Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 10th Jul 2005 12:01 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft surprised many of the attendees at its annual worldwide partner show here this weekend by allowing a third party to present a "hands-on lab" that allowed attendees to play with a range of Linux desktop software. Is Microsoft toning down on its anti-Linux campaign?
Order by: Score:
Arakon Member since:
2005-07-06

That's the interesting thing about Linux and OSS... its free so it's real hard to get "Market Data" on it. You could go by downloads, but that won't give you accurate usage statistics. Honestly I have 3 distros of linux on my desk right now ( I always try out the latest and greatest on the test box). My test box is strictly for playing with new OSs, so its not really used for anything other than. I have 1 Mandrake Linux file-server (that never touches the internet) and 2 win boxes for everything else.

So if someone analyzed my traffic it would look like 2 win boxes only for the most part leaving the other machines on my network as hidden and not counted(ie in-accurate usage data) based on internet traffic.

Thats probably why you won't see many people trying to come up with hard numbers on linux usage. Short of them handing out a questionaire door-to-door that is.

Reply Score: 2

Emil Member since:
2005-06-29

,,what proof exists that Linux is increasing its market share??''

Hmmm. I knew 5 people how had Linux desktop few years ago. Now I couldn't even count'em. At my first job, there was one Linux based computer. Now I work at place where only 2 computers runs Windows.

I would say that things has changed ,,a little''.

Reply Score: 3

drLog Member since:
2005-07-11

Yeah, Linux is popping up all random places! I've been using it for about 5 years now. I've noticed it:

- A walkup, pay $1 get 10 mins of internet was running linux with Galeon (why not ff, I dont know)
- Malaysia airlines use it for their entertainment system (only found this out when I saw it booting)
- I see a lot of people just using it casually now...

There are more, I just cant remember them. Having said that, I see windows waaay more than linux ;)

Reply Score: 1

Milo_Hoffman Member since:
2005-07-06

>Just out of interest Milo, what proof exists that Linux
>is increasing its market share??
>Links??
>Market data??

Sure thing.

"In servers, IDC predicts Linux' market share based on unit sales will rise from 24% today to 33% in 2007...In a survey of business users by Forrester Research, 52% said they are now replacing Windows servers with Linux. On the desktop side, IDC sees Linux' share more than doubling, from 3% today to 6% in 2007, while Windows loses a bit of ground." SOURCE: http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=285


"Linux servers posted their eleventh consecutive quarter of double-digit growth, with year-over-year revenue growth of 35.2% and unit shipments up 31.1%. Customers continue to expand the role of Linux servers into an ever increasing array of workloads in both the commercial and technical segments of the market....Linux server revenue exceeded $1.2 billion in quarterly factory revenue in 1Q05 as Linux server revenues showed 35.2% growth, reaching 10.3% of overall quarterly server revenue - an all-time high, as a percent of total quarterly revenue. Worldwide investment in Linux servers for both technical and commercial workloads remains strong as Linux servers continue to expand their presence in data centers around the world. "
SOURCE: http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS00153905



Now don't you feel stupid for saying: "Funny thing is that Linux is already losing steam." I know I feel like your stupid for saying that.

Reply Score: 4

Anonymous Member since:
---

Hi Milo,
Thanks for your links info . Very interesting ;)
Stuart

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS00153905

"Linux Servers Surpass the $1 Billion Mark in Revenue for the Third Consecutive Quarter

Linux server revenue exceeded $1.2 billion in quarterly factory revenue in 1Q05 as Linux server revenues showed 35.2% growth, reaching 10.3% of overall quarterly server revenue - an all-time high, as a percent of total quarterly revenue. Worldwide investment in Linux servers for both technical and commercial workloads remains strong as Linux servers continue to expand their presence in data centers around the world. HP maintained its number 1 spot in the Linux server market, with 27.7% market share in terms of revenue, while IBM was second with 19.8%."

Reply Score: 0

rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Just out of interest Milo, what proof exists that Linux is increasing its market share??

Links??
Market data??


Well, there is all of the IDC reports other people posted above. You can also look at the number of subscriptions to Red Hat Enterpise Linux/RH Network. I don't have a link handy, but I remember reading that at one point recently, Red Hat had 130,000 subscriptions to Red Hat Network, up from 30,000 a year ago. That is just over 400% increase in subscriptions in one year. Now, you minus off let's say 30,000 for renewals, that leaves 100,000 subscriptions. So that is still over 300% growth in new subscriptions. That, plus the fact that Novell has increased licensing for SUSE enterprise server/Open Enterprise Server (despite still taking a loss) and Mandrake has managed to increase sales enough to come out of bankrupcy protection and aquire 2 other companies, I'd say that's proof enough for sales.

Then, you add on cities like Vienna and Munich who are switching to their own custom, Debian based Linux distributions, and I'd say that is proof enough that market share is increasing. Of course, if anyone else has proof to the contrary, please post it.

Reply Score: 3

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Imagine had there been no action against BSD; Linux would never existed, Linus would most likely been a programmer on one of the *BSD projects, and rather than Linux being the one showing off, it would be FreeBSD - which wouldn't be too bad - atleast with FreeBSD, drivers don't need to be recompiled for each release and patch of the kernel.

Reply Score: 3

Would you have believed this?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 12:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Top stories in Q2:

- Apple has decided to move to an Intel platform because the G5 processors weren't good enough.

- Microsoft has allowed a Linux demostration at its annual worldwide partner show

- Debian "sarge" was finally released

- Pigs have been reported flying as hell freezes over.

- The next version of Duke Nukem will be available before christmas.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Would you have believed this?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 15:09 UTC in reply to "Would you have believed this?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I believe everything except the last point! :p

Reply Score: 0

RE: Would you have believed this?
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 00:33 UTC in reply to "Would you have believed this?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Somewhat unrelated, but Pink Floyd also got back together again, too.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

And someone already said that. Ignore me.

Reply Score: 0

v Not a factor at all.
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 12:36 UTC
Biased?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 13:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I suspect this is like the TCO studies Microsoft paid for and expects us to believe are unbiased. The guy setting the linux lab up is pro Microsoft, so call me cynical if you want, but I doubt the machines are set up to provide a fair comparison. However without examing them myself this is just speculation on my part.

Reply Score: 2

Linux, here to stay!
by penguin7009 on Sun 10th Jul 2005 14:00 UTC
penguin7009
Member since:
2005-07-10

Three years ago I didn't know what Linux is. Today, after making a successful migration from Microsoft to Linux, I can tell you that Linux is here to stay.

I use one of the hated packaged Linux Distros (Xandros)but I can do everything on Xandros that one can do on Windows and have complete security. Xandros, with its built-in firewall and Virus scanning software is as fast, if not faster, than any of the XP computers in our office when XP is running behind a firewall and virus software.

Companies always compare themselves against what they percieve as their biggest competitor. In this particular instance, I would say that is Linux.

Reply Score: 2

An example of spin.
by wakeupneo on Sun 10th Jul 2005 14:01 UTC
wakeupneo
Member since:
2005-07-06

How to make an advantage not look like one by using two unrelated sentences:

"Linux runs on just about anything, whereas Windows has a targeted platform focus"

On the surface it's true, but in reality each group working on a particular distro for a specific platform is very focused. Selective truths get up my nose..

Reply Score: 3

...
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 14:19 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Now, are these machines correctly configured at all in that "hands-on lab"? ;)

Reply Score: 1

Linux Desktop, Microsoft
by bullethead on Sun 10th Jul 2005 14:23 UTC
bullethead
Member since:
2005-07-10

I remember seeing Microsoft at Linuxworld. The thing is Linux and Microsoft products can work together if tuned right. Remember software is about using a tool (computers), and it's whatever works that gets the attention of people.

Linux is not a religion, neither is Microsoft. It's just software that enables you to do something with your computer. I can't tell you how bad I feel when people bash Microsoft for no reason other than hate for that company. Grow up.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Linux Desktop, Microsoft
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 15:39 UTC in reply to "Linux Desktop, Microsoft"
Anonymous Member since:
---

" I can't tell you how bad I feel when people bash Microsoft for no reason other than hate for that company. Grow up"

I wonder why everyone doesn't hate Microsoft:

MS has milked consumers.
MS has monopolized computing.
MS has produced a crappy product.

And still people love them, especially Americans and Brits. They must a penchant for pain.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux Desktop, Microsoft
by bullethead on Sun 10th Jul 2005 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux Desktop, Microsoft"
bullethead Member since:
2005-07-10

Your right. We are all masochists.

Desktop linux is more of a sadist than Windows XP however ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Linux Desktop, Microsoft
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 21:55 UTC in reply to "Linux Desktop, Microsoft"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"The thing is Linux and Microsoft products can work together if tuned right"

Dude, it's not about 'tuning' it's about M$' closed source. If the source was open you wouldn't have to fuss so much over it to get it to work (DOSBox/WINE/Cedega/whatever).

"Remember software is about using a tool (computers)"

Captain Obvious to the rescue! ;) Software should be open so the computer can be used to its full potential.

"and it's whatever works that gets the attention of people."

Exactly, and from my experience, so long as the majority of the cavemen people (which is most people) can use something, it sells. If it requires intelligence, then the monkey men jump up and down and scream nerd or geek and "make it easier for us drool bib wearing people!"

"Linux is not a religion, neither is Microsoft"

Interesting how you state a common truth and follow it up with your opinions. Wonder where you got that from? ;)

"I can't tell you how bad I feel when people bash Microsoft for no reason other than hate for that company"

Gee, I wonder why? Could it be their track record? Should we forget about the Amiga, OS/2, Corel Linux, and a number of other OS and companies which never had the chance to breathe because of a monopoly?

"Grow up."

It's those who weep for monopolies that should grow up, for their heads are truly in the sand.

(all of the text in this post is in my opinion for entertainment purposes only)

Reply Score: 0

sad,they can't even fud.
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 14:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Stupid and tactless MS acting.They have insulted the intellect of the majority of decision makers without them knowing it for years.Now finally when recources are shifting side or are declining people are starting to awaken fortunately.They must be fairly desparate knowing now their FUD doesn't work anymore.

Reply Score: 0

v microsft naa naa
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 14:51 UTC
v Linux is here to stay?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 15:01 UTC
RE: Linux is here to stay?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 15:04 UTC in reply to "Linux is here to stay?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

AVI is a container, not a codec. Joker ;)

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Linux is here to stay?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 15:09 UTC in reply to "Linux is here to stay?"
RE: Linux is here to stay?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 15:27 UTC in reply to "Linux is here to stay?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ever tried to play a DivX, Xvid, Quicktime, RealMedia, [any video codec other than wmv/asf], with WMP (including DVDs) from a fresh install.

It doesn't work.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Linux is here to stay?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux is here to stay?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ever tried to play a DivX, Xvid, Quicktime, RealMedia, [any video codec other than wmv/asf], with WMP (including DVDs) from a fresh install.

It doesn't work.


But easily correctable with an also easily obtainable download and a double-click of the codec install package.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

apt get update MPlayer

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Sometimes not that easy and surefire as windows'. No standard directory layout from distro to distro sometimes forces an "easy" mplayer recompile.

This is not an issue if you use any of the major Linux distros. Installing mplayer was a breeze on both my Mandriva desktop and my Kubuntu laptop.

Seems to me you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't know what you're talking about; although his apt-get is wrong.
You see apt is not a package manager; it's a repository interface: Which means that the packages it gets should be for your distribution.
Now, often people will use repos from other distributions; Ubuntu people sometimes use Debian repos. This just goes to show exactly how wrong your statement is: "No standard directory layout from distro to distro." People have been saying this forever and they've been wrong from the day they started.
While many distributions install applications in different spots: /opt/kde instead of /usr/kde; they virtually all follow the $path/bin, $path/lib layout.

Of course, the absolute standard is in source building: Which most non-technical osnews readers consider to be the devil. However, over the last 30 years of Unix history something has been learned: Source lasts, binaries don't. Basing on a binary system would be a bit foolish in the sense of lastibility. I understand how nice it is for non-technical people; but being generally shunned by non-technical people I guess the Unix lubbers don't give a **** if they have to read for once. Of course, that's a chicken and egg problem; and mostly an exaggeration for humor.
You see, at a source level their are package configs which don't have to be in a standard place; because that's handled by pkg-config and environment standards. If you do a `pkg-config gtk+-2.0 --libs` you are going to get the linker flags for gtk+-2.0 if it's installed.

Next is of course the dependency complaint. I don't think most people realize just how much memory they're wasting with the same algorithms in memory 18 times because each application statically links for ease of distribution!
I would argue that if there was a large market for cd distribution of applications you'd see dependencies on the cd with the application and they'd be installed if needed. I think you'd also see a lot of static linking: *cough* Acroread 7 *cough*.

People complain about these problems so much and I think they're ignoring the big pictures here:
Source systems are more robust and require less wierd debugging issues.
Small packages lower redundancy (although some cases are very much excessive).

The loss is that users have to be a little more educated: But you have to be more educated for Democracy and I don't hear anyone crying for a less Democratic system of government! Sometimes this does get political because life is political ;) .

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Linux is here to stay?
by archiesteel on Sun 10th Jul 2005 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux is here to stay?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Ever tried to play a DivX, Xvid, Quicktime, RealMedia, [any video codec other than wmv/asf], with WMP (including DVDs) from a fresh install.

Apart from Windows Media, the same holds true for a fresh WinXP install: you can't play DivX, Xvid, Quicktime or RealMedia either...

So I guess Windows isn't here to stay either?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Linux is here to stay?
by pythonhacker on Sun 10th Jul 2005 17:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux is here to stay?"
pythonhacker Member since:
2005-07-07

"Apart from Windows Media, the same holds true for a fresh WinXP install: you can't play DivX, Xvid, Quicktime or RealMedia either...

So I guess Windows isn't here to stay either?"

Nice repartee! I liked it.

Nothing more to add after tha one ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux is here to stay?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux is here to stay?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Works for me on gentoo with mplayer.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Linux is here to stay?
by pythonhacker on Sun 10th Jul 2005 17:39 UTC in reply to "Linux is here to stay?"
pythonhacker Member since:
2005-07-07

Which distro did you try? As for movie players in Linux, it has come a long way. Mplayer is one of the best, if not *the* best movie player out there. It can play all kinds of movies, and that includes M$ wma/wmv, Apple quicktime, real movies,mp4,d4x etcetera. Oh and it helps that you can use it on the command-line as well as a GUI with a highly skinnable interface.

If you are not happy with it, try xine. It comes with a GUI by default again with mutiple codec support and excellent documentation.

Not happy? try one of the following...

Video LAN, xmovie, xanim, ffmpeg/ffplay... the list goes on.

If you are unable to play movies in Linux, it is because you have never bothered to learn about multimedia in Linux, not because of lack of resources.

Btw, AVI is not a codec, it is just a container for wrapping multimedia. You can have d4x encoded movie as AVI for example.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux is here to stay?
by rayiner on Sun 10th Jul 2005 18:57 UTC in reply to "Linux is here to stay?"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do they include Windows Media Player in Windows if you can't play most movies because it doesn't have DivX?

Reply Score: 1

mini-me
Member since:
2005-07-06

and what is the easiest way to get money? Direct comparison!
If developers have no idea what the competition is they might be tempted to explore - but if they know what is out there, and if MS puts a negative spin on it, in some form or fashion , then those developers that develop for MS won't be tempted to develop for linux.

On the flip side - at linuxworld - M$ wants to sell MS software to linux desktops - even though it's not as big of a market segment as MS - they can still make a profit - especially on games.

Reply Score: 1

Oh, of course they are.
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 15:26 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Any not-negative move towards Linux must be because they are embracing it. Ahhhhh yes. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. They've done it so many times already, who still falls for the trick?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Linux is here to stay?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 15:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

[quote]But easily correctable with an also easily obtainable download and a double-click of the codec install package.[/quote]

It's the same for Linux, take a look here:
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design7/dload.html
You'll see a link with a simple tar/gziped file: http://www1.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/codecs/essential-20050412...

Cheers ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux is here to stay?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 15:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I have played with many distributions. In all of them you can play your videos, music, etc, just a little changes here and there.

The easiest ones for me right now are Ubuntu and Gentoo.

Love Gentoo: emerge mplayer = everything works.

Who ever said it is hard, please do yourself a favor and use Windows.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[3]: Linux is here to stay?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux is here to stay?"
The usual.....
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 15:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Microsoft FUD....

Reply Score: 0

I guess
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 16:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>>Hmmm, was that even necessary?

Linux is more user friendly than ever. People can argue that Windows/OS X are better, maybe they are right, but that is not the point. The point is that if today you can not set your linux box to play music in whatever distribution, I do not think Linux is for you.

Not trying to attack anybody, but if some third class user like me can do it, anybody can do it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: I guess
by mini-me on Sun 10th Jul 2005 16:26 UTC in reply to "I guess"
mini-me Member since:
2005-07-06

This is getting off-topic, but what is the demographic that Linux is trying to obtain? If it is the geeks among us - then OK - I agree with your comment - but if linux really wants to go after the desktop - then your comment does not stand. A lot of secretaries, grandparents and parents don't know a lot about how things work - if they are OK with windows/mac but not OK with linux because they do not know how to set things up - then you are not going after the demographic (desktop) that you set out to get

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I guess
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE: I guess"
Anonymous Member since:
---

This is getting off-topic, but what is the demographic that Linux is trying to obtain?

Linux isn't trying to obtain any demographic, it is just there and being developed by people that have an interest in developing it. Perhaps you want rephrase that question for a specific distro, as those do have target demographics, which can be different for different distros.

Reply Score: 0

RE:mini-me
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 16:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You are right, it is getting out of topic. But the previous comment of somebody complaining about the codecs, sounds like a person that has not used Linux in years.

Please tell me a way to install a music player in Windows easier than simply typing emerge mplayer.

Maybe is that I am just stupid.

Reply Score: 0

Why is everyone surprised?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 16:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I don't understand why everyone is surprised at this. Microsoft is a professional company run by adults, not overgrown children. Compare the number foaming at the mouth anti-Linux articles you see on microsoft.com (none) vs. the number of foaming at the mouth anti-MS articles you see on linux.com (too many to count).

Another example: The developers of Really Slick Screensavers (http://www.reallyslick.com/) allow and encourage ports of their Windows screensavers to *nix and other platforms. While in the *nix camp, the developer of xscreensaver (http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/) is totally hostile to any Windows port: "No. The answer is no. I don't use any Microsoft products and neither should you."

Contrary to what the groupthink on this web site dictates, it's the *nix people who can't stand competition and are intolerant of other platforms. Their mantra is "you can use whatever OS you like, as long as it's *nix or *nix-like."

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why is everyone surprised?
by archiesteel on Sun 10th Jul 2005 17:43 UTC in reply to "Why is everyone surprised?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Compare the number foaming at the mouth anti-Linux articles you see on microsoft.com (none) vs. the number of foaming at the mouth anti-MS articles you see on linux.com (too many to count).

I'm sorry, but that is a flawed comparison. Microsoft.com is a corporate web site on which there are no actual articles. Linux.com is a news site.

For anti-Linux material from MS, just see any Steve Ballmer interview, or one of the numerous "independent" studies funded by Microsoft.

Contrary to what the groupthink on this web site dictates, it's the *nix people who can't stand competition and are intolerant of other platforms.

Another flawed statement: for starters, there is competition among the various Unices and Unix-like OSes. If we're specifically talking about Linux users, then they are for competition, and not against it, since increased competition in the marketplace means more alternatives to Windows.

Not only that, but many Linux users also use Windows - I personally use and manage both. I have nothing against Windows, it's a fine OS...it's Microsoft anti-competitive practices I have a bone of contention with.

As far as rabid anti-Linux comments go, you don't have to look far to find them (i.e. the one that was posted right after yours...)

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Why is everyone surprised?
by rugbuzpafnuti on Sun 10th Jul 2005 18:28 UTC in reply to "Why is everyone surprised?"
RE[2]: Why is everyone surprised?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is everyone surprised?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Contrary to what the groupthink on this web site dictates, it's the *nix people who can't stand competition and are intolerant of other platforms. Their mantra is "you can use whatever OS you like, as long as it's *nix or *nix-like."


You are so right!
Thats the impression we all are having here, too.


Same here

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

You are so right!
Thats the impression we all are having here, too.


Uh, no. There are as many - if not more - anti-Linux trolls on this site as there are anti-MS ones. If you don't recognize this it's simple a reflection of your own bias.

In any case, your use of the words "the impression we all are having here" is clearly erroneous.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why is everyone surprised?
by Dark_Knight on Sun 10th Jul 2005 18:50 UTC in reply to "Why is everyone surprised?"
Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

Re: "Contrary to what the groupthink on this web site dictates, it's the *nix people who can't stand competition and are intolerant of other platforms. Their mantra is "you can use whatever OS you like, as long as it's *nix or *nix-like."

While I do realize that just as with the Windows and OSX camps there will be occassionaly some misguided and ignorant people the same is true for the Linux community. Though most developers in the Linux community do not think that way and are open to offering their applications on other platforms. If there's a gain to be made whether dollar value or need to port to Windows from Linux then developers will do it. Some of the developers who have done so both commercial and open source are Alias, Softimage, Gimp, ClamAV, AMSN Messenger, etc.

Reply Score: 1

v Message to LinSux LUsers
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 16:38 UTC
Linux is desktop ready
by csharp_wannabe on Sun 10th Jul 2005 17:03 UTC
csharp_wannabe
Member since:
2005-07-10

From Article

"Device drivers are also problematic for Linux, Johnson said, because while there are several hardware vendors committed to Linux solutions and to releasing device drivers, a lot of this device driver support lags for Linux and is often almost immediately available for Windows, he said."

I believe that this is a falicy. I feel that sometimes that Linux-based Operating Systems (Especially Ubuntu) do have the same, if not more, hardware support. I have Ubuntu 5.04 and it picked up all my Centrino hardware, which pleased me to no end. XP picked up the hardware, but did not configure it correctly as Ubuntu did.

My 2 cents, take it or leave it...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux is desktop ready
by rayiner on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:05 UTC in reply to "Linux is desktop ready"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Heh. I have Fedora Core 4 on my new computer, and not Windows XP. Not even a dual-boot (which I sometimes run). Why? Windows XP won't install on the damn thing! It requires a damn floppy to install, because Microsoft hasn't released an updated install CD to support SATA, and I refuse to buy a floppy drive on principle. It's 2005 for god's sake, let the floppy drive die!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux is desktop ready
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux is desktop ready"
Anonymous Member since:
---

So far it's been my experience (well, I've only installed two SATA only systems) that Windows XP will install on a SATA drive, it only requires the floppy disk if you are using a RAID setup. I'm running two SATA drives (one for linux the other for windows) and it installed just fine. (though it is windows, and a pain to get working just right afterwards....)

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Linux is desktop ready
by netpython on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux is desktop ready"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

So far it's been my experience (well, I've only installed two SATA only systems) that Windows XP will install on a SATA drive, it only requires the floppy disk if you are using a RAID setup.

Well i don't know what mobo you have.But when installing XP pro (just checked for the fun of it) on my amd64 system after having pressed F6 during the setup.I put in the driver disk i had made on a spare PC and i could install two drivers.One for raid and one nvidia SATA driver.Curious as i'm decided to install nothing at all from the disk at all just to see what happens.Well everything installed just fine but performance was not that great compared with when i had installed both the two drivers for a RAID(0) configuration.Had to change a few settings in CMOS also but that aside.

Great advantage of many Linux distro's indeed is the (most) SATA drivers being included.Not to mention an abundance of audio,analog/digital-tv card,mobo chipset,etc drivers included.That's attractive.No more endless boring sequences of drivers,anti-virus/anti-spyware apps,all the software you need to create your needed working environment, slow windows updates..To be honest,MS more or less confirmed the slow updates,and decided after > *4years* it was time to not letting their customers download the same (control app) data over and over again when they want to update.But download it once and store it locally ready for usage.

Well it's their business,but others haven't fallen asleep in the meantime.Linux and MacOSX have made impressive progress.Sometimes release shedules can't be kept,but in the meantime trying to buy studies or twist the reality in to a continuum that's in favor of your products,because you can't make command pisses me off.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Linux is desktop ready
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux is desktop ready"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Whether you need the floppies for a SATA install depends on the motherboards's SATA controllers. Some will work, others won't...frex, a year old MSI Via socket 754 mobo did need the floppy for a basic XP install.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Linux is desktop ready
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux is desktop ready"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yeah, and it can be a real problem if your computer doesn't have a floppy drive, like mine. There is a way around it by creating your own install cd (using for example nLite) with the drivers on it, but would it really hurt Microsoft to update the drivers included?

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Linux is desktop ready
by ma_d on Mon 11th Jul 2005 01:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux is desktop ready"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

You can roll your own. Google "slipstreaming service packs"

Reply Score: 2

Re: Why is everyone surprised?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 17:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

For childish WinFanBoy vituperation look at the "Message to LinSux LUsers" post that follows yours.

With regard to xscreensaver, jwz is a UNIX purist who despises Linux almost as much as he does Windows and he considers them part of a similar, in his view, flawed appoach to operating system design. So don't blame Linux supporters for his opinions.

Most articles criticising MS are rational and concentate on

(i) MS's dubious business practices some of which have seen them convicted as an illegal monopoly.

(ii) The use of its policy of "embrace and extend" to pollute open standards (its proprietary perversion of IBM's SMB and MIT's Kerberos in CIFS and active directory amongst others). Resulting in the use of its effective desktop operating system monopoly to attempt to leverage a server system monopoly.

For MS's side see the misepresentions, falshoods and bought "independant research" in its "Get the Facts" campaign. Look at the many ant-Linux FUD articles in the commercial IT media on the web authored by writers who are directly or indirectly payed for by MS published on websites that are dependant on MS adverising for survival. It seems pretty corupt to me.

Fifteen years ago I used to admire MS and Bill Gates and I think at one stage maybe they did play a positive role in the widespread adoption of desktop computers. But as we have seen more and more of their anti-competitive monopoly practices taking effect it is becoming clear that they are holding back the development of IT as open standards and muti-platform computer interoperability become ever more important.

Reply Score: 3

This was obviously written by a M$ puppet.
by Sabon on Sun 10th Jul 2005 17:19 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Funny thing is that Linux is already losing steam."

This was obviously written by a M$ puppet. Even people that are M$ brown neckers (think of brown nosers but more dedicated) have been checking out Linux on servers and on the desktop. Whenever they would say that Windows is better. I would just ask them how they know since they proclaim they have never used Linux.

"But all the magazines say Windows is better." You mean all the -Windows- magazines say Windows is better, I tell them. Then I say that they should stop being stupid, ignorant people and actually find out for themselves. Then I show them how easy it is to install Linux (in my case I show them LinSpire but tell them to check out other ones too). And then I show them how easy it is to download applications and how there is over 1,600 apps to choose from.

That's just one of the Linux distros, I tell them. There are plenty good ones to choose from. I also show them how good Mac OS X is too. Pretty soon they don't look so sure of themselves that Windows is the greatest OS on the planet. They know it isn't anymore and they've set a computer at home to use Linux testing out several distros.

Each of them tried to tell me they couldn't work Linux or Mac at home or work. I nailed them down as to what they couldn't do. Make a list and be specific, I told them. I then went down that list and proved on each and every point they had that they -could- use it at home or work.

The main issue for them to get over. It doesn't matter what -brand- of software you are using. The important this is -what- you are trying to do and -does- the software do it. The answer on the latter, as I proved to them, is yes.

Reply Score: 0

@Anonymous (IP: 164.214.4.---)
by somebody on Sun 10th Jul 2005 17:26 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

Codecs easy for windows? It is a no go. WMP hasn't found not even one codec that wouldn't belong to MS. Why downloading option?

If it would be easy then I wouldn't be called so often by people I know that some movie doesn't work. And believe me, there's many of them.

For all the people on Linux I just set up yum repository and complete mplayer (and off course dowloadable rpm that installs yum specs in /etc that can be downloaded via browser). One minute on phone for the first time (just to install my repository). Everything other is just "yum install ..." or by clicking in gui. Next time I put new version of mplayer inside? Everybody gets it with the first update.

Reply Score: 1

RE: @Anonymous (IP: 164.214.4.---)
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 17:59 UTC in reply to "@Anonymous (IP: 164.214.4.---)"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Codecs easy for windows? It is a no go. WMP hasn't found not even one codec that wouldn't belong to MS. Why downloading option?

Wow, this has indeed gotten out of hand. No, codecs for windows are fairly easy. The use of codec packs like Nimo, Gordian Knot's (for use with it's really cool encoding suite), Matroska, Tsunami filter pack just to name a few make it VERY easy to view virtually any avi file known to man, and all with a double-click.

And whoever said that I said it was difficult in linux has it wrong. I use Xandros on a daily basis and enjoy the use of mplayer very much of the time. Much of what I am getting at is debunking the difficulty of playing videos in windows and at demonstrating it's rather easy codec integration.

Reply Score: 0

JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

No, codecs for windows are fairly easy. The use of codec packs like Nimo, Gordian Knot's (for use with it's really cool encoding suite), Matroska, Tsunami filter pack just to name a few make it VERY easy to view virtually any avi file known to man, and all with a double-click.

Noobie: Wow! All I have to do is double-click! Uh... double-click what? What's a "nimo"? I have the Disney DVD - maybe that's all I need. Matroska sounds Russian - I ain't putting now commie-crap on MY computer! Well, let's trying googling for "nimo"... hmmm - 200,000,000,000 hits for the movie - AH! Something about codec packs. Download... go to hard drive... NOW I can double-click... Next... Next... Agree... Next... Next... Next... Reboot... What the heck! The player blows up now! Googling... nimo codec packs cause "codec conflicts"? What the heck is that? How do I fix it? AHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

See five comments above.

Reply Score: 0

JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, and it's "Nemo" for the movie jackass.

Noobie: what's the difference? Sounds the same to me. This computer stuff is just so confusing! You experts pretend it's all so easy!

I see you completely disregarded the ENTIRE point of the post. It's NOT as easy as just a "double-click" on Windows to install codecs, and Windows can have as much trouble, if not more, than linux. Windows people ALWAYS exagerate how "easy" it is to use Windows. It's only easy because you've spent years using it. To a noobie, it's all the same.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Read my post a few comments above. I am not claiming one is easier than the other. Googling for codec packs in my mind is just as easy if not easier than knowing "emerge whatever," or "apt-get install whatever." Like I said earlier, different strokes for different folks. I prefer to use windows in this regard.

And there is a difference to the noobie, noobidity is not necessarily synonymous with spelling ability.

Reply Score: 0

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

My god, some Anoymous is bitter and angry:)

God help me, but I just couldn't stand not to bite in your holy war:)

Googling for codec packs in my mind is just as easy if not easier than knowing "emerge whatever," or "apt-get install whatever." Like I said earlier, different strokes for different folks. I prefer to use windows in this regard.

Now admit it, you could learn about "emerge whatever," or "apt-get install whatever" if you would Google it:) So, now we are starting to compare Google against Google.

God, I love it. Who is better Google or Google? And in the next sequel, is Google really illicite child of Google?

Please feel free moderate down this comment, but I just couldn't stand not to be sarcastic.

Reply Score: 3

Anonymous Member since:
---

Lol. Somebody, you are a trip, man.

Now admit it, you could learn about "emerge whatever," or "apt-get install whatever" if you would Google it:)

Somehow, that just doesn't sound right. **scratches head** Lol.

Reply Score: 0

@Anonymous (IP: 68.161.33.---)
by somebody on Sun 10th Jul 2005 17:34 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

Linux is more user friendly than ever. People can argue that Windows/OS X are better, maybe they are right, but that is not the point.

You don't know how correct you are up to here

The point is that if today you can not set your linux box to play music in whatever distribution, I do not think Linux is for you.

But here is where you strayed away. Users like that should only have one friend that recomends them distro and that he sets up some friendly repository. Believe me. I've got about 30 completely clueless friends (beside other who know how) all avid linux users. The only thing they know is that they need to set one rpm and afterwards everything works (They just need to ask me which software is used for some purpose, all matter of few words and nothing else). And not even one has looked back so far.

Not trying to attack anybody, but if some third class user like me can do it, anybody can do it.

Exactly

Reply Score: 1

Misleading consumers.
by Dark_Knight on Sun 10th Jul 2005 17:50 UTC
Dark_Knight
Member since:
2005-07-10

Re: [quote]"But the different Linux distributions, particularly those from Red Hat and Novell's SuSE Linux, also essentially lock them in as switching from one to the other is by no means easy, although probably not as difficult as migrating from Windows to Linux. But it is a lot more difficult than many of the distributors allow users to believe," Johnson said.[/quote]

So Johnson, who has been recognized by the author as pro-Microsoft would like attendees and readers to believe it's difficult for companies to transition from Red Hat to Novell or vice versa. For someone that appears to have some what a grasp of what Linux can offer consumers he failed to realize the similarities between those two distributions. Lets consider the fact both Red Hat and Novell offer RPM based distributions, offer the same Linux commands from the terminal and similar GUI. Lets also consider the fact that both Red Hat and Novell are LSB certified meaning they follow set guidelines to provide standards for consumers that actually ease transition from one distribution to another. I believe this is a case of Microsoft not wanting attendees or readers to consider either Red Hat or Novell which Balmer (another MS fan boy) has already admitted to the media are the main competition against Microsoft for desktop and servers. Johnson's comment wasn't so much of a spin as it was misleading the public by leaving out factual information.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Linux is here to stay-DEFINITELY
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 18:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

actually, that would be 'apt-get install mplayer w32codecs' once you have the repositories in place. Mplayer will play anything and everything.

Reply Score: 0

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

how fucking clunky the linux desktop is compared to windows. btw, I use a linux desktop 40hrs a week so I'm not trolling. Its the plain and simple truth.

How does that even make sense? Which desktop/WM are you talking about? Have you tried them all? I can tell you right now that WindowMaker is much more productive for me than Windows ever was. Your preference cannot be considered "plain and simple truth" simply because it is your preference.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

how fucking clunky the linux desktop is compared to windows. btw, I use a linux desktop 40hrs a week so I'm not trolling. Its the plain and simple truth.

It doesn't matter how many hours you claim to use a Linux desktop per week, you're still trolling. You're making an inflammatory, highly debatable statement - complete with profanity - in hope of eliciting responses. That is exactly what trolling is.

Now, on the subject of your post, I personally use Linux/KDE and Windows daily (one at work, the other at home) and neither UIs are "clunky". I like KDE better for a variety of reasons: because it's got is easier to customize, has virtual desktops and a great file manager/browser out-of-the-box. It also has much more powerful open/save dialogs. For my usage, the apps' UIs are in fact more consistent than those on my Windows Desktop, at work.

My home machine, running Linux, is a bit older: Athlon 900MHz, though I do have a gig of ram. My work machine is a P4 2GHz machine. And you know what? Both UIs are snappy and responsive.

The Linux desktop is not clunky, unless you're forced to use Gnome1 or KDE2 or CDE on your workstation. KDE3 and Gnome2 have actually become better desktops than Windows (which is stuck in its own paradigm).

What you so humbly presented as "the plain and simple truth" seems to me nothing more than your own opinion, with plenty of trollish attitude but without any actual arguments to support it.

...

Hmm. I'm going to have to stop responding to anonymous trolls, now that OSNews has a user account system...

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Then why is Linux at < 5% desktop market share?

About clunky and slowness:
I have KDE 3 on a PC where i used XP before, KDE is darn slow and GNOME is even slower. It is quite slow on local terminal but if i ever do an X from a remote machine, popping menu on clicking K button takes time. I have 10 Mbps LAN so it should be fast, right? XP desktop was waaaayyy faster on it and even on RDP it was super fast. Anyways i use this machine for server purpose so its not a problem for me, but you can't say that X is fast enough, it is quite slow as compared to Windows graphics rendering.

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Then why is Linux at < 5% desktop market share?

Easy, because of Microsoft's abusive monopoly on OS, Office suite and closed file formats. Linux has pretty much the same market share that Mac OSX has, and yet I'm sure you wouldn't claim that OSX is "clunky"! So there you go, no cause-effect relationship.

I have KDE 3 on a PC where i used XP before, KDE is darn slow and GNOME is even slower.

Yes, that's what you claim, but unfortunately I don't really believe that you do. You're obviously trolling in an anonymous fashion here, so there's no reason to believe that what you say is true. I've used XP and Mandriva with KDE on the same computer, one that is just less than two years old (i.e. not something that you can still buy today...) and all three desktops are snappy. So either you're lying or there was something very wrong with your system (I'm thinking it's the former).

It is quite slow on local terminal but if i ever do an X from a remote machine, popping menu on clicking K button takes time. I have 10 Mbps LAN so it should be fast, right? XP desktop was waaaayyy faster on it and even on RDP it was super fast.

RDP faster than X on a 10Mbps link? Now I know you're lying - unless you used VNC and mistook it for real remote desktop connection through XDMCP. By the way, 10 Mbps is pretty old tech: the norm these days is 100, with 1 gigabit slowly making its way through the market.

At 100 Mbps you can use a remote X desktop and barely notice that it's not local. At 1 Gpbs, you can't notice it at all. At 10 Mbps it sucks, but RDP sucks just as much. At all speeds, XDMCP beats RDP.

Anyways i use this machine for server purpose so its not a problem for me, but you can't say that X is fast enough,

Yes I can, because it simply is. On modern hardware Xorg is exremely fast. You may be referring to the fact that double-buffering is still not standard - however, the Xorg guys are fixing this as we speak. But that really doesn't have anything to do with desktop responsiveness.

it is quite slow as compared to Windows graphics rendering.

Not in my experience. Of course, if there's something wrong with your system, then YMMV. The fact remains, though, that you're still trolling. Get an account, at the very least!

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Then why is Linux at < 5% desktop market share?
Easy, because of Microsoft's abusive monopoly on OS, Office suite and closed file formats. Linux has pretty much the same market share that Mac OSX has, and yet I'm sure you wouldn't claim that OSX is "clunky"! So there you go, no cause-effect relationship.

There is a difference, OSX is very expensive where as Linux is free. So your analogy is flawed.

I have KDE 3 on a PC where i used XP before, KDE is darn slow and GNOME is even slower.
Yes, that's what you claim, but unfortunately I don't really believe that you do. You're obviously trolling in an anonymous fashion here, so there's no reason to believe that what you say is true. I've used XP and Mandriva with KDE on the same computer, one that is just less than two years old (i.e. not something that you can still buy today...) and all three desktops are snappy. So either you're lying or there was something very wrong with your system (I'm thinking it's the former).

If you don't believe truth doesn't change, i use Linux as mainly as my CVS server. The machine is old PII 633 MHz with 192 MB RAM.

It is quite slow on local terminal but if i ever do an X from a remote machine, popping menu on clicking K button takes time. I have 10 Mbps LAN so it should be fast, right? XP desktop was waaaayyy faster on it and even on RDP it was super fast.

RDP faster than X on a 10Mbps link? Now I know you're lying - unless you used VNC and mistook it for real remote desktop connection through XDMCP. By the way, 10 Mbps is pretty old tech: the norm these days is 100, with 1 gigabit slowly making its way through the market.

Again you don't want to hear, i was saying RDP of Windows is way faster than remote X through XDMCP.

At 100 Mbps you can use a remote X desktop and barely notice that it's not local. At 1 Gpbs, you can't notice it at all. At 10 Mbps it sucks, but RDP sucks just as much. At all speeds, XDMCP beats RDP.
No sir, you are mistaken. 10 Mbps is more than sufficient for Windows RDP connection. It works great on my 768 Kbps DSL connection when i connect to my office machine.

Anyways i use this machine for server purpose so its not a problem for me, but you can't say that X is fast enough,

Yes I can, because it simply is. On modern hardware Xorg is exremely fast. You may be referring to the fact that double-buffering is still not standard - however, the Xorg guys are fixing this as we speak. But that really doesn't have anything to do with desktop responsiveness.

it is quite slow as compared to Windows graphics rendering.

Not in my experience. Of course, if there's something wrong with your system, then YMMV. The fact remains, though, that you're still trolling. Get an account, at the very least!

Hear no evil, see no evil won't change a thing. If Linux is running slow then its my machines problem. Thats lame dude, i can only hope that actual Linux developers don't have this attitude. Since i am not an expert in graphics, i can't refer you what exactly has made XP so fast other than that it runs all GDI code in kernel mode to make it really fast.

Reply Score: 0

Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"There is a difference, OSX is very expensive where as Linux is free. So your analogy is flawed."

Actually your argument is flawed, after reading all the messages in this thread it's obvious that you don't care whether or not Linux is better, you just don't like it because it's more affordable. A high price doesn't mean better quality, otherwise maybe Nike shoes would last more than a month.

"i use Linux as mainly as my CVS server. The machine is old PII 633 MHz with 192 MB RAM."

<sarcasm> Sure you do, that's why you're such an expert on Linux </sarcasm>

Every point you've made on Linux so far was nothing but FUD borrowed from posts that we've seen for years, none of it was true and as such the only thing you've done in this entire thread was prove that you're afraid of MS losing ground and you don't know anything about Linux. Every time you're proven wrong you change your song, and every time one of your arguments is crushed for good you try to bring it back with a clean slate.

By the way, that whole argument is shot down, the Pentium II could never do 633 MHz without overclocking, but no doubt you'll change your story again to compensate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_II

"Hear no evil, see no evil won't change a thing."

Why don't you try taking your own advice.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

There is a difference, OSX is very expensive where as Linux is free. So your analogy is flawed.

The analogy stands, as OSX is about the same price as Windows XP - and yet it has a very small market share. From which we can deduce that a UI's responsiveness has little to do with market share. Rather, it's MS monopolistic practices which are responsible for the current situation.

Again you don't want to hear, i was saying RDP of Windows is way faster than remote X through XDMCP.

And I've never seen a RDP connection be more responsive than a XDMCP connection on the same bandwidth. So there must have been something wrong with your setup.

No sir, you are mistaken. 10 Mbps is more than sufficient for Windows RDP connection.

Of course it's sufficient, it's just not responsive. 10 Mbps is also sufficient for XDMCP, and it's still more better than RDP, but it's not very responsive (compared to 100Mbps).

Hear no evil, see no evil won't change a thing. If Linux is running slow then its my machines problem. Thats lame dude,

It's not lame, it's the truth. Comparing Linux and WinXP here on the same hardware, I get the same amount of system responsiveness. So either I've got some sort of super-optimized setup, or your own setup was less than optimal.

Note: I don't have hardware quite as old as you do, but that's irrelevant, as you can no longer buy this kind of equipment. I'm not talking about the past, "dude", I'm talking about the present and the future.

Since i am not an expert in graphics, i can't refer you what exactly has made XP so fast other than that it runs all GDI code in kernel mode to make it really fast.

Clearly, you are not an expert. And yet you keep claiming that if your X setup was slow, then it means that X is slow, despite the fact that my own experience tells a completely different story. The fact that your XDMCP connection wasn't as fast as RDP is also a good indication that something was wrong.

The fact that you won't even consider that the problem may have been with your own setup leads me to believe that your main purpose here is to spread FUD.

All I know is that my PC is as responsive using Windows as it is using Linux. Must be some kind of super-computer!!

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

That's stretching it. I can always tell when X isn't local; even if it's on the same machine over lo.

RDP is quite fast; I wouldn't try and say anything bad about RDP's speed. When push comes to shove, I'd take RDP over VNC any day of the week. But VNC takes the cake for KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

RDP is quite fast; I wouldn't try and say anything bad about RDP's speed. When push comes to shove, I'd take RDP over VNC any day of the week.

Indeed, RDP is faster than VNC, I wasn't arguing to the contrary. However, XDMCP connections over 100Mbps still feels more responsive than RDP. And at 1Gbps (which I've tried only once, mind you) I coudln't tell the difference with a local connection (except if I really, really focused on it).

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

One more thing, this attitude of saying that you are trolling, if someone feels KDE is slow is not good. It all depends on the experience you had and no one can prove anything but if you talk to anyone who has some good OS knowledge will agree that X is slower. Windows moved bulk of GDI code to Kernel mode to make that more responsive. You have to make decisions sometime to improve performance like Linus made decision to design a monolithic kernel instead of Microkernel architecture.

Reply Score: 0

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

You can't compare internal kernel design to moving GUI to kernel-space. Here's why:
Kernels exist for the purpose of abstracting a computer system away from what it is to a standard interface: This way you can write code for a kernel and not for a computer; and if the kernel was designed by a standard you write for a standard. Not that many of us actually write kernel interfacing code. So, the internal workings of the kernel don't matter; because it's an abstraction in its nature.

GUI is not an abstraction. It makes no sense in the kernel because:
a.) It's highly complex.
b.) It has nothing to do with interacting with the machine, it's a user interaction.

About X being slower. X is generally not designed for raw speed first; much like many other Unix tools. I really get tired of hearing people coomplain that X is slow: On a modern (Duron or faster) machine you can't tell X activity.
At this point about 8 people are going to say something about how they can see speed differences: And they probably can: In Pango, GTK, KDElibs; but not in X11.

If you want to see why Linus was right to chose a monolithic kernel over a microkernel, run MySQL on OS X, then go read about the issues with HURD ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE: RE: @Anonymous (IP: 164.214.4.---)
by somebody on Sun 10th Jul 2005 18:24 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

he use of codec packs like Nimo, Gordian Knot's (for use with it's really cool encoding suite), Matroska, Tsunami filter pack just to name a few make it VERY easy to view virtually any avi file known to man, and all with a double-click.

[sarcasm]Wow, that's a whole of a lot to know. And with a double click[/sarcasm]:) You just forget one problem. Typical user doesn't have a clue about or where to find those codecs. Nobody here says that codec integration in technical view isn't easy. Everybody just says that all codecs are obscurely scattered over the net and most users don't know how or where (grandma doesn't have a clue about Nimo, AllIn1...). I personally use AllIn1 codecs (Nimo has a bad history of screwing computers after install). But then again I wouldn't know even that they exist if one friend wouldn't point me in that direction. And I seem to have problems finding them every time I look for them. On linux, one place, one app. Mplayer. And if it is integrated into some friendly yum, apt or emerge... There's a lot simpler way than doubleclick.

Reply Score: 1

RE: somebody
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 18:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Oh jeez. I didn't realize that Google was that difficult to use. Maybe I'm wrong. **shrugs** I'll tell my mother to make sure she sets up the repositories in-, er, wait or is emerge better or maybe apt-get? Wait, what distro am I using again??? The point is, different strokes for different folks and windows works as fine as linux does for alot of people despite what many can't seem to believe.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: somebody
by rayiner on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE: somebody"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

What exactly are they going to Google for??? I'm hardly a newbie computer user and I've never even heard of codec packs, or this nemo thing! I always go and download DivX, Xvid, RealPlayer, and QuickTime individually. Are you seriously arguing that this nemo thing is more obvious for users to understand than starting up a graphical package manager like Synaptic?

The basic thing is, no matter what OS you're on, the user will have to have some understanding of packages. Windows users will have to know about installer files (which really isn't something obvious), while Linux users will have to know about package files. So when they see "Synaptic Package Manager" in their desktop menu, well, it couldn't really be more obvious how to install new packages. Meanwhile, for Windows, they've either got to download a whole bunch of codecs by hand, or have some dork tell them about this "nemo" thing...

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: somebody
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: somebody"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Of course, that's absolutely my point. One is not necessarily easier than the other. My saying is go with whatever works for you, not bash the other because it is different or what you don't particularly care for. I myself, use OSX, linux and windows, and I still find windows method of package management both easier and packages more readily available by sheer popularity and support.

Meanwhile, for Windows, they've either got to download a whole bunch of codecs by hand, or have some dork tell them about this "nemo" thing...

Now, see what I mean? What the heck was that "dork" comment all about? For the mis/uninformed: Codec packs are installer packages which include virtually all the codecs you'll ever need to watch anything, just about. They make it particularly easier than having to hunt down each and every codec there is most of the time. example here: http://www.divx-digest.com/software/tsunami_pack.html

My goodness, many of you hardcore linux guys need to chill.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: somebody
by Celerate on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: somebody"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"My goodness, many of you hardcore linux guys need to chill."

You must be skim reading, you've missed the fact that there is was lot of tension flying around before he said that. Everytime Windows or Linux is mentioned on this site there are arguments, it all goes so far back I don't think anyone even remembers how it started.

Lets not single out one group, it takes two to fight.

BTW. I do resent the fact that you said "hardcore linux guys" instead of addressing the original author by name, as I've already said that's no better than racial profiling (ex: "oh you use the same OS as him, you must be just like him...").

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: somebody
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: somebody"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well, it depends. I mentioned the use of Xandros as my distro of choice earlier in the thread. I would say that Xandros is hardly a hardcore linux distro. I happily use linux and windows and even though Xandros is not a Slackware, or a stock Debian, it is linux. None the less, I indeed do not classify myself as "hardcore," so no, I must not be just like him, considering that and given the comments I've posted.

So, I enjoy the debate, just not the name-calling, although now I realize it may have been in a demonstrative context.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: somebody
by Celerate on Sun 10th Jul 2005 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: somebody"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"So, I enjoy the debate, just not the name-calling, although now I realize it may have been in a demonstrative context."

It wasn't to insult you, it was to show that:
"My goodness, many of you hardcore linux guys need to chill."
is like saying:
"oh you use the same OS as him, you must be just like him...".

I don't resort to insults unless I'm very angry, and I'm not :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: somebody
by ma_d on Sun 10th Jul 2005 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: somebody"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

So do you prefer installshield or Microsoft's installer?

I get annoyed by some apps, not even spyware, that have broken uninstallers. That really irritates me sometimes.

I don't see how you can not like the Mac installer. It doesn't have one! You drag it there and delete it to remove it: It's a folder! The only problem I have with it is that it lacks good CLI integration.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: somebody
by netpython on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: somebody"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

What exactly are they going to Google for??? I'm hardly a newbie computer user and I've never even heard of codec packs, or this nemo thing! I always go and download DivX, Xvid, RealPlayer, and QuickTime individually.

They are like gordian knot codec pack mostly needed to perform some advanced tasks with audio and or video streams.Great site to get some background knowledge:

http://www.doom9.org/


The basic thing is, no matter what OS you're on, the user will have to have some understanding of packages

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: somebody
by somebody on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: somebody"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

He's being sarcastic not without knowledge:)

Besides doom9.org for video and audio codec information? How do you expect some grandma is gonna know that? Ok, now I was the sarcastic one:)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: somebody
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: somebody"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I think no more different than grandma knowing/remembering the name(s) of the applications she is installing without googling or searching the sites for info on them.

He's being sarcastic not without knowledge:)

Yeah, I realized that. No worries.

Cheers

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: somebody
by somebody on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: somebody"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

The basic thing is, no matter what OS you're on, the user will have to have some understanding of packages. Windows users will have to know about installer files (which really isn't something obvious), while Linux users will have to know about package files. So when they see "Synaptic Package Manager" in their desktop menu, well, it couldn't really be more obvious how to install new packages. Meanwhile, for Windows, they've either got to download a whole bunch of codecs by hand, or have some dork tell them about this "nemo" thing...

Exactly

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: somebody
by Hugo on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: somebody"
Hugo Member since:
2005-07-06

"I always go and download DivX, Xvid, RealPlayer, and QuickTime individually."

ffdshow, and the thing is, that any player can use the codec, not just mplayer, abstraction is a good thing.
http://m17n.cool.ne.jp/freeware/mpc/

Supose you have two codecs that do the same thing (divx, xvid, libavcodec etc), does synaptic ask during install wick one you want to use? Does synaptic or mplayer present you with decoding/encoding options? -> http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/FFDShow-MPEG-Video-Decoder...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: somebody
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: somebody"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Feh, ffdshow messed me up...I installed it on a recommendation, and didn't like the system tray controls. I uninstalled it and now my BSplayer is fubarred when I play certain mpg files with it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: somebody
by Hugo on Sun 10th Jul 2005 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: somebody"
Hugo Member since:
2005-07-06

"Feh, ffdshow messed me up...I installed it on a recommendation, and didn't like the system tray controls. I uninstalled it and now my BSplayer is fubarred when I play certain mpg files with it."

1) You can disable the tray control from the options
2) You uninstalled a codec and now you can't play certain files, think about it... Playing a file... No Codecs for it... </sarcasm>

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: somebody
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: somebody"
Anonymous Member since:
---

No, these were mpg's that played fine before I tried ffdshow. In other words, it didn't remove itself cleanly and return the system to the way it was beforehand when I uninstalled it. Is that too much to ask?

Reply Score: 0

Voting system
by Celerate on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:07 UTC
Celerate
Member since:
2005-06-29

I think this is effective proof that the voting system needs refinement, I can still see troll posts where people have posted one liners basically comparing someone's hard written softare to their favourite four letter word.

One of the problems with this system is that trolls just need to go through all the comments, find the troll posts that got voted down and then vote them back up once everyone else has used up all their votes. In just about every thread there are troll posts near the end that haven't been modded down because no one had votes left.

I hope those of us who tried to put the voting system to good use to keep comments in good taste will get more voting power soon, that might help a little more since we'll start being able to cast more votes than the trolls. Also that banning system many mentioned is starting to sound good, why not get a few trusted people together to form a group of judges, when there is an effort to ban someone those judges can go over the posts in question and decide whether it is justified or not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[1]RE: Linux is desktop ready
by netpython on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:16 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

because Microsoft hasn't released an updated install CD to support SATA

I had the same experience a while ago.If saying the truth and presenting real facts is bashing windows or spreading FUD so be it and i will just do that till i drop.

Reply Score: 1

Celerate
Member since:
2005-06-29

Those comments on Linux being anti-competitive comes down to ideologies, and Microsoft isn't innocent either.

Microsoft has funded several bogus researchers who then came back with MS money in their pocket saying that the TCO of Linux was 100X that of Windows, Windows was 100X faster/more secure, etc... What we have here is a very dirty fight, don't pretend it didn't happen or that the figures were true because in several of the investigations on these statistics it turns out the Linux systems were poorly set up while Windows was fully optimized.

Some OSS developers have told people not to port their software to Windows, but they aren't all that way, just look at KVirc, Gaim, and the Gimp. I'm pro OSS, but I'm also one of the people who wants to see Konqueror, KMail and KOffice ported to Windows since I use both. I'm not anti-competitive, but when it comes down to it I would encourage people to use Linux instead of MS. Does that make me anti-competitive? Absolutely not! Windows fans encourage people to use Windows all the time, I have the right to do the same for Linux and I assure you I stick to facts and make sure I tell people that if they aren't comfortable adjusting to a new OS they are better off sticking with Windows, at least for now.

Lets stop pretending either camp is innocent, what we have here is called competition, MS Windows is competing with Linux and when that happens some users from both camps get scared and start seeding FUD and hate. Do you want to be one of those people?

Reply Score: 1

Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"Nothing sells like free in this world but still Linux is not able to make in-roads like many were thinking, why? Linux is only competing based on price, if you price it same as Windows, see how it vanishes from the market or reduced to even below OSX share."

Nice try, just because you haven't given Linux a chance doesn't mean that it's not as high quality as Windows. I would consider Linux a higher quality, I've actually used it for years, have you? Obviously not.

BTW. Linux can get as expensive as Windows, or pretty close anyway and people are still buying it. SUSE Linux pro is pretty expensive and people still buy it, same thing with RHEL, and Mandrake.

You're argument is nothing but a typical troll post, you're afraid that you're favourite OS is going to die and you want to scare people away from Linux to try and prevent that.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

You say RHEL et all are as expensive as W2K3, correct? You know the RHEL, SUSE and Mandrake market share as compared to windows don't you?

As for the cost, initially cost of Windows is still more than RHEL etc due to all the bundled software in RHEL, but still Windows sells more. Ever tried to reason why?

Reply Score: 0

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Ever tried to reason why?

Ever tried to reason why Windows is the only one loosing ground???

It can't happen' overnight, it can't happen' in one year (remember desktop linux is now one year old child, until now linux was a geek toy from the geeks), but as steady and logarithmic as it goes... (put your mind to work:)

Reply Score: 1

Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"but still Windows sells more. Ever tried to reason why?"

Because Microsoft had a monopoly, people were forced to learn how to use it and now its easier for them to fork out a little bit of their earnings to continue using something they are now familiar with than to switch to something new that would save them money. Windows isn't better, its just familiar to them.

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do people use OS comparisons as an excuse to ditch rationality? How can you compare WinNT, an older more established product sold by a multi-billion dollar company to a relatively new product sold by a bunch of smaller companies? Of course NT has more sales, Microsoft was selling it back when enterprise Linux wasn't even on anybody's mind. That's not even taking into account the fact that Microsoft is a convicted monopoly, and all the various barriers to entry posed by that.

Take a look at things from an economics standpoint. Linux is posting double-digit growths every quarter for years, and Windows is not. It's like China --- why does everybody take the Chinese economy so seriously? It's still 1/8 the size of the US economy, after all. People take it seriously because it's growing at over 8% per year! Money is all about exponential curves. Where you are at the moment isn't nearly as important as what your growth rate is.

Reply Score: 2

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

That's because people believe that stock markets and short term investors are a good thing.
All the people who get laid off after being a great employee likely think different (if they think).
This is totally off topic; but I much prefer stable companies to ones who are growing and shrinking all the time. In that respect: Great job Microsoft; thanks for not laying off your employees ;) .

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Please point me to some studies which shows the Linux growth rate? Name me one successful enterprise adoption of Linux (ok now you might name one but you know what i mean). Munich is a slap on the face of all Linux fanboys (see how much struggle it is to use Linux) and we all know why Munich decision was made, just nationalist crap of using Suse (a german company product) rather than US company's.

Back on the growth rate, Microsoft is also growing. Linux is only killing UNIX market. Microsoft however can't grow forever as it already has 95% or so market share. They have their peak and obviously they will lose some over time because its hard to maintain that position by any company. How much they will lose will be dictated by price and quality and all i was saying is, a Linux fanboy should feel proud when Linux is preferred over Windows when sold at the same price. The day that happens, i can bet Windows will reduce to <50% share but i don't see it happening because Windows has certainly much higher quality bar in terms of usability over Linux. Linux is still a geek toy.

Reply Score: 0

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

all i was saying is, a Linux fanboy should feel proud when Linux is preferred over Windows when sold at the same price. The day that happens, i can bet Windows will reduce to <50% share but i don't see it happening because Windows has certainly much higher quality bar in terms of usability over Linux. Linux is still a geek toy.

A Linux fanboy should ignore you. It is in your character to protest against any proof with your "can't hear you, can't hear you, but linux sux" attitude

The day it will happen' it will be just a day and nothing else. It is the same as when digital clock changes numbers. Nothing special when it shows 00:00

Yes, linux is still a geek toy. And many of us love it for the same reason. But as long as it works better than Windows for my friends (at least they don't call me anymore with their problems) I think it is desktop ready and *I and my surrounding* is what I care about.

You know you could cool off a little bit. Frustration is bad for nerves:)

p.s. Here is my answer to your next response "CAN'T HEAR YOU" (which I really can't because I have to read pages, damn computer still isn't desktop ready to read them for me), but in reality here is 0AM and I'll be off to last beer and then sleep. So reading is OFF from now on.

Reply Score: 1

Milo_Hoffman Member since:
2005-07-06

>Please point me to some studies which shows the Linux growth rate?

Hey Retard...look at posts above with this years market data from IDC.

Reply Score: 2

Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"Please point me to some studies which shows the Linux growth rate? Name me one successful enterprise adoption of Linux (ok now you might name one but you know what i mean). Munich is a slap on the face of all Linux fanboys (see how much struggle it is to use Linux) and we all know why Munich decision was made, just nationalist crap of using Suse (a german company product) rather than US company's."

I'd say the comments on this article are proof that Linux is growing, but if you need more try searching Google instead of expecting others to do your research for you. I already did a search and most of the articles there spell it out quite clearly.

As for Munich, I did some research and aside from a few non-issues they paused for, there was really nothing wrong.

If you don't like nationalism than I've got great news for you, most of the products you can buy today are made in 3rd world countries where labour is cheap, that also means you won't have any jobs where you live though. Congradulations!

"How much they will lose will be dictated by price and quality and all i was saying is, a Linux fanboy should feel proud when Linux is preferred over Windows when sold at the same price. The day that happens, i can bet Windows will reduce to <50% share but i don't see it happening because Windows has certainly much higher quality bar in terms of usability over Linux. Linux is still a geek toy."

Again, we've been over this:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11164&threshold=-5&limit=...
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11164&threshold=-5&limit=...
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11164&threshold=-5&limit=...
Try reading replies.

By the way, do you really think you still have any credibility in this thread?

Reply Score: 1

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Windows is competing against Linux? This statement is not true. It should be Linux is competing for 5% market share. Secondly when we say competion, it is generally based on something, like they are competing for quality or price or both? Nothing sells like free in this world but still Linux is not able to make in-roads like many were thinking, why? Linux is only competing based on price, if you price it same as Windows, see how it vanishes from the market or reduced to even below OSX share.

Yes, it is a screwed logic, but Windows is competing against linux.

Here's a kind of Microsoftish analogy (and it is a bit screwed one). Take some epidemy. Virus spreads for free and even though only 3% of population is infected scientists are competing to provide cure (it is not the virus that competes to infect 5%).
Now just take away virus and epidemy and take in three other factors (diversity, freedom, $0) and put word linux inside, this is what people like and this are the reasons why they install linux.

So there is nothing to be proud of Linux, i will appreciate it the day it is able to compete on quality by saying hey i will sell 10$ more than Windows and see people will still buy me. This is what is quality my friend not this GPL/free bullcrap

Selling something that can be obtained for $0 for $10 more than smething which is obtained on a certain price which is not $0? You either screwed logic or you expect from people to be idiots

Here's another analogy:
It takes a lot bigger idiot (or reason like corporate support) to buy something he could get for free, than to sell him some wortless crap for half price.

Now, the reseller that sells free goods pricier than the proprietary goods is either genius or already gone past genius to insane.

Secondary, my aspect: I don't find troubles to sell my linux servers more expensive than Windows. It is all the matter of services and support. But, I don't believe that desktop linux could become reselling success, still it can be success for reselling desktop services.

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I'd pay $200 for GNU/Linux before I would for Windows; it has greater value to me.

And Microsoft is competing with Linux. Linux has a much greater marketshare in cluster computing which Microsoft and Apple are trying to get into (especially Apple). You'll likely see Linux with a higher percentage of scientific users; my experience tells me that scientific users aren't fond of Windows (it's not Unix or like it at all).
Linux has a great server marketshare that Windows wants.

And, Microsoft sees all competitors as a threat; even at 1-3% of the market. This is one of the reasons the justice department came down on them: They're anti-competitive because they do everything they can to prevent new competitors from successfully entering the market. Many people call it competition; economists call it monopoly abuse.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Would you have believed this?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 19:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

- Pink Floyd re-unites to give a concert

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"""
Pink Floyd re-unites to give a concert
"""

But they are only given 15 minutes, during which the commentators won't shut up, and they'll break for commercials right in the middle of two of the four songs they get to play.

Reply Score: 0

v Message to LUsers == LinSux Users
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 20:17 UTC
Desktop Ready
by Celerate on Sun 10th Jul 2005 20:34 UTC
Celerate
Member since:
2005-06-29

Desktop ready is subjective, just because your parents or friends showed you how to use Windows/Linux first doesn't mean that the OS you chose is any more desktop ready than the one you weren't taught how to use.

I learned about Linux completely oblivious of the epic rivalry between Windows and Linux users, I had no outside help learning how to use Mandrake Linux 8.2 and I found the transition to be easy. When I finally turned to the Internet shortly after getting my own connection, I quickly found lots of nasty people who mocked me for being a newbie, but after looking a little longer I found a nice group of people who have since helped me out every time I wanted to know something about Linux. Most of what I know about Linux I learned from using it and reading interesting articles, man pages and books, it wasn't long before I knew a lot more about Linux than Windows and I was able to do so much more in Linux. Now Windows pales in comparisson to the appeal of Linux, in my opinion Linux has been desktop ready for years. As for those people who mocked me for being a newbie, that has also happened to me in Windows support forums.

Sure you could put in any kind of "what-if" scenario to force your "Linux isn't desktop ready" argument, but the same could be applied to Windows. If I hadn't been shown how to use Windows before I found Linux, I would have found Linux easier to use from the start and I probably wouldn't have even bothered with the Windows because it would have been so different I wouldn't have know what to do with it.

When it comes down to it these arguments are meaningless, some people will continue comming over to Linux and some people will continue to stick with Windows. No fear driven argument over which one is more "desktop ready" is going to change that.

Reply Score: 4

Re: By somebody
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 20:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Man you can confuse the hell out of people, please rephrase your post after proof-reading ;) Also you really did an effort to not answer my comments.

Linux fanboys should feel proud when they sell at equal or more price as windows and people say i would buy Linux because this is what i want and NOT hey its free (cheapo) stuff, damn it get it man...its fee if you don't like it...trash it...its free...get it...get it...get it...its freeeeeeeeeeee lol

Reply Score: 0

RE: Re: By somebody
by somebody on Sun 10th Jul 2005 20:57 UTC in reply to "Re: By somebody "
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Man you can confuse the hell out of people, please rephrase your post after proof-reading ;) Also you really did an effort to not answer my comments.

My comment was 14+, but I guess you're too young.

Linux fanboys should feel proud when they sell at equal or more price as windows and people say i would buy Linux because this is what i want and NOT hey its free (cheapo) stuff, damn it get it man...its fee if you don't like it...trash it...its free...get it...get it...get it...its freeeeeeeeeeee lol

Yeah, your age definitely is 13.

p.s. As far as proof reading. Well English is my 4th language, and by definite *NOT* my favourite.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Re: By somebody
by ma_d on Sun 10th Jul 2005 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: By somebody "
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

"p.s. As far as proof reading. Well English is my 4th language, and by definite *NOT* my favourite."
It's my first, and not my favorite either ;) .

We need a language which can be compiled to english or french or spanish or chinese; the c of the spoken world....

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Re: By somebody
by somebody on Sun 10th Jul 2005 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re: By somebody "
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Just anted to thank for a joke. It made my day complete and now I can go off:)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Re: By somebody
by Celerate on Sun 10th Jul 2005 21:17 UTC in reply to "Re: By somebody "
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"Linux fanboys should feel proud when they sell at equal or more price as windows and people say i would buy Linux because this is what i want"

Linux doesn't cost as much to develop, many of the people working on it are very experienced volunteers, many of which are also employed by major software companies and corporations. Also Windows doesn't cost as much to develop as its priced for, MS increases the price so they can make a maximum profit, Linux companies don't do this as much because they want to encourage people to migrate over. Linux is no harder than Windows to learn, but because people are already familiar with Windows they need to have some sort of insentive to learn Linux, anyone who started off with Linux first wouldn't bother switching to Windows without some kind of similar insentive.

"and NOT hey its free (cheapo) stuff"

Its not entirely free, we've already gone over this. Novell, RHEL and Mandrake cost money, so does Xandros, Linspire and several others. People do pay for Linux, and they do so because they like it.

Reply Score: 1

codecs
by re_re on Sun 10th Jul 2005 21:00 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

emerge win32codecs

and on most newer rpm based distros you can download them and double click them... click install.. done

same with many debian distros, or they can type apt-get install win32codecs

not hard and the codecs are applied globally .... most any video app will work with them

Reply Score: 1

This is a joke
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 21:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Sources?

Reply Score: 0

MS Linux not so distant?
by Joe User on Sun 10th Jul 2005 21:24 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

With Dan Robins engaged by MS and this news, won't MS launch Longhorn... With the 2.6 Linux kernel???

Reply Score: 1

Re: Anonymous (IP: 24.16.28.---)
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 21:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Name me one successful enterprise adoption of Linux"
google.

Reply Score: 0

Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

"Name me one successful enterprise adoption of Linux"
google.


No, Google have their own operating system. Google for "GooOS". Anyway, they don't use Linux.

http://www.google.com/search?q=gooos

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

You're joking right? GoogOS is entirely speculative. Google's data centers run Linux.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

> You're joking right? GoogOS is entirely speculative. Google's data centers run Linux

I'm not. Linux has no database file system AFAIK.
And the GooOS is not speculative at all. There was an engineer last year explaining thoroughly the way Google's home made and fault-tolerant operating system works. I found it quite impressive actually.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

You might want to check these job offers from Google. They _are_ using Linux for their data centers. Nobody really knows what GooOS is - maybe it's only an extension on top of Linux (I'd think it is), cluster/ distributed FS stuff or something:

http://www.search.computerjobs.com/job_display.aspx?jobid=1663873&c...
http://www.nixers.com/ApplyForJob.aspx?Id=157075&job=Google.Data.Ce...

Reply Score: 0

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

If there is a GoogOS I'd wager that Rob Pike is one of it's key architects. If that were to be the case I'd further speculate that it would be based, not on Linux, but Plan 9 or perhaps Inferno. That would be the most natural fit in the world for a massively distributed Internet based OS.

Reply Score: 1

Microsloth
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 21:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I don't really care what Microsoft's stance is on anything to be quite honest ... they can fold up tomorrow, dry up and blow away, and it wouldn't matter to me a bit.

I trust Billy G and the rest of the gang about as far as i could throw them - If MS offered a version of Linux it would probably (other than SCO) be the only distro i wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

This is only occuring because the SCO vs IBM charade has been seen to be exactly that ... and the software patents in Europe got shot down by an overwhelming rate.

What's next ... MS starts hiring people to write virus and rootkits that only infect Linux - i wouldn't doubt if it's already in motion.

I look at the MS logo as the software equivalent to the skull and crossbones warning on toxic chemicals.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Linux is desktop ready
by jayson.knight on Sun 10th Jul 2005 21:48 UTC
jayson.knight
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, my newest machine running SATA took Windows fine as well; everything was picked up, no need for a floppy at all. It's screaming fast as well.

Reply Score: 1

Hey Microboy
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 22:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"How much they will lose will be dictated by price and quality and all i was saying is, a Linux fanboy should feel proud when Linux is preferred over Windows when sold at the same price. The day that happens, i can bet Windows will reduce to <50% share but i don't see it happening because Windows has certainly much higher quality bar in terms of usability over Linux. Linux is still a geek toy."

Your obviously a Microboy and have no grasp on the concept of "Free Software" or the theory behind Linux ... why would anyone want to charge the same overpriced rate that MS charges? Especially for FOSS?
Do everyone a favor and pre-order your DRM stuffed Longhorn and leave Linux to people that use Linux.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Hey Microboy
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Jul 2005 22:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Your obviously a Microboy and have no grasp on the concept of "Free Software" or the theory behind Linux ... why would anyone want to charge the same overpriced rate that MS charges?"

Uhm, so they can put food on their table? Again people, quit devaluating the work of programmers!!!

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Hey Microboy
by ma_d on Mon 11th Jul 2005 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey Microboy"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Don't devaluate service industries. Most programmers don't write shrinkwrap software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hey Microboy
by archiesteel on Mon 11th Jul 2005 03:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey Microboy"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Uhm, so they can put food on their table? Again people, quit devaluating the work of programmers!!!

Do you really think the ridiculously huge profit margins MS makes on Windows and MS Office are necessary to feed Microsoft programmers and their families? What do they eat, caviar and pearls in vinegar?

There's a difference between charging a fair price to pay employees and using one's monopoly position to guarantee a revenue stream towards its record-breaking cash reserves (and fund money-losing strategic projects like Xbox).

Repeat after me: complaining about high software prices has nothing to do with the the value of a programmer's work.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

http://greenmachine.msfnhosting.com/READING/addraid.htm

Writeup is for a specific driver, but I have used this and other google'd pages to eaily create my own XP SP2 Install CD with additional AND updated drivers.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Biased?
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 01:42 UTC
v Milo_something, Celerate et al
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 02:05 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

One more thing, this attitude of saying that you are trolling, if someone feels KDE is slow is not good.

You're mistaken, it's rather a "someone is trolling if they present their opinion as fact in an inflammatory manner in order to elecit fiery responses" attitude.

It all depends on the experience you had and no one can prove anything but if you talk to anyone who has some good OS knowledge will agree that X is slower.

Actually, no. Plenty of people who have good OS knowledge will say that X is just as responsive as Windows.

Are you really trying to pull off a "my father is stronger than your father" argument on me?

Windows moved bulk of GDI code to Kernel mode to make that more responsive.

Again, wrong. What makes Windows appear more responsive is the fact that the desktop is double-buffered, which reduces "tearing" and redrawing when resizing windows, for example. Windows and Mac have it, X doesn't (the code exists but it's not part of the main Xorg release yet).

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

What you have shown in this thread is that you are afraid of Linux losing. It hasn't made a dent in MS profits in last few years. When someone tells a problem in Linux, you guys defend it. Well do it. And hey everyone can do a typing mistake, i meant PIII, is that such a big deal?

Gosh you are so narrow minded. Over and over i see this attitude of Linux guys trying to tell why linux is better. Ok Linux is better, its great, its the best, there is no need for any improvements.

Now for my last post, i will repeat the points i made so that you don't misguide people that i changed my tunes etc

1. I said Linux is competing on cost not quality. Lets reprice Linux to sell at same price as windows and see who wins.

2. Then i asked, if Linux is so much better, why it is not even at 5% desktop market? This matches point 1 that i don't think Linux on desktop has enough quality to gain broader acceptance

3. Then i gave my personal experience of how windows RDP is faster than Remote X over XDMCP. Again people say your machine must be bad. ok, well whatever. See this (i guess i am not alone who faced this problem)
http://www.webservertalk.com/archive119-2004-4-178552.html

I don't know how you feel i was changing tunes but whatever makes you feel better. I still feel that Linux has a longggg way before it can be widely accepted.

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Thanks for restating your points, I'll summarize my refutations as well.

1. I said Linux is competing on cost not quality. Lets reprice Linux to sell at same price as windows and see who wins.

I say Linux is competing on both. Its quality is on par with Windows (better in some instances), and its price is usually lower (given the fact that you have free distributions). Some people indicated that professional versions of RH are quite pricey, and yet Red Hat keeps selling them...

In any case, not many Windows user actually buy the OS - it comes pre-installed on their PC so to them it's already free (i.e. the cost is hidden in the price of the PC). So Linux and Windows, for all practical purposes, are already competing on the same level as far as price is concerned for the majority of desktop users.

2. Then i asked, if Linux is so much better, why it is not even at 5% desktop market? This matches point 1 that i don't think Linux on desktop has enough quality to gain broader acceptance

And I demonstrated with the OSX example that market share isn't related to quality. Must we bring up VHS vs. BetaMax once again?

It's quite simple: the best technology doesn't always win out in the market. In this case, the reason why MS has such a huge market share is because of OS and Office file format lock-in - in other words, monopolistic practices.

3. Then i gave my personal experience of how windows RDP is faster than Remote X over XDMCP. Again people say your machine must be bad. ok, well whatever. See this (i guess i am not alone who faced this problem)
http://www.webservertalk.com/archive119-2004-4-178552.html


That's all you could come up with? A post from a forum where one person was having trouble with XDMCP under RH9, while stating that it used to work very well before?

I'm sorry, but this goes contrary to my own experience, and the fact that all you could find to support your argument was this only makes my case stronger.

Reply Score: 1

Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"What you have shown in this thread is that you are afraid of Linux losing."

Oh that's original. You just plagiarized what I said and twisted it to your own ends.

"Gosh you are so narrow minded."

Everyone here tried to point out your mistakes, first in a kind and friendly matter, and then just as they would have replied to a troll. Wondering why? Well, basically you are a troll, we corrected you over and over again and you continued to restate the same lies. We tried being nice, you wouldn't even read our replies, you were the one being narrow minded.

"Now for my last post"

YESS! :-)

"1. I said Linux is competing on cost not quality. Lets reprice Linux to sell at same price as windows and see who wins.

2. Then i asked, if Linux is so much better, why it is not even at 5% desktop market? This matches point 1 that i don't think Linux on desktop has enough quality to gain broader acceptance "


We went over these things, you weren't reading the replies (again).

"3. Then i gave my personal experience of how windows RDP is faster than Remote X over XDMCP. Again people say your machine must be bad. ok, well whatever. See this (i guess i am not alone who faced this problem)
http://www.webservertalk.com/archive119-2004-4-178552.html "


That shouldn't be adressed to me, I never got involved in that part.

"I don't know how you feel i was changing tunes but whatever makes you feel better. I still feel that Linux has a longggg way before it can be widely accepted."

You're just one person, and if you get kicks out of being a troll here at OSNews then Linux is better off without you at this point. You will find things much easier when you are ready to be serious and honest, and are willing to listen to others when you're wrong.

You almost sound like you're convinced you weren't trolling, if you have any doubts just go over the thread a few times. Everyone here contributed a little to try and show you how you were wrong, and you refused to believe it plus you restated your arguments at least a few times when you realized you weren't getting anywhere. When you finally couldn't win you resorted to name calling, sounds to me like the troll ended up getting angry in the end.

I got a good laugh out of that insult in your last message by the way, it's ironic that you were trolling and you ended up getting mad in the end.

One of these days you might look back on this experience and be glad it happened, assuming of course you're one of those people who will grow out of trolling. I think all kids end up going through something like this when they first start using the internet, and if they're lucky enough they learn not to make the same mistake again before reaching adulthood.

After reading this you'll probably get angry, think I'm patronising you and reply angrily, but if you do that you'll only prove what I just finished saying. Read it, think it over, and try to let some of it sink in.

Reply Score: 1

netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

1. I said Linux is competing on cost not quality. Lets reprice Linux to sell at same price as windows and see who wins.

Well on the server market Linux is gaining terrain quickly.Especially most of the Linux participants there don't come as already said by most posters for free.On the contrary when you see the Redhat and SuSE server line products they are quite equivalent priced to say the least.Still subscriptions for both mentioned are still increasing.

Both SuSE and Redhat take security,especially on the server market very serious.Where MS relies on third party software vendors to make their OS more secure and de facto usable as server,both Redhat and SuSE offer all-in-one solutions.Furthermore besides ISA server what does and the crippled /GS compiler switch what does MS have come up with in the security context?Does it offer something similar to SELinux,AppArmor?

Going from NT to w2k on both workstation and server was quite something especially the AD which replaced NT's flat hierarchy.After that nothing really impressive has happened on both desktop and server.I personally think the times of buying bare OS's are over.Companies like the ideas of a all-in-one deal better instead of spending even more on extra licenses zillion of extra software to make w2k/w3k somewhat more usable.Those companies aren't reluctant to spend money on the contrary,they just seek to be more restrictive with resources.In this context what's better than Linux,*BSD,*NIX who bring most of what costs some great deal extra in a MS environment.

Agreed when migrating from a existing MS to a (native) Linux,*BSD,UNIX environment isn't always feasible but most of the time migrating to a mixed environment can save a lot of resource's (money,time,maintaining..).

As far as the server market is concerned Linux,*NIX has always been server-ready from day one.

Growing on the desktop "market" would go much faster if there was more documentation of now proprietary drivers,codecs,apps available,and the current patent circus wouldn't throw sand in eatchothers machinery.Fortunately Europe showed some intelligent muscle by disavowing the patent law.

Reply Score: 2

GooOs
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Jul 2005 06:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

For all uninformed people talking about gooOs :
http://www.hpworld.com/hpworldnews/hpw009/02nt.html

Reply Score: 0