!
>
> To avoid shooting themselves (and others) in the foot,
> developers might want to think twice about using Windows as
> a development platform. Instead, consider using Linux.
> It's much more cost effective. :-)
>
> In this economy, management / everyone need to spend wisely.
> Dumping M$ / Windows and going with Linux seems
> like a wise choice for corporations / everyone.
>
> Do not wait until you see the coffin before crying.
>
> Pass it on ...
>
>
Last I checked, most businesses were running linux on their servers already.
It's only a matter of time until the client machines start running linux.
At that point, most of the HOME computers (not used for business) will start
converting to linux. -Dave
Stray Dog
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Seerialmom wrote:
> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:23:02 -0800 (PST)
> From: Seerialmom <seeri...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.development.device.drivers, misc.invest.stocks,
> misc.consumers.frugal-living
> Subject: Re: Better think twice about supporting M$ / Windows
If it says Linux, then it should be some "distribution" (i.e. under Red
Hat or Ubuntu or any of the other "distribution" names). I have no idea
what the guy means by not for sale at any price. If you care to dig around
and learn how to do it and have high speed access, you can get a copy for
free.
The problems with Linux (I spent a few years, a few years ago, looking
hard at Linux and came back to windows 98 second edition for 99% of my
work plus I refused to upgrade my software for two reasons: i) I could do
everything I needed to do with what I had, and ii) I refuse to help bill
gates get even richer) is that you need to know more than you think to
"take care of it". The advantage of Windows is that it is as "plug and
play" as any OS can be and Apple's OS-X is not as immune to hacks as they
would like you to think (just google on "hack os-x" for 30,000 hits).
And, by the way, OS-X is basically BSD, another unix clone like Linux, and
you can get BSD cheap or free, too, but you also need to be a little geeky
to know what you are doing.
But, in the end, there is probably more software--easily installable and
uninstallable--for Windows than anything else.
The big insult with the new Windows (i.e. all late versions) is that they
do not give you an "install disk" so you can re-install your OS if some
hacker messes up your hard drive. It is critical that you get backup
software, and backup your OS before you put it on the internet (before the
spyware, rootkits, viruses, and other malicious code [coming in via java,
javascript, etc] get on the box and mess you up). So, if you don't have a
backup (and you have to be brave to try this), you end up taking your
thing back to the store and spend maybe couple hundred bucks having THEM
re-install the OS. And, you might call up a few repair stores and ask
about this before you plunk down your money. I'm reading and hearing about
people who --when their box starts behaving slow and erratic--just throw
it away and buy a new box rather than nuke their hard drive and
re-install.
Another big insult with Microsoft is the product activation so that you
have to contact them and get them to let you re-activate your software and
its up to their pleasure to grant that or not. This part makes me think
"go Linux" but as long as all the software I have now (Windows 98 second
edition) works fine, I'm going to stay with it and not just to save money,
but all the other agravation.
Finding old versions of Windows is a pain, but might be possible on eBay,
etc., and you'd better ask about the license that comes with the original
disks. Of course, if you get a bootleg copy I suppose you also have the
priviledge of re-installing without problems but just make sure you get
that product code, which is often somewhere in the documentation that
almost everyone throws away, thus making the disks useless. Microsoft
pulled every trick it could to guarantee as much as possible to itself
continued profits that come out of your wallet.
I'm not sure where the world is going to be in 10-20 years, but THEY will
get you to part with your money if they can.
Adam
"Stray Dog" <sdog...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.08...@sdf.lonestar.org...
=========================================================
Absolutely! Of course, Bill Gates wants your money.
Bill Gates even dared to go on television (in this economy) to
tell people that they should still donate (to his foundation).
And worse, Bill Gates wants to screw Americans too ...
Bill Gates makes the (bogus) case for more (cheap) foreign labor
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070226-8924.html
Shame on Bill Gates!
That guy "um...er...uh"s a lot but he sure has nerves. :-)
Tom
> The problems with Linux (I spent a few years, a few years ago, looking
> hard at Linux and came back to windows 98 second edition for 99% of my
> work plus I refused to upgrade my software for two reasons: i) I could
> do everything I needed to do with what I had, and ii) I refuse to help
> bill gates get even richer)
charity through The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
> The advantage of Windows is that it is as "plug and play" as any OS can
> be
That's not true. Windows isn't as "plug and play" as any OS can be. They
don't come with 3D drivers, wireless drivers, printer drivers, etc.
Okay, they come with some of those, but not as much as an OS could. A
problem is that many manufacturers wouldn't allow them to distribute
their drivers with, say, Windows XP. Neither would they allow, say,
Ubuntu to distribute their drivers.
Fortunately, however, there are hundreds, if not thousands of drivers in
the Linux kernel and many more in other free software projects.
Here is a Linux developer dispelling various myths[0].
I suggest you try the latest Ubuntu. I suspect you'd be suprised at its
ability to "plug and play": printers, sound cards, graphics, USB hard
drives, etc. are all really good now.
Unless you have Intel graphics you won't automatically get graphics
drivers which can handle 3D, though you will be notified that non-free
3D graphics exist and they can be installed in a few clicks.
Today ATI released code which will help produce a fully open sourced 3D
driver for ATI cards, which will supposedly be available in a few
months. Documentation will supposedly be released in a month, which will
help the process.
> But, in the end, there is probably more software--easily installable and
> uninstallable--for Windows than anything else.
I don't believe that's true. Modern package managers (such as Ubuntu's
Synaptic) make software management incredibly easy. It will download and
install software (of which 15000+ pieces are available) which is almost
guaranteed to work on your system with the click of a button. You can
then uninstall it with the click of a button.
Note how this is different from having to search Google for a piece of
software, then download it (maybe after having to register for it, or
having to agree to a long and questionable EULA), then install it. Get
ready for "next, next, next, I agree, next". Yawn. Okay, let's try the
software.
Now say you dislike the software for whatever reason, let's uninstall
it. Add/Remove Programs. Let's hope it's in here (I've used software
which didn't put itself in that list). Now let's remove it. "Please tell
us why you didn't like the software *opens window*" Piss off, I just
want to uninstall you. Leave me alone.
Oh, and Ubuntu's package manager updates software without which you
would probably be more likely to have insecure and/or buggy software on
your computer. Some Windows-based programs will automatically update but
this is neither as elegant or universal.
[Note: I've only used Windows XP, 2000 and 98 a lot. Vista may have
solved some of these problems.]
> Another big insult with Microsoft is the product activation so that you
> have to contact them and get them to let you re-activate your software
> and its up to their pleasure to grant that or not. This part makes me
> think "go Linux" but as long as all the software I have now (Windows 98
> second edition) works fine, I'm going to stay with it and not just to
> save money, but all the other agravation.
Windows 98 no longer receives security updates, so I'd suggest not using
that.
I believe if you tried a Linux distribution again (I suggest Ubuntu,
typically) that you'd be surprised at the progress that has been made.
Living without package managers, which are full of software which you
know is "nice" (no activations, freely available, open source and hence
Linux geeks are able to fix problems which they do often) is painful.
[0] http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
--
Tom
The Real Bev
> In this economy, management / everyone need to spend wisely.
> Dumping M$ / Windows and going with Linux seems
> like a wise choice for corporations / everyone.
>
> Do not wait until you see the coffin before crying.
>
> Pass it on ...
Who else here is in the choir?
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 12.1)
============================================================
"To liberals, building a wall across the Mexican border is a
violation of the Voting Rights Act." -- Ann Coulter
Tomes
I believe that most folks use Windows at home because they were trained on
it at work and/or it just came on their systems automatically. That is a
huge paradigm to overcome; tons of inertia. While Linux might be running
the server, Windows is on the machine that is looking at the user. To get
enough corporations to dump Windows and retrain all their employees [at
significant expense] on another OS in order to have enough momentum to get
this going will be a huge and unlikely task, IMO.
Tomes
John Galt
Well, it's a task that nobody wants to budget for. In reality, 99% of
all computer users in a business use nothing but (a) the simplest 10% of
Office, and (b) application clients that run in a browser.
This is simply fear of the unknown holding people back. An hour of
familiarity training with Linux and its business as usual.
JG
Marsha
> Well, it's a task that nobody wants to budget for. In reality, 99% of
> all computer users in a business use nothing but (a) the simplest 10% of
> Office, and (b) application clients that run in a browser.
>
> This is simply fear of the unknown holding people back. An hour of
> familiarity training with Linux and its business as usual.
>
> JG
>
People do not like to leave their comfort zone, although that's not a
wise choice. Who Moved My Cheese is a great read.
ahedge
if this "pay as you go" scheme would target other than corporate servers.
Consumers machines don't have significant peaks of usage nor great
diffferences between users' load patterns, IMO.
Anyway, this pay as you go approach, although with a different twist, has
been already used on mainframes. Nothing much new here, if not a perhaps
pathetic effort by Redmond to build a new competitive advantage.
All damn boring, in my view, but that's probably how the post Gates
Microsoft is doomed to be.
Maxim S. Shatskih
> any version of windows,
Wrong. Some features in Linux (i.e. SMB protocol client) are by far slower. They still have no stable (only experimental) crash-proof journaling filesystem, and so on.
"Stable" in the absense of 3rd party software only, only if you use the out-of-the-box software included to the distro. Well, Windows+MS Office _and no other software_ is also very stable. I would even say that Windows+a bunch of Microsoft-only softtware on it - is amazingly stable.
>but they are also easier (MUCH!) and faster to
> install, and easier to use, than windows.
Wrong. All Linux GUI software (probably with the exception of the Konqueror web browser) suffers from lots of tiny misfeatures.
Now let's consider games on Linux. Sorry guys.
Now let's consider .NET business apps on Linux. Sorry guys.
Now let's consider the front-end of any business/accounting software on Linux. Sorry guys.
Now let's consider the certified Oracle for Linux. Sorry guys, _this_ Linux distro (RHEL) costs more then Windows Server.
> likely see a mass migration where linux would gain at least 80% market share
These tales were spoken about since early 2000ies. Starting from around 2004, I see the new attitude arising - a person tried Linux, a person understood that it's nasty, a person returned to Windows _with the knowlegde that Windows is not perfect (but Linux is even worse).
> with most of the rest going to whatever Apple OS variant is most
A niche OS. 10% of market is a dream for them, and I'm speaking about SOHO/personal. About enterprise desktop - 1% is a dream for them.
It is too tied to proprietary expensive hardware to begin with.
I'm seen lots of people around me considering iPhone as being pathetic toy _in comparison with recent WinMobile devices_ like HTC's ones. Though I myself consider iPhone a good device, comparable to WinMobile 1-to-1 in features (I'm also speaking about the set of 3rd party software) and aestetically more pleasant.
Now note that attitudes of all these vendors and communities.
MS: mass-market commodity of affordable quality. For entry-level users and for professionals. Like a Japanese or Korean car. Nothing glamorous or elite. It just works.
Apple: aestetically pleasant toy for fans who are not IT professionals. Amazing lack of some simple and convinient features, just before "Steve Jobs thinks you do not need it at all".
Linux: for tinkering fans, for professionals more concerned about mastering some schizoid language syntax and not to do the job done. Lots of distros different in tiny features - this difference causes issues and does not bring any value. The community attitude of "hey moron, go away!".
--
Maxim S. Shatskih
Windows DDK MVP
ma...@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com
Maxim S. Shatskih
>
> direction)
Linux has major architectural issues in their X11 which hinders the hi-perf 3D graphics a lot. Windows NT 3 has the same issues, but the architecture was redone in Windows NT 4 in year 1996.
X11 is a well-known mis-architecture. A couple of years ago I read about the KDE guys going on to develop _their own low-level 2D graphics_ to replace X11 (anyway the programming patterns in KDE deal with KDE objects and never with raw X11, so, the shift would be not noticeable for apps at al). Also note that the most successul UNIX on desktop/GUI apps - Mac OS - does not use X11.
Mac OS's (aka NextStep's) GUI engine architecture is probably the world's best. MS is catching up with it only with WPF, but sorry, WPF is 2006, while NextStep was 1992 or so.
> - MS Office (OpenOffice is fine for me, and probably fine for most
> people, but it supposedly isn't as featureful as MS
> Office)
Printed papers from OpenOffice differ a bit from the same paper from MS Office, yes, from the same document file. Sometimes it is critical (not always). Also OO is much slower - on file open/save, for instance.
> - Photoshop (GIMP supposedly isn't as good)
For an amateur GIMP is OK, but I know of no professional who uses GIMP. The thing is about plugins.
Maxim S. Shatskih
> developers might want to think twice about using Windows as
> a development platform. Instead, consider using Linux.
> It's much more cost effective. :-)
This tale is told for 10 years at least, but the world is still here.
Looks like the tale has major issues.
Maxim S. Shatskih
> it at work and/or it just came on their systems automatically.
...and some folks use Windows at home because they tried Linux, decided it is bad and switched back. The number of such people really grows since around 2003-04.
> the server, Windows is on the machine that is looking at the user. To get
> enough corporations to dump Windows and retrain all their employees [at
> significant expense] on another OS in order to have enough momentum to get
> this going will be a huge and unlikely task
There were also the major failure stories with this - like the one in German governement.
Windows (as also Windows-based technologies like .NET) is backed not only by MS, but by huge number of other software companies, IT solution providers, training centers and so on. This is a huge ecosystem, and is really a business-oriented one.
Sorry, Linux lacks this ecosystem - a couple of large companies (one of them also has their propietary UNIX competing with Linux), and a mass of tinkering fans.
The community support for Windows is better.
Maxim S. Shatskih
> wise choice.
In most situations this is a wise choice.
Innovations are only good if they produce new value. What new value is produced by switching the home PC to Linux, given the fact that most Linux software are not-so-well made clones of Windows software (like KDE to Windows shell, OO to MS Office and so on?)
The only value produced by such a move is due to Linux being free, but sorry, this is not about any _supported_ distros like RHEL.
As about the corporate network - saving money on software while losing it on 2-times-as-large IT department (and yes, the switch will require so) - is a bad idea.
Maxim S. Shatskih
>gates get even richer)
OK, help Linus Torvalds or Ingo Molnar get richer :-)
For me, this is not an issue anyway. There are always some High Guys, some elite, some bosses, and they are always rich. Being the classic of human society, this does not touch me at all, at least until they start to subjugate the usual people (which Bill does _not_).
>play" as any OS can be and Apple's OS-X is not as immune to hacks as they
Apple OS always had the same sad story of malware and virii as MS's OSes, even back to 1990ies. Given the Apple's 10-times-smaller market share, this _is_ the issue.
>And, by the way, OS-X is basically BSD, another unix clone like Linux
Sorry-sorry. This is a known logical fallacy - you compare parts, find it to be similar, and then declare that the whole things are the same.
If you take the inner kernel - then yes, OS X is similar to Linux. Now let's take the GUI - and the similarity disappears, with Apple different from Linux same way as from Windows.
Apple has the world's best architecture for GUI and graphics engine (Microsoft followed with WPF only, which is based on the same concepts). That's why it - and not Linux - has some noticeable market share on the desktops/laptops.
>The big insult with the new Windows (i.e. all late versions) is that they
>do not give you an "install disk" so you can re-install your OS if some
>hacker messes up your hard drive.
All laptop vendors give such a disk I think.
>software, and backup your OS before you put it on the internet (before the
>spyware, rootkits, viruses, and other malicious code [coming in via java,
>javascript, etc] get on the box and mess you up).
99.99% reliable protection of _all_ of the malware in Windows is achievable by following 4-5 simple rules. Same is with Linux or Mac OS, BTW.
Just read the stories of known Windows malware titles. SQL Slammer? sorry guys, do not expose the database to the public network, and _do install patches_. MSBlaster? just plain _do install patches_. Recent IE issues in some rarely-used components like some XML data access (I think they are used mostly by malware and not by useful code)? Turn on Data Execution Protection, which is on by default on server SKUs, and be safe.
And so on.
There is nothing technically bad in Windows which makes it a preferred thing for malware. From the technical side of things, Windows, Linux and Mac OS are around being the same about this.
Maxim S. Shatskih
> Fortunately, however, there are hundreds, if not thousands of drivers in
> the Linux kernel and many more in other free software projects.
Go on setting up CUPS for a new cheap HP printer in any Linux or FreeBSD. A day of work. For FreeBSD, it is also an 1-2 hour recompile process usually.
> Here is a Linux developer dispelling various myths[0].
...and seeding anothers :-)
> which didn't put itself in that list). Now let's remove it. "Please tell
> us why you didn't like the software *opens window*"
This is a software vendor's issue and not the issue of Windows.
Dave
> It would be nice, but I cannot hold my breath waiting for that fateful
> day. I believe that most folks use Windows at home because they were
> trained on it at work and/or it just came on their systems automatically.
> That is a huge paradigm to overcome; tons of inertia. While Linux might
> be running the server, Windows is on the machine that is looking at the
> user. To get enough corporations to dump Windows and retrain all their
> employees [at significant expense] on another OS in order to have enough
> momentum to get this going will be a huge and unlikely task, IMO.
> Tomes
What training? The IT department is already trained (they are supporting
the linux servers already). Linux is intuitive enough that any experienced
windows user should be able to figure it out (as a user, anyway) on their
own in just an hour or so of tinkering. No training required. -Dave
Dave
>In most situations this is a wise choice.
>Innovations are only good if they produce new value. What new value is
>produced by switching the home PC >to Linux, given the fact that most Linux
>software are not-so-well made clones of Windows software (like KDE >to
>Windows shell, OO to MS Office and so on?)
Have you ever USED Open Office? It is superior to Microsoft Office in
almost every way, other than market share.
>As about the corporate network - saving money on software while losing it
>on 2-times-as-large IT department >>(and yes, the switch will require so) -
>is a bad idea.
You are talking out of your ass here. First, most of the servers are
running linux already. You shouldn't have to hire even a single employee
extra in the IT department if you want to switch the client systems to
linux. Depending on HOW MANY client systems you want to change over at a
single time, you might want to bring in an outside contractor to help for a
half-day or so with the installation. But this would be no more labor
intensive than if you were rolling out a new version of Windows. If you
don't care how fast the client machines get switched over, no outside help,
and no extra INSIDE help will be needed to facilitate the switch.
AFTER the switch to linux, you will probably want to DOWNSIZE the IT
department slightly. You will need fewer people to support the client
systems, as they will almost never need service, barring a true hardware
problem. -Dave
Pavel A.
microsoft.public.development.device.drivers from the follow-ups.
When we're in the blah-blah mood here, we'll come to your "misc" NGs.
Happy New Year!
Regards,
-- PA
Tomes
> Tomes:
Tomes
Tomes
>All laptop vendors give such a disk I think.
My Gateway laptop purchased last year had no such disks. My Dell purchased
a few years ago also had no such disks.
Tomes
Tomes
> Tomes...
that would need to be addressed. One cannot just say 'here is it, figure it
out'. I saw this first hand when Union Carbide went to SAP from their
previous systems to address the year 200 (non)issue.
Tomes
Alexander Grigoriev
decision. Blame HP and Dell, not MS.
"Tomes" <ask...@here.net> wrote in message
news:gjft9d$sdn$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Tom
discussion is here? I suspect they're either annoyed that troll-like
threads such as this are around and/or they're having fun laughing at it.
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
> Some features in Linux (i.e. SMB protocol client) are by far slower.
Citation needed.
> They still have no stable (only experimental) crash-proof journaling
> filesystem, and so on.
Again, citation needed. Is ext3 considered crash-proof?
> "Stable" in the absense of 3rd party software only, only if you use the
> out-of-the-box software included to the distro. Well, Windows+MS Office
> and no other software_ is also very stable. I would even say that
> Windows+a bunch of Microsoft-only softtware on it - is amazingly
> stable.
I agree that Windows by itself is stable. It seems only when bad
applications are installed that bad things start to happen.
>> but they are also easier (MUCH!) and faster to
>> install, and easier to use, than windows.
>
> Wrong. All Linux GUI software (probably with the exception of the Konqueror
> web browser) suffers from lots of tiny misfeatures.
If you think Konqueror has no tiny misfeatures then you're wrong.
> Now let's consider games on Linux. Sorry guys.
Yep. This isn't the Linux's fault, though this is still a point against
why someone would use Linux.
> Now let's consider .NET business apps on Linux. Sorry guys.
Mmm, I'm not sure if this is a particularly valid point, given I don't
know how easy of a job the Mono people have. Still, Mono exists
(although it only supports upto and including .NET 2.0)
> Now let's consider the front-end of any business/accounting software on
> Linux. Sorry guys.
I don't know.
> Now let's consider the certified Oracle for Linux. Sorry guys, _this_
> Linux distro (RHEL) costs more then Windows Server.
I don't know the details of this either. If you bought it from RHEL
would it include support? Does support come with Windows Server? If
support comes with both, which support is better?
> These tales were spoken about since early 2000ies.
Just because those tales were around 8 years ago doesn't make them false
now. As expected, Linux has changed a lot since then.
> Starting from around 2004, I see the new attitude arising - a person tried
> Linux, a person understood that it's nasty, a person returned to
> Windows _with the knowlegde that Windows is not perfect (but Linux is
> even worse).
This isn't particularly useful. In 2004 Linux wasn't as good as it is
now. If you have seen that behaviour recently (where I claim Linux is
much better) then it still isn't particularly useful: Which distribution
did they try? Was that person trying Linux with an open mind?
If you provided reasons for their dislike then someone might be able to
comment on them.
> *snip Apple stuff*
Meh.
> Linux: for tinkering fans, for professionals more concerned about mastering
> some schizoid language syntax and not to do the job done.
If you're talking about perl (or even python) then it's a shame you feel
that way. Perl, though not suited to every job, is very suited to some.
I believe it'd be a good idea for you to learn more about these
languages to see why people use them. If you're not willing to do that,
I'd like to know your reasons.
I hope that reason isn't due to shortsightedness.
> Lots of distros different in tiny features - this difference causes
> issues and does not bring any value.
If you believe that's the main feature in how Linux distributions differ
then you're opinion on Linux doesn't count for much because it would
seem that you don't know much about it.
Linux distributions differ in philosophy.
The difference does cause issues, but they don't cause particularly
noticeable differences. For the end-user they'll be using one
distribution and these differences will be sorted by the distribution
developers.
> The community attitude of "hey moron, go away!".
There are places designed for newbies to ask their questions (Ubuntu
forums have subforums for new users, for example).
If you wander into an IRC channel for a program and ask a developer a
question which is answered in documentation (which they typed up), don't
be surprised if they sound harsh in their response.
Here are some advantages using Linux has for businesses. I'd like you to
comment on each of them:
- Free software in the sense of having the source and being able to
change it. This is useful because if a company finds a flaw in a
piece of software, they then have the power to fix it themselves
(or hire somebody to fix it for them) rather than wait for a
single entity, Microsoft in this case, to fix it. Microsoft may
not even consider it a bug. What's this company to do in that
case?
- I'm not sure of the details, nor do I have the time to look them
up, but IIRC there are some nasty bits in the Windows XP EULA,
which allow Microsoft access to that machine.
It is irresponsible (and risks being subject to the Data
Protection Act) for a company to allow another entity access to
their machines/data.
- Cost. Definitely in some cases it's cheaper to use free software.
(Take OOo.org vs MS Office. Sure, MS Office may be better and
faster, but a company may decide that the slower and
less-featureful OOo.org is more suited to their needs, given it
costs nothing).
I know there is some debate over total cost of ownership. I don't
have many facts so I won't argue about it.
- Security. Again, I don't have many facts so I can't comment much
on it. Here is a report[0] from The Register, however.
Please comment on each point.
[0]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
--
Tom
Tom
> If the hardware title is _newer_ then the OS - then there will be a
> driver issue for sure, with any OS.
release cycle is much longer.
T
> Go on setting up CUPS for a new cheap HP printer in any Linux or FreeBSD.
> A day of work. For FreeBSD, it is also an 1-2 hour recompile process usually.
I'll need a citation for me to take that comment seriously.
>> Here is a Linux developer dispelling various myths[0].
> ...and seeding anothers :-)
Give reasons for what you mean and I might be able to comment on them.
>> which didn't put itself in that list). Now let's remove it. "Please tell
>> us why you didn't like the software *opens window*"
>
> This is a software vendor's issue and not the issue of Windows.
This argument isn't just about Windows (by itself) vs Linux. We're
talking about both operating systems being as they would day-to-day.
If you want new software on Windows, that is the process you have to go
through. Sure, the developer is at fault for having a nasty
uninstallation process.
On, say, Ubuntu, however, if you stick to using the repositories (which
is recommended and possible, I do it) then installation and
uninstallation is guaranteed to be free of these issues.
This is because Windows does not have a package manager as powerful and
extensive (in terms of number of good quality packages), which
fundamentally (I believe) is because the software that people usually
use on Windows is non-free and has distribution problems. Since most of
the software an Ubuntu user would use is free (i.e. is DFSG or
GPL-compatible) then distribution problems aren't an issue and the
repositories can (and do) contain many good quality software.
Even software with distribution problems can be handled nicely by
Ubuntu's package manager.
Now, food time for me, I'm hungry. :)
--
Tom
Don Burn
week and the people who administer the list are on vacation. All this has
done, is stop me from checking this list as often to answer questions.
As far as the original cause of this, the thing is a patent! Companies get
patents all the time on things, that does not mean they put them into
production. Both IBM and Oracle I believe have patents in this area, and
IIRC one of the companies Red Hat acquired was working on similar stuff.
If you guys want to talk conspiracy move to Roswell and look for aliens, if
you want to argue the merits of various software, find an appropriate forum,
and the least you can do is quote real studies (there are enough conflicting
ones out there that you can still keep the debate going).
--
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
Remove StopSpam to reply
"Tom" <t...@spam.please> wrote in message
news:XdL6l.89887$oT4....@newsfe23.ams2...
Tom
>> everything I needed to do with what I had, and ii) I refuse to help bill
>> gates get even richer)
>
> OK, help Linus Torvalds or Ingo Molnar get richer :-)
Linus and Igno aren't.
I don't see why this is a reason though either.
> For me, this is not an issue anyway. There are always some High Guys,
> some elite, some bosses, and they are always rich. Being the classic
> of human society, this does not touch me at all, at least until they
> start to subjugate the usual people (which Bill does _not_).
Arguable they do due to the anti-competitive behaviour (see various
lawsuits).
> There is nothing technically bad in Windows which makes it a preferred
> thing for malware. From the technical side of things, Windows, Linux
> and Mac OS are around being the same about this.
An extract from The Register's Linux vs Windows Security Report[0]:
> Finally, we also include a brief overview of relevant conceptual
> differences between Windows and Linux, to offer an insight into why
> Windows tends to be more vulnerable to attacks at both server and
> desktop, and why Linux is inherently more secure.
I would read the report again and try to formulate a precise argument
against your claim that "from the technical side of things, Windows and
Linux are around the being the same about this", but I'm starting to
wonder the point of this whole discussion.
From a glance it looks to at least talk about the response time for
patches. If it's true that Windows responds to problems slower than
Linux (this is a total abuse of the word "Linux". I should probably use
"free software community" but let's ignore that) then that would be one
reason malware authors target Windows.
(I ate btw :))
--
Tom
Tom
> Personally I am annoyed, I suspect it would be deleted but this is a holiday
> week and the people who administer the list are on vacation. All this has
> done, is stop me from checking this list as often to answer questions.
>
> As far as the original cause of this, the thing is a patent! Companies get
> patents all the time on things, that does not mean they put them into
> production. Both IBM and Oracle I believe have patents in this area, and
> IIRC one of the companies Red Hat acquired was working on similar stuff.
>
> If you guys want to talk conspiracy move to Roswell and look for aliens, if
> you want to argue the merits of various software, find an appropriate forum,
> and the least you can do is quote real studies (there are enough conflicting
> ones out there that you can still keep the debate going).
>
>
Sorry. I'll stop posting to microsoft.public.development.device.drivers
about this then... which leaves misc.invest.stocks and
misc.consumers.frugal-living ... how is this on-topic at all? :\
Regards
--
Tom
Ron Peterson
<ma...@storagecraft.com.no.spam> wrote:
> X11 is a well-known mis-architecture. A couple of years ago I read about the KDE guys going on to develop _their own low-level 2D graphics_ to replace X11 (anyway the programming patterns in KDE deal with KDE objects and never with raw X11, so, the shift would be not noticeable for apps at al). Also note that the most successul UNIX on desktop/GUI apps - Mac OS - does not use X11.
X11 part of the Mac OS X operating system suite, so X11 applications
will run on it.
> Mac OS's (aka NextStep's) GUI engine architecture is probably the world's best. MS is catching up with it only with WPF, but sorry, WPF is 2006, while NextStep was 1992 or so.
NextStep used Display PostScript, but licensing problems forced Apple
to go to a PDF imaging model, but that is probably a good thing since
PostScript is a programming language which can have some severe
performance problems.
--
Ron
Maxim S. Shatskih
>will run on it.
It is an additional non-mandatory add-on not used by any native Mac OS apps.
>NextStep used Display PostScript, but licensing problems forced Apple
>to go to a PDF imaging model
Which is binazired PostScript :-)
WPF is very similar, though uses XAML and binazired XAML instead of PostScript.
Maxim S. Shatskih
Yes, for several months, just to try. Then replaced it with Office 2007 and is happy with it.
>It is superior to Microsoft Office in almost every way
It is by far slower opening and saving large documents, and also consumes by far more memory while running with the same documents opened.
Also yes, the printed documents do differ from MS Office's. This is not a question of superiority, but the question of compatibility. It is not 100% compatible with MS Office.
Also I never use scripts and macros in Office documents. People who use them heavily say that OO is junk, since it breaks them all :-)
> You are talking out of your ass here.
The usual way of life of Linux guys is turning to personal assalts from their second email :-) Starting to reply to this thread, I was thinking about when the words like "ass" or "f*ck" will arrive from the Linux fans. It turned out to be - on second reply.
Do you _really_ think that serious decision makers will be impressed with such a community?
>First, most of the servers are running linux already.
Around 80% of _corporate_ webservers run IIS - go and print "HEAD /" in telnet to any major corporate website.
The reason is simple - ASP.NET is the best web development platform in the world. Period.
The stats of Apache running ~50% of webservers in the world is not due to corporate websites, but due to hosting providers which host some usually insignificant personal homepages and similar things.
Also I never heard on a Linux server running serious database of any kind. Solaris - yes, Windows - yes, but not Linux. It is _very rare_ in this world. It is exotic, to say the truth.
>You shouldn't have to hire even a single employee
> extra in the IT department if you want to switch the client systems to
> linux.
Linux servers do not run GUI apps at all, and Linux GUI apps... hm... most of them really seem to be a toy creatures of undergrad students compared to the apps from major commercial vendors.
>Depending on HOW MANY client systems you want to change over at a
>single time, you might want to bring in an outside contractor to help for a
>half-day or so with the installation
Yes, this will quickly turn in creation of your own proprietary Linux distro and maintaining it in-house. Which, in turn, is _the_ task, which surely is beyound the abilities (budget-determined) of IT departments of very many non-large companies.
Linux in SOHO is also funny. I know a small (~20 people) company runned by a female friend of mine. They switched to Linux - thanks God, not on desktop, on their 2-3 servers. They hired a part-time guy to set these servers up.
Then the guy quitted, and soons the servers degraded, and the whole company could not manage to change the IP address of the server after a relocation to the new office. Finding yet another part-time-geek was too long an affair, and the consultant's fee to go and recover the server was 4 times higher than the same fee for Windows.
Soon after this, they switched back to Windows _and forgot unprofessional part-time IT-related geeks_ forever. Windows server is easy enough to manage by the accountant, or a marketoid, or a sales manager, or in the small business by the CEO him/herself. Just remember several trivial principles - which, BTW, the default installations of Vista and 2008 will enforce on you.
The reason is simple - do not play nuts, bolts, and screwdrivers, use professional consumer products which are developed for ease of maintenance. Mankind have invented the labor division very long ago, so, let the corporate professional software vendors do their job in-house, and concentrate on _your job_ instead of teaching how to hack lots of unstructured config files in /etc or /usr/local/etc.
> AFTER the switch to linux, you will probably want to DOWNSIZE the IT
> department slightly. You will need fewer people to support the client
> systems, as they will almost never need service
UNIX systems have by far more ways of breaking themselves that Windows systems. Due to abuse of scripting, for instance. Due to app conflicts, and so on.
As about security holes - just google for security holes in open-source web applications like the phpBB forum engine. Being there, know this. Most hacked websites run Linux and Apache.
Maxim S. Shatskih
Nowadays Linux is known to most people. It is no more unknown.
Also note that "fear of the unknown" is not a bad thing. Yes, really so.
If we are speaking about some really progressive future, like, say, a switch from Win95 to WinNT or from carburator car to EFI car, or from propeller airplane to a jet one - then yes, fear of the unknown is bad.
But how is Linux/open source progressive? the vast majority of their software titles are just clones (often badly made) of existing commercial ones:
- KDE base is a clone of Windows shell
- KDE Kate is a clone of older MS Visual Studio - can work, works rather well (one of the good open source apps, though the syntax highlight settings page suffers bad usability a lot), but it is _a clone_
- GCC is clone of the AT&T C compiler
- Linux itself is a clone of UNIX kernels family
- Amarok is a clone of MS's Media Player
- PHP/Zend is a clone of old pre-.NET ASP, appeared 3-4 years later
- GIMP is a clone of Photoshop and their extinct commercial competitor Corel Photo Paint
- OO is a clone of MS Office, still lacks in performance, compatibility and features
- MySQL is extremely badly made clone of Microsoft Jet Database Engine (to name it "clone of MSSQLServer" means to name the bycicle a clone of Toyota)
- ReiserFS is the clone of NTFS
...and so on. I can name only very little amount of technologies really originated in open-source community - Perl being one of them.
How the world of clones can be progressive?
If we are speaking about any innovations in IT - they are nearly always driven by _commercial companies_ (note: I'm not about Microsoft _only_ here).
Then open source guys come and make clones. Hey, they even failed to clone MS Exchange Server or Lotus Domino. For years.
It tooks them more then 10 years (is it really so? is Reiser stable enough for now to run on the real-world systems?) to clone NTFS.
There are good open source software titles. Linux kernel itself is good, so is FreeBSD, so is Apache. PHP is not bad at all, though worse then ASP.NET (in performance and some other things).
But, if we are speaking about _progress_, this is not enough. "Progress" is not just about _making good products_. It is about _making conceptually new_ products.
PHP is a well-made clone of old ASP, so is Kate of Visual Studio. But why is this _progressive_? ASP and VS predates their open-source analogs.
Now let's look at user's perception. Absolutely closed and proprietary Mac OS, much more closed then Windows, beats Linux in terms of installed base on desktops/laptops. This only means that _users do not need the abstract terms of being open source and non-proprietary_. Users needs other things, like the revolutionary look and feel of MacOS.
Seerialmom
> "Dave" ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Amen!
> >> To avoid shooting themselves (and others) in the foot,
> >> developers might want to think twice about using Windows as
> >> a development platform. Instead, consider using Linux.
> >> It's much more cost effective. :-)
>
> >> In this economy, management / everyone need to spend wisely.
> >> Dumping M$ / Windows and going with Linux seems
> >> like a wise choice for corporations / everyone.
>
> >> Do not wait until you see the coffin before crying.
> >> Pass it on ...
>
> > Last I checked, most businesses were running linux on their servers
> > already. It's only a matter of time until the client machines start
> > running linux. At that point, most of the HOME computers (not used for
> > business) will start converting to linux. -Dave
>
> I believe that most folks use Windows at home because they were trained on
> it at work and/or it just came on their systems automatically. That is a
> huge paradigm to overcome; tons of inertia. While Linux might be running
> the server, Windows is on the machine that is looking at the user. To get
> enough corporations to dump Windows and retrain all their employees [at
> significant expense] on another OS in order to have enough momentum to get
> this going will be a huge and unlikely task, IMO.
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's where I see the dilemma as well. It's hard enough to get those
who use Windows at work to understand how to use it properly (even
though there's plenty of corporate training available); to actually
"think" once they're off the clock about how to get around in a
different OS is unlikely. But perhaps having the OS attacked multiple
times and having to pay to fix it could inspire a migration.
Seerialmom
I agree; many new systems no longer have "install disks". There's a
"system restore" partition you invoke through keystroke commands on
bootup if you need to wipe/reinstall/restore. Doesn't do you much
good if 1. the drive is fried 2. you upgrade to a larger drive.
Maxim S. Shatskih
> Citation needed.
Personal perception.
BTW, this is about client (smbfs), not about Samba which is OK in performance. There are some gossips about some Samba misfeatures like intentionally dropping the safety features of SMB like the sophisticated cache management to make things faster, but I have no personal experience about them.
> Again, citation needed. Is ext3 considered crash-proof?
Not by the people I know. They prefer ext2, even though it has no log-based recovery at all.
> I agree that Windows by itself is stable. It seems only when bad
> applications are installed that bad things start to happen.
Yes. Not all applications are equally healthy.
>> Wrong. All Linux GUI software (probably with the exception of the Konqueror
>> web browser) suffers from lots of tiny misfeatures.
> If you think Konqueror has no tiny misfeatures then you're wrong.
I used it for a day or two, worked fine. The websites were opening the same way as in IE, fonts aside, and, I think that even the fonts can be set up in Konqueror to also be the same.
> Yep. This isn't the Linux's fault
Why not have the graphics engine architecture good enough for hi-perf 3D? Why not develop the API for 3D games in joint effort with ATI or nVidia? ah, the community is not interesting for nVidia? then maybe this is the community's fault and not nVidia's one?
> Mmm, I'm not sure if this is a particularly valid point, given I don't
> know how easy of a job the Mono people have. Still, Mono exists
> (although it only supports upto and including .NET 2.0)
I've heard lots of bad things about the _modern_ state of Mono - slow, compat issues with modern .NET apps, etc.
BTW - this is one more _clone_ - a clone of .NET. Why the community cannot develop the real competitor for Java and .NET?
Why the commercial proprietary company of Sun developed Java, and commercial proprietary company of MS first developed the Java implementation better then Sun's, and then, after the Sun came offended and a lawsuit occured - the well-competing .NET? Why open source can hardly do the _really new_ things, instead cloning the successful commercial titles and posing themselves as messiahs of the new age?
>> Linux distro (RHEL) costs more then Windows Server.
> I don't know the details of this either. If you bought it from RHEL
> would it include support? Does support come with Windows Server? If
> support comes with both, which support is better?
Needs to compare, support especially. Now note that the demand in Windows support is much smaller - more intuitive, much better community support and so on.
On a serious database server, the OS is a _bootloader_. The value of this machine is in the database only, so, it can even lack any software on it except the _minimal_ OS and the database. In this situation, Windows surely can work fine without any support.
Personally, I'm amazed why Oracle have not created their own Linux distro to run as a bootloader for their database.
> did they try? Was that person trying Linux with an open mind?
Why is it good to have "open mind"?
> If you're talking about perl (or even python) then it's a shame you feel
> that way. Perl, though not suited to every job, is very suited to some.
Correct.
Now note that there is only a _tiny_ amount of things can be done with computer to justify the need of studying Perl.
Even for the UNIX-based websites PHP can be a better option - much more intuitive language. Yes, it is slower then Perl, but coding a production website in a "write-only language" and then _supporting this code_ seems to be a bad idea, even sacrificing a bit of script execution performance looks a better solution, especially given the fact that perf-limiter is the database queries and not scripts.
PHP was preferrable by many even given the fact PHP4 had primitive database access calls which did not support the pre-compiled parameterized queries (like ADODB.Command supported in ASP since 1996).
What I called "schizoid" is studying some arcane language syntaxes _without any connection to tasks which must be done_ using this tool, praising the tool as a self-value, commiting major amount of time to this and considering these activities as personal growth :-)
Now about Python. What is so good about it to really spend time on studying it?
UNIX has: PHP, Perl, shell scripts, Java, C, C++
Windows has: VBScript, JavaScript, PowerShell, C#, C, C++
Seems to be a perfect suite of tools for all possible cases, isn't it?
> I believe it'd be a good idea for you to learn more about these
> languages to see why people use them.
I think that using Python or Ruby on Rails is mainly to use Python or Ruby on Rails :-) is it not so?
> If you wander into an IRC channel for a program and ask a developer a
> question which is answered in documentation (which they typed up), don't
> be surprised if they sound harsh in their response.
In Microsoft's ecosystem, the developer will calmly name the function or even provide a documentation URL.
> - Free software in the sense of having the source and being able to
> change it. This is useful because if a company finds a flaw in a
> piece of software, they then have the power to fix it themselves
> (or hire somebody to fix it for them) rather than wait for a
> single entity, Microsoft in this case, to fix it. Microsoft may
> not even consider it a bug. What's this company to do in that
> case?
To some degree, this is correct, but is not so great as it seems?
How many non-IT non-large companies can really afford keeping an IT guy capable enough to master the code of the open source software?
What are the chances of escalating the issue for it to be included to the _mainstream distro_?
Also note that this does not mean "lesser bugs". The seekdir() bug in BSD, which survived for 30 years or so in the open source code, have demonstrated this.
> - I'm not sure of the details, nor do I have the time to look them
> up, but IIRC there are some nasty bits in the Windows XP EULA,
> which allow Microsoft access to that machine.
Doubts. Major doubts.
> - Cost. Definitely in some cases it's cheaper to use free software.
> (Take OOo.org vs MS Office. Sure, MS Office may be better and
> faster, but a company may decide that the slower and
> less-featureful OOo.org is more suited to their needs, given it
> costs nothing).
This is true to some extent, and with OO it is really true - office software _requires no support_ in lots of cases.
However it is too small to really consider open source software as _progressive_.
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
Full of nonsense.
a.. Windows has only recently evolved from a single-user design to a multi-user model - nonsense
a.. Windows is Monolithic by Design, not Modular - nonsense
And so on. The author is yet another open source propagandist which serves their false god.
There are no design/architecture issues in Windows about security. Same is true on Linux. If somebody questions this - then sorry, for me, all is clear about this author.
OK, later in the text:
"because Microsoft networking was designed under the assumption that people who log into a network will do so from their own PC. Microsoft was either unable or unwilling to make the necessary changes to the operating system and network design to accommodate this scenario for Windows XP."
- complete nonsense, the guy never heard on Windows logon sessions.
Maxim S. Shatskih
The report is written by the guy who is either not experienced with Windows or is a propagandistic liar.
For a person who knows Windows well, it has zero value.
Maxim S. Shatskih
I will stop answering this propaganda when I will stop find this entertaining for me :-)
Stray Dog
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Tom wrote:
> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:16:13 +0000
> From: Tom <t...@spam.please>
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.development.device.drivers, misc.invest.stocks,
> misc.consumers.frugal-living
> Subject: Re: Better think twice about supporting M$ / Windows
>
> Stray Dog wrote:
>> The problems with Linux (I spent a few years, a few years ago, looking
>> hard at Linux and came back to windows 98 second edition for 99% of my
>> work plus I refused to upgrade my software for two reasons: i) I could
>> do everything I needed to do with what I had, and ii) I refuse to help
>> bill gates get even richer)
> In all fairness to the guy, he seems to be doing good things in terms of
> charity through The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Well, he's spending the booty he ripped us all off on, and is blowing it
in big waste. Several WSJ articles reported that a lot of his projects did
not pan out.
>> The advantage of Windows is that it is as "plug and play" as any OS can
>> be
> That's not true. Windows isn't as "plug and play" as any OS can be.
Name one that comes even close.
They
> don't come with 3D drivers, wireless drivers, printer drivers, etc.
> Okay, they come with some of those, but not as much as an OS could. A
> problem is that many manufacturers wouldn't allow them to distribute
> their drivers with, say, Windows XP. Neither would they allow, say,
> Ubuntu to distribute their drivers.
Drivers are a major problem for any OS/device compatibility.
I'm still going to say that its going to be easier to get your peripherals
to work under Windows and, believe me, I do not like MS/BG/Windows.
I've played with the others: BSD, OS/2, many distributions of Linux, and
had much more trouble.
> Fortunately, however, there are hundreds, if not thousands of drivers in
> the Linux kernel and many more in other free software projects.
Your absolute responsibility if you want to do geeky stuff is YOU do the
research to find out if what you want is what you're going to get.
I have found unknown _hardware_ incompatibilities for a number of Linux
distros (and even in various versions of Windows).
> Here is a Linux developer dispelling various myths[0].
>
> I suggest you try the latest Ubuntu. I suspect you'd be suprised at its
> ability to "plug and play": printers, sound cards, graphics, USB hard
> drives, etc. are all really good now.
I already did. And, Ubuntu can't find my modem, but Windows on the same
hardware has no problem. Ubuntu is useless for me on just that one issue.
> Unless you have Intel graphics you won't automatically get graphics
> drivers which can handle 3D, though you will be notified that non-free
> 3D graphics exist and they can be installed in a few clicks.
I am not interested in 3D. I do email, NGs, web browsing, spreadsheets,
and wordprocessing and little else beside printing out on laser printers.
> Today ATI released code which will help produce a fully open sourced 3D
> driver for ATI cards, which will supposedly be available in a few
> months. Documentation will supposedly be released in a month, which will
> help the process.
>
>> But, in the end, there is probably more software--easily installable and
>> uninstallable--for Windows than anything else.
> I don't believe that's true.
And, you can get it even at local Walmart stores.
The installed base is huge.
Modern package managers (such as Ubuntu's
> Synaptic) make software management incredibly easy. It will download and
> install software (of which 15000+ pieces are available) which is almost
> guaranteed to work on your system with the click of a button. You can
> then uninstall it with the click of a button.
I've gone through a lot of that, too, complete with bugs and glitches.
> Note how this is different from having to search Google for a piece of
> software, then download it (maybe after having to register for it, or
> having to agree to a long and questionable EULA), then install it. Get
> ready for "next, next, next, I agree, next". Yawn. Okay, let's try the
> software.
And, then, for a lot of Linux packages, you have to worry about whether
you have the right glibc packages.
I've been through that, too.
> Now say you dislike the software for whatever reason, let's uninstall
> it. Add/Remove Programs. Let's hope it's in here (I've used software
> which didn't put itself in that list). Now let's remove it. "Please tell
> us why you didn't like the software *opens window*" Piss off, I just
> want to uninstall you. Leave me alone.
Complain on the NGs. I've got my portfolio of low-BS applications and they
will still work for me for a long time.
> Oh, and Ubuntu's package manager updates software without which you
> would probably be more likely to have insecure and/or buggy software on
> your computer. Some Windows-based programs will automatically update but
> this is neither as elegant or universal.
The whole problem with updates is that they replace old bugs with new bugs
and I've had enough of that, too.
> [Note: I've only used Windows XP, 2000 and 98 a lot. Vista may have
> solved some of these problems.]
I'm happy with my Win98SE and its aps. If I need XP for anything, its
faster decoding of webpages after download.
>> Another big insult with Microsoft is the product activation so that you
>> have to contact them and get them to let you re-activate your software
>> and its up to their pleasure to grant that or not. This part makes me
>> think "go Linux" but as long as all the software I have now (Windows 98
>> second edition) works fine, I'm going to stay with it and not just to
>> save money, but all the other agravation.
> Windows 98 no longer receives security updates, so I'd suggest not using
> that.
Most of the new viruses and hacks are aimed at the latest OSes, not the
old ones.
> I believe if you tried a Linux distribution again (I suggest Ubuntu,
> typically)
I told you I already did: it can't find my modem. But, Windows can find my
modem. Every version of Windows I ever used could find my modems. No other
OS has been as good on that.
that you'd be surprised at the progress that has been made.
> Living without package managers, which are full of software which you
> know is "nice" (no activations, freely available, open source and hence
> Linux geeks are able to fix problems which they do often) is painful.
No thanks.
> [0] http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
>
> --
> Tom
>
The Real Bev
>> - Games (though ATI releasing 3D specs today is a step in the right
>> direction)
>
> Linux has major architectural issues in their X11 which hinders the hi-perf
> 3D graphics a lot. Windows NT 3 has the same issues, but the architecture was
> redone in Windows NT 4 in year 1996.
Is this important to anyone but gamers?
> X11 is a well-known mis-architecture. A couple of years ago I read about the
> KDE guys going on to develop _their own low-level 2D graphics_ to replace X11
> (anyway the programming patterns in KDE deal with KDE objects and never with
> raw X11, so, the shift would be not noticeable for apps at al). Also note
> that the most successul UNIX on desktop/GUI apps - Mac OS - does not use X11.
The disadvantage of KDE and Gnome is that they look like windows -- you have to
follow the tree, guessing right about its ultimate location, in order to find
what you want. I use fvwm95 (it was the most completely configured WM when I
first started, bite me) which allows me to (yes, by editing by hand) put
whatever menu item I want wherever I want it. Everything I use is first level.
No drilling or hunting among 50 on-screen icons. I'm happy.
> Mac OS's (aka NextStep's) GUI engine architecture is probably the world's
> best. MS is catching up with it only with WPF, but sorry, WPF is 2006, while
> NextStep was 1992 or so.
>
>> - MS Office (OpenOffice is fine for me, and probably fine for most people,
>> but it supposedly isn't as featureful as MS Office)
Come on, who uses ALL the features of an office suite? I'd like to be able to
use 4-point fonts (which I could with WordPerfect for linux), but people in hell
want ice water.
> Printed papers from OpenOffice differ a bit from the same paper from MS
> Office, yes, from the same document file. Sometimes it is critical (not
> always). Also OO is much slower - on file open/save, for instance.
If you say so, but since I don't live by split-second increments this isn't all
that important.
>> - Photoshop (GIMP supposedly isn't as good)
>
> For an amateur GIMP is OK, but I know of no professional who uses GIMP. The
> thing is about plugins.
I put it to you that serious professional photographers aren't necessarily
serious computer geeks and see no reason to change from Windows or Photoshop,
which they probably already know how to use.
Gimp does far more than I want, as does Photoshop. Picasa works fine for what I
want to do.
It's kind of nice NEVER having to actually buy software.
--
Cheers,
Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All bleeding eventually stops.
clams_casino
>>That fear of the unknown is a powerful force.
>>
>>
>
>Nowadays Linux is known to most people. It is no more unknown.
>
>Also note that "fear of the unknown" is not a bad thing. Yes, really so.
>
>If we are speaking about some really progressive future, like, say, a switch from Win95 to WinNT or from carburator car to EFI car, or from propeller airplane to a jet one - then yes, fear of the unknown is bad.
>
>But how is Linux/open source progressive? the vast majority of their software titles are just clones (often badly made) of existing commercial ones:
>
>
>
Considering Google is all linux, I'd take a guess it's equal to
potentially better than M$.
Stray Dog
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, clams_casino wrote:
> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:17:37 -0500
> From: clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com>
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.development.device.drivers, misc.invest.stocks,
> misc.consumers.frugal-living
> Subject: Re: Better think twice about supporting M$ / Windows
>
Google has a better reputation, AND they would love to screw MS. Viz. the
gPhone.
The Real Bev
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, clams_casino wrote:
>> Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
> >>
>>> If we are speaking about some really progressive future, like, say, a
>>> switch from Win95 to WinNT or from carburator car to EFI car, or from
>>> propeller airplane to a jet one - then yes, fear of the unknown is bad.
Anybody who uses the word "progressive" has an axe to grind.
>>> But how is Linux/open source progressive? the vast majority of their
>>> software titles are just clones (often badly made) of existing commercial
>>> ones:
>>
>> Considering Google is all linux, I'd take a guess it's equal to potentially
>> better than M$.
>
> Google has a better reputation, AND they would love to screw MS. Viz. the
> gPhone.
Who wouldn't?
--
Cheers,
Bev
***********************************************************
"Everyone ought to stop and smell crayons once in a while."
-- DA
Dave
>I agree; many new systems no longer have "install disks". There's a
>"system restore" partition you invoke through keystroke commands on
>bootup if you need to wipe/reinstall/restore. Doesn't do you much
>good if 1. the drive is fried 2. you upgrade to a larger drive.
Assuming the drive is NOT fried and you need to restore the system, a
"system restore" partition still won't do you any good. Without exception,
Windows is pre-installed in pre-built computer systems in a state that is
virtually unusable. You can spend many hours trying to uninstall all the
unwanted bloatware that is slowing down your computer, only to have the
registry hopelessly fucked. Or, (this is the proper fix) you can use a real
windows install disk to format c: and install windows fresh. That is what
you have to do before you even USE a brand new computer, if the computer
comes with windows pre-installed. This is not optional, but required. If
you want your computer to work correctly, that is.
So the system restore partition does you absolutely ZERO good if you ever
need to re-install Windows. At best, if it works, it will restore the
system to the original state, which is unusable. -Dave
Dave
>>> be
>> That's not true. Windows isn't as "plug and play" as any OS can be.
>
> Name one that comes even close.
>
>
>
> I'm still going to say that its going to be easier to get your peripherals
> to work under Windows and, believe me, I do not like MS/BG/Windows.
You haven't installed any recent linux distro, then. Installing Windows XP
or Vista properly can take hours, when you factor in the time it takes you
to find, download and install all the proper drivers. In contrast,
installing linux on the same hardware to a USABLE state, can take as little
as 5 minutes.
Linux has a bad rep. because some proprietary hardware solutions are not
well supported in linux (but the same can be said for windows, especially
64-bit windows). But if you try to install linux on any fairly recent
mid-range system without any exotic bleeding edge hardware, the simplicity
of the install (ESPECIALLY compared to Windows) will amaze you. -Dave
(triple-boots various linux distros with vista and xp)
John Galt
>> People do not like to leave their comfort zone, although that's not a
>> wise choice.
>
> In most situations this is a wise choice.
>
> Innovations are only good if they produce new value. What new value is produced by switching the home PC to Linux, given the fact that most Linux software are not-so-well made clones of Windows software (like KDE to Windows shell, OO to MS Office and so on?)
>
> The only value produced by such a move is due to Linux being free, but sorry, this is not about any _supported_ distros like RHEL.
>
> As about the corporate network - saving money on software while losing it on 2-times-as-large IT department (and yes, the switch will require so) - is a bad idea.
Uh.....bullshit.
My company has 8,000 copies of our infrastructure software running in
shops all over the world. The Linux shops are always smaller than the
Windows shops. (Flat out, you need fewer Linux servers to serve a given
number of users than Windows servers.)
JG
Bill
"Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote in message
news:JTx6l.11808$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Stray Dog" <sdog...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
> news:Pine.NEB.4.64.08...@sdf.lonestar.org...
>
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Seerialmom wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:23:02 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Seerialmom <seeri...@yahoo.com>
> > Newsgroups: microsoft.public.development.device.drivers, misc.invest.stocks,
> > misc.consumers.frugal-living
> > Subject: Re: Better think twice about supporting M$ / Windows
> >
> >>> I think its just going to be an option. No way are pc mfgs going to
> >>> cancel pc sales.
> >>
> >> Not to mention, most hardware enthusiasts roll their own, anyway. And linux
> >> is not for sale at any price. -Dave
> >
> > That's not Linux I see on the shelves at Fry's or Best Buy?? Or is it
> > not really Linux if it has another name like Red Hat or Ubuntu?
>
> If it says Linux, then it should be some "distribution" (i.e. under Red
> Hat or Ubuntu or any of the other "distribution" names). I have no idea
> what the guy means by not for sale at any price. If you care to dig around
> and learn how to do it and have high speed access, you can get a copy for
> free.
>
> The problems with Linux (I spent a few years, a few years ago, looking
> hard at Linux and came back to windows 98 second edition for 99% of my
> work plus I refused to upgrade my software for two reasons: i) I could do
> everything I needed to do with what I had, and ii) I refuse to help bill
> "take care of it". The advantage of Windows is that it is as "plug and
> play" as any OS can be and Apple's OS-X is not as immune to hacks as they
> would like you to think (just google on "hack os-x" for 30,000 hits).
>
> And, by the way, OS-X is basically BSD, another unix clone like Linux, and
> you can get BSD cheap or free, too, but you also need to be a little geeky
> to know what you are doing.
>
> But, in the end, there is probably more software--easily installable and
> uninstallable--for Windows than anything else.
>
> do not give you an "install disk" so you can re-install your OS if some
> hacker messes up your hard drive. It is critical that you get backup
> software, and backup your OS before you put it on the internet (before the
> spyware, rootkits, viruses, and other malicious code [coming in via java,
> javascript, etc] get on the box and mess you up). So, if you don't have a
> backup (and you have to be brave to try this), you end up taking your
> thing back to the store and spend maybe couple hundred bucks having THEM
> re-install the OS. And, you might call up a few repair stores and ask
> about this before you plunk down your money. I'm reading and hearing about
> people who --when their box starts behaving slow and erratic--just throw
> it away and buy a new box rather than nuke their hard drive and
> re-install.
>
> Another big insult with Microsoft is the product activation so that you
> have to contact them and get them to let you re-activate your software and
> its up to their pleasure to grant that or not. This part makes me think
> "go Linux" but as long as all the software I have now (Windows 98 second
> edition) works fine, I'm going to stay with it and not just to save money,
> but all the other agravation.
>
> etc., and you'd better ask about the license that comes with the original
> disks. Of course, if you get a bootleg copy I suppose you also have the
> priviledge of re-installing without problems but just make sure you get
> that product code, which is often somewhere in the documentation that
> almost everyone throws away, thus making the disks useless. Microsoft
> pulled every trick it could to guarantee as much as possible to itself
> continued profits that come out of your wallet.
>
> I'm not sure where the world is going to be in 10-20 years, but THEY will
> get you to part with your money if they can.
>
>
> =========================================================
>
> Absolutely! Of course, Bill Gates wants your money.
>
> Bill Gates even dared to go on television (in this economy) to
> tell people that they should still donate (to his foundation).
>
> And worse, Bill Gates wants to screw Americans too ...
>
> Bill Gates makes the (bogus) case for more (cheap) foreign labor
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070226-8924.html
>
> Shame on Bill Gates!
>
> That guy "um...er...uh"s a lot but he sure has nerves. :-)
>
Microsoft planning big layoffs for January?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10130165-75.html
Hmmm ... I wonder how many will be Americans.
Bill Gates to Congress: Let us hire more foreigners
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9892046-7.html
What ever happened to TRAINING? With technology moving at
warp speed, does Bill Gates plan to keep exchanging Americans for
cheap foreign labor?
So long as unemployment is high, H-1B visas do not make sense.
TRAINING...TRAINING...TRAINING...TRAINING...TRAINING...
Plead with your senators to cut importing foreign labor, students, etc.
U.S. taxpayers deserve better than this nonsense ...
Stray Dog
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Dave wrote:
> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:51:19 -0500
> From: Dave <now...@nohow2.not>
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.development.device.drivers, misc.invest.stocks,
> misc.consumers.frugal-living
> Subject: Re: Better think twice about supporting M$ / Windows
>
>>>> The advantage of Windows is that it is as "plug and play" as any OS can
>>>> be
>>> That's not true. Windows isn't as "plug and play" as any OS can be.
>>
>> Name one that comes even close.
>>
>>
>> Drivers are a major problem for any OS/device compatibility.
>>
>> I'm still going to say that its going to be easier to get your peripherals
>> to work under Windows and, believe me, I do not like MS/BG/Windows.
>
> You haven't installed any recent linux distro, then.
I tried Ubuntu recently (you're not reading my posts). All fine until the
OS could not find my modem.
Before that, I had Red Hat's workstation (ver 3, Taroon), which also had
hardware incompatibility problems. Before that, I had every version of RH
back to ver 4.2, and Caldera OpenLinux (which installed on one box, and
crashed on install on another box), and several other distros all of which
crashed on install. The most compatible RHs were 5.2 and 6.2, and I was
successful in installing these on EVERY box (more than a dozen) AND got
the modem to work in ALL of these, plus the printer working.
Installing Windows XP
> or Vista properly can take hours,
I'm not ever going to use Vista. Put XP on two boxes here, less than one
hour, and modems work, box works, printer works.
when you factor in the time it takes you to
> find, download and install all the proper drivers.
If YOU want to chase all over hell for whatever you need, go ahead.
In contrast, installing
> linux on the same hardware to a USABLE state, can take as little as 5
> minutes.
I've installed Red Hat 5.2 on a 486 box in 10 minutes. What is your
maximium? How many have you done?
> Linux has a bad rep. because some proprietary hardware solutions are not well
> supported in linux
Oh, no kidding?
(but the same can be said for windows, especially 64-bit
> windows). But if you try to install linux on any fairly recent mid-range
> system without any exotic bleeding edge hardware, the simplicity of the
> install (ESPECIALLY compared to Windows) will amaze you.
I spent MANY years on most of the Linux newsgroups back from 1999 to about
2004-5, and can tell you if anyone wants to search the archives...there is
a tone of woe out there. No less than Windows or Macs (and I read the Mac
newsgroups too for six months; they have problems, too).
-Dave
> (triple-boots various linux distros with vista and xp)
Yeah, I've had that too. OS2, DOS, Linux, Windows (many).
Don't go pumping up stuff just because you had good luck with it. Just
like the newer versions of Windows, the newer versions of Linux had
upgrades in hardware stringency.
Oh, yes, there is a bug in the new Ubuntu multiboot option.
No, they do NOT have all the bugs out of it (Ubuntu), although they did
clean up the graphics glitches (but not the software glitches).
I'm really sorry, I like the idea of Linux, but I went back to my most
convenient OS: Win98SE, where they got the bugs down to the point where I
can put it on any of my boxes and know I'll get everything I want to work.
And, I do NOT like MS or Bill Gates, either.
Stray Dog
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Dave wrote:
> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:46:05 -0500
> From: Dave <now...@nohow2.not>
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.development.device.drivers, misc.invest.stocks,
> misc.consumers.frugal-living
> Subject: Re: Better think twice about supporting M$ / Windows
>
>
There is an even worse situation: Lots of hardware (desktops and laptops)
coming out now is "hardwired" to an OEM version of Windows (XP, etc.)
written for exclusively THAT hardware, and you _cannot_ install any OTHER
OS even if you want to. I've heard this from several guys who tried it and
they are not dummies who never built boxes or installed OSes from a empty
HD.
Its another reason for people to go with "white boxes" which _should_ be
compatible with any OS (and its aps, with exceptions for undocumented
bugs, hardware incompatibilities, etc.). I've had various kinds of trouble
with boxes with IBM logos and peculiar MB layouts, specialized ribbons &
connectors, and weirdo POST sequences.
Go to your supplier who should know if Linux will load, and make sure he
tells you WHAT versions it will load, and where did he get his information
from. I've had all manner of combinations of Linux versions that installed
on Box A, B but not C, and D, and other versions that would install on C
and D, but not A and B.
Then, you can worry if the aps and applets will work, too. Back in the
earlier days (When MS IE was stable and Windows crashed) of Linux it was a
shock to users to find that Linux was stable, but the Netscape had more
bugs in it and crashed all the time on certain websites with certain
hardware. Its in the Linux NG archives back 7-8 years ago.
Oh, yes, I've used StarOffice (5.2) when Sun first gave it away, $10 for a
CDROM with versions for Linux, Windows, OS2, and Solaris. Tried all but
Solaris. Various bugs. Under OS2 StarOffice would crash as a webbrowser
on almost any but simplest websites. Better on Linux and Windows (in case
some of you didn't know that old StarOffice had web browswer capabilities).
Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]
"John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:WcU6l.47383$9i5....@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
Fewer servers doesn't equate to fewer people. And it's not clear what you
meant by "smaller" -- people, number of branch offices, number of licenses
purchased, etc.
>
> JG
>
John Galt
Fewer headcount.
JG
>
>>
>> JG
>>
Alberto
I don't know about applications - I'm very partial to C# and the MSVC
Designer - but it' is quite possible to write device drivers that are
90% or more device independent across both Windows and Linux. I know
because I've done it and I know others who did it too. I have done
lots of kernel side development on both OS's, and I find developing on
a Linux platform to be clunky and labor intensive. I tried a couple of
integrated environments on Linux, and I use them because there's no
alternative, but hey, it could be a lot better; and I detest
developing on XTerms.
Alberto.
On Dec 31 2008, 5:36 am, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
<ma...@storagecraft.com.no.spam> wrote:
> > To avoid shooting themselves (and others) in the foot,
> > developers might want to think twice about using Windows as
> > a development platform. Instead, consider using Linux.
> > It's much more cost effective. :-)
>
> This tale is told for 10 years at least, but the world is still here.
>
> Looks like the tale has major issues.