In his latest column,, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols argues that Microsoft Vista is going to be so expensive that it's going to make users think hard about switching to Linux instead. "Desktop Linux is never going to have a better chance than it will in the next eighteen months," he says. My take: He forgets two important factors: Vista can run with all the flashy graphics turned off, and seven editions of Vista? How many Linux distributions are there to choose from?
Post a Comment
Member since:
---
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:
---
Thor. You're getting disappointingly good at creating flame bait...
How many linux distros? How many windows distros? What to choose?
Security? Vira? Spyware? Office Suites? 3D Games? DRM?
There are many issues to consider, some are in favour of GNU/Linux; others in favour of Windows or Mac OSX or whatever...
I believe you're forgetting quite a lot. Consider the many dual boot systems today. Consider the major progess in Wine. Consider the many opensource apps on windows. MS is in for a rough ride.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a GNU/Linux troll... I'm dualbooting Win2K3 (Workstation;) and LFS (unofficial UTF-8)
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
@ Thor:
There might be many GNU/Linux distros, but they all have one thing in common. They can be setup as server, workstation or something in between or all three of them at the same time. And all it takes is a few mouseclicks.
You can't do that on Windows. Not even on Win2K3. It's easy to modify (if you're a geek), but it does take a while and have quite a few steps (but it's worth the "trouble")
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
Member since:
2005-07-07
"My take: He forgets two important factors: Vista can run with all the flashy graphics turned off, and seven editions of Vista? How many Linux distributions are there to choose from?"
wtf?
I can pay hundreds of dollars for software that runs with all the new features turned off. Yeah, that motivates me to buy it. If anything those are more arguments to stay with XP or switch to Linux, not buy Vista.
And Linux isn't so complicated, you got Suse and Mandriva as top distros you can purchase in a store, and Ubuntu/Fedora/Knoppix are some popular free ones: see http://distrowatch.com/ and http://www.linuxiso.org/
I think one other thing he forgets is that everyday users and businesses are now well aware of the problems with viruses and spyware associated with Windows. Businesses have lost millions of dollars to virus/worm attacks. Home users have had their computers slogged down with spyware. Why would you want to pay Microsoft for an untested new OS that might suffer from more of the same?
Member since:
2005-07-07
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-07-04
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:---
No, there are four: Home, Pro, Tablet and Media Centre. Make it five if you want to include x64.
2003 doesn't count as an XP edition, just like the Vista server editions won't count among the 7 Vista client editions.
The seven menioned are:
-Starter
-Home Basic
-Home Premium
-Pro
-Small Business
-Enterprise
-Ultimate
Apparently there are two 'N' editions, which make it 9 if you want to count them.
Source: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions.asp
-dragontron3k
Member since:
2005-07-06
Leased Hardware is already a fixed cost in most Fortune 500 companies, so buying the hardware to run on than new Dell isn't going to ruffle as many feathers as people are trying to make it seem. However, he is right in saying that for the bulk of office workers requiring email/Scheduling Tools (Outlook exchange interface), internet access, and word processing tools, all that really needs to happen is a couple of big companies need to get behind a distro and pump money into maturing the applications that provide these basic necessities, along with increasing the multimedia aspects of Linux, and you really will have a windows killer. Not because linux is fundamentally better, but more so because it's cheaper, provides the same functionality, and it comes without a recuring License. Now of course you can opt for the service contract, but thats still got to be cheaper than 20 Windows licenses per department.
Member since:
---
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-06-29
I think we gave out about 20 knoppix discs and 15 Ubuntu discs at our University's Clubfest yesterday. Now, all but about 2 will be thrown away or used three times, or used for recovery. But I'd say a couple of those guys were about to give it an actual shot. A few people stopped buy to give us kudos cause they're already Linux users.
People are using Linux. Where have you been? There's got to be something like 3% of the world running Linux desktops now, or maybe 1-2% if you're pessimistic about linux desktop purchases. That's up from 1 user 14 years ago 
.
There's not gonna be a revolution. The "revolution" happened in the web server market. It's a gradual effect. And in case you didn't notice, Apple's share has been increasing over the last three years as well...
I think everyone is forgetting to mention DRM though. The people who are going to loathe DRM are going to be the most likely to listen to "Free Software as in libre" speaches.
Member since:---
People are using Linux. Where have you been? There's got to be something like 3% of the world running Linux desktops now, or maybe 1-2% if you're pessimistic about linux desktop purchases. That's up from 1 user 14 years ago .
There's not gonna be a revolution. The "revolution" happened in the web server market. It's a gradual effect. And in case you didn't notice, Apple's share has been increasing over the last three years as well...
Yeah, that's my point. The people who want to use Linux are probably using it already, and more will continue to switch in the future. What I'm saying is that there's not gonna be a huge exodus to Linux because of Vista .. not going to happen.
I think everyone is forgetting to mention DRM though. The people who are going to loathe DRM are going to be the most likely to listen to "Free Software as in libre" speaches.
I'm probably going to have to write an entire article on this. I don't think Vista is going to prevent you from using what you already have. It might prevent you from using encrypted formats in the future, but if you really look at it, your options are these:
1. Stick with Windows, use unencrypted formats and have the option to use the encrypted ones if you need to
2. Switch to Linux, use unencrypted formats, and probably not have the option to use the encrypted formats in Linux, until somebody gets around to cracking them. So, it's not really the OS that's the problem - if you don't buy the actual DRM content then you are not doing any less harm to the vendor using Windows and not buying the content as you would switching to Linux and not buying the content.
Member since:
2005-07-06
The article is seriously flawed in it assumes way too much. They say you need a 2ghz with 512mb. Well thats already quickly becoming the standard today if it's not already, and Vista won't be out for at least another year. By that time I'm sure processor and memory requirements will have been boosted up also.
It also assumes that businesses will upgrade to every single Windows release, 2000 --> XP ---> Vista. Most places usually skip a version and upgrade to every other version.
Lets also think about who will actually get Vista and the hardware requirements. Those people who buy new computers will have it preinstalled. Businesses upgrading their machines will have it preinstalled. But for the most part, aside from a few tech journalists that want to review it, I don't see the average person going out and buying it retail, especially when their regular systems work just fine.
The most laughable part of this article is when he says that 7 versions of an operating system will only confuse people, but he goes on to list 7 linux distrobutions, and thats only 7 of 200+.
To sum it up, dekstop Linux does not have a shot at breaking the desktop because of Linux.
RE: Vista makes people switch to Linux?
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-09-15
>>They say you need a 2ghz with 512mb. Well thats already quickly becoming the standard today if it's not already,
Except for the fact that people aren't buying new computers. They are tired of buying new hardware just to make OS requirements which is why pc sales have been so low for so long. People have the software they need and their current hardware works with it. So along comes MSFT to make their "pet" hardware vendors happy and makes a more bloated OS so that their marketing people can try to convince people they NEED it.
Didn't work with xp, - people dug their heels in the ground with it and instead bought the upgrade, not the whole new computer. But aha! Now their old computer won't work well enough with it like xp did you see.
Marketing? - absolutely. Conspiracy? Two sides of the same coin really.
Member since:
2005-07-29
In 2008 people will be scratching their heads and wondering if it's the year that LoTD takes off. In 2010, some guy from Novell (if they still exist) will be proclaiming that people switching from Vista to post-vista will cause people to switch to Linux on the Desktop.
I wonder if this guy and the Novell guy rubbed a couple neurons together they would figure out that people are just going to stick with XP until they're ready to upgrade? Probably not.
Oh, and "Vaughan-Nichols" (what he decided to keep his maiden name. bahah), had to end the article with the ultimate in stupidity.
So, what to do? Well, I'd like to see someone with some serious money -- hello Red Hat, Dell, HP... are you listening? -- partner up with one or more of the powerhouse desktop Linux companies and start working on breaking Microsoft's desktop monopoly.
You can't get stupider than that. Let's see. What the hell does he think RedHat is doing with Gnome? Dell? Why in the hell would Dell give two shits about Linux on the Desktop, and HP? H-freaking-P?! They sell servers.
Someone get this guy some help
Member since:---
I will not comment the first the first part of your post, as it's been done so many times. Regarding your statement on on HP: Yes, they make servers. Among other things. Such as Desktops, Hi-End workstations and laptops. They've recently expressed some interest of selling some of their laptops with Ubuntu pre-installed. That may not make that statement entirely realistical (altough I'd say Dell etc definately would be interested in cutting down their costs by a fair margin), but HP isn't as irrelevant as you proclaim.
Regarding the article: Why? People just get tired of all of this "X will kick Y's arse". It doesn't add to the discussion.
I'd rather see even more articles on the development of KDE, Gnome and Xorg. My guess is that both people supporting Linux/FOSS and Microsoft would find that to be more interesting.
Member since:
---
Every techsite has a minimum of five Vista article's a day and I can't read it anymore, Isn't there any other technews of any interest??
The final release of Vista is still more then 1 year away, maybe longer!
What can we expect from osnews the next couple of months, a namechange to vistanews.com?
Member since:2005-08-19
Isn't there any other technews of any interest??
Sure.. There's loads of tech news out on the web each day. If you don't like what you see on OSNews, perhaps you could dig something interesting up ( http://www.google.com/search?q=interesting+tech+news ) and submit it ( http://www.osnews.com/submit.php ).
Cheers
Member since:
2005-07-02
My take: He forgets two important factors: Vista can run with all the flashy graphics turned off, and seven editions of Vista? How many Linux distributions are there to choose from?
I agree with some of the other posters, those are rather weak arguments. Why would one switch to Vista if he wasn't to use the eye candy? The rest of the OS improvements aren't that compelling when compared to WinXP or even Win2K. I know we're still using Win2K on out PCs at work and are not planning to switch until we upgrade (which isn't a necessity for most stations).
I similarly disagree about the "number of Linux distributions" argument. Yes, there may be hundreds of distros on distrowatch, but there's only a handful of them that really count. Implying otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
To me, the distros people have to choose from are:
-RedHat
-SuSE/Novell
-Mandriva
-Ubuntu/Kubuntu
-Debian
-Linspire
-Gentoo
One would expect a less biased coverage coming from the OSNews editors...
Member since:2005-07-18
Member since:2005-07-02
Member since:---
Member since:
2005-07-15
My take: He forgets two important factors: Vista can run with all the flashy graphics turned off, and seven editions of Vista? How many Linux distributions are there to choose from?
Windows Vista will still be plagued by security holes, spyware, and other typical Windows crap. History is doomed to repeat itself. Linux works as a desktop OS for me. The only thing I NEED Windows for in the office is Visual Source Safe, but that is going away soon. At home I am a Mac user.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Vista will be another improvement from a series of improvements starting with Windows XP for joe sixpack.
He's just gone from Win98 to XP and loves the stability and easy of use. He can print pictures of his cheesy vacation, play games, and do his finances online or offline.
7 editions of vista? That's not going to scare him. Heck, he's not even going to have to choose! He's getting more functionality, and its included in the price of his new, ever less expensive new PC. Even Vista's beefy requirements won't bring the price up that much. Theres economies of scale at work here.
Linux will not kill windows on the desktop. People complain about the DRM, etc, in windows. This doesn't matter one bit. Normal people recognize that if the application that ships with windows to burn cd's, view dvd's, etc, doesn't do what they need, they can simply purchase an application that will do what they need. Geeks constantly under-estimate the fact that any user will adapt to resolve their problem. They are not confined to using the default applications. This is an important point.
PS) 2006 isn't going to be the year of the linux desktop, either.
Member since:2005-09-15
PS) 2006 isn't going to be the year of the linux desktop, either.
lol ^_^
On topic, this Novell cheerleader is making a hell of a lot of uninformed predictions here. Even if half of what he says is pointing in the correct general direction, he's still gonna be laughed at two years from now.
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-20
...but it won't crush Vista. Transfer to Vista is simply too expensive. I don't see anyone buying Vista and then turn off it's UI. They will continue to use XP. Linux ground will probably be small buesiness looking to enlarge it's networks and workstations. HP started offering Linux boxes, Fujitsu-Siemens aswell...the trend will continue and more manufacturers will have Linux workstations on offer along with Windows XP or Vista.
This is actually where and why Linux will take ground, big names will offer it as viable desktop/workstation solution.
Member since:
---
All you Linux heads are going to predict the downfall of MSFT - yet again. These exact conversations were happening back in 2001 about XP.
The fact is most people don't even know what Linux is. They are used to Windows and will freak out if you put something else in front of them. They don't care about DRM, OSS, etc. They just want to get shit done.
I can't even imagine what our financial guys would do if you told them they couldn't use excel and had to use Open Office Calc. haha... they would throw such a fit you couldn't imagine.
Our doc writers and marketing people use Word and Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator, Flash.. they spent years learning this software. I don't think some IT guy who hates Microsoft is going to convince our CEO that these people can't use their software anymore.
Other issues: we use Siebel, which uses an ActiveX plugin (yes I know activex sucks). We use Expensable for our expense reporting (Windows only). We use QuickBooks. Our intranet only works on IE.
In the home, all those digital cameras come with Windows only software. Games. iTunes. Need I say more?
You guys are so out of touch with the real world.
Wait 2 years, and you'll see nice Vista adoption and Linux still at 2% desktop.
One thing that might happen is OS X growth...they are lightyears ahead of Linux in terms of software, usability, and visibility. That will be interesting.
And you guys will still be whining and saying MSFT is going to be dead "next year"
Member since:---
Wordperfect 5.1 . Still kicks Word all over the place even after all these years. So please, do not give me the finical guy or the brochure maker in marketing or whatever will have a screaming fit. They had a screaming fit at the last incremental upgrade too, unless they were the shiny, blinky lights, flashy new stuff types. Then they have a screaming fit because they don't have the Vista beta.
Member since:
2005-06-29
Why do so many people have problems with the my take?
This guy, and many others, puts two arguments to the forefront:
1) "Too many editions of Vista to choose from."
How many Linux distributions can you choose? Even if you only take the commercially viable ones, they will still outnumber the 7 Vista editions.
2) "Vista requires too expensive hardware."
Simply not true. Yes, it requires hefty hardware with all the fancy stuff turned on-- but when turned off, the requirements will be considerably lower.
So, what's the big problem with the "My take"? Too much truth in it?
Look, I don't use Windows myself, but that's no reason for me to allow people to spread false arguments.
Member since:2005-07-06
Well... With the "but when turned off, the requirements will be considerably lower" part. I think they believe that there will be no point to Vista.
What they forget though is that even if you turn off the "flashy graphics" you will still get everything else comes as a part of Vista.
Member since:2005-07-07
How many Linux distributions can you choose? Even if you only take the commercially viable ones, they will still outnumber the 7 Vista editions.
So, how many Linux Distributors have 7 editions of the same version of their distribution?
Novell is very likely the one with most editions: SuSE Personal, Professional, NLD
Member since:2005-07-02
My problem with the argument is this:
1) More distros used to be an argument in favor of Windows. Now Windows seems to be losing this advantage. The fact that there will be seven versions of Windows vs. seven "main" distros simply means that Windows is losing (or at least reducing) one of its alleged advantages.
The fact is that even though there are still more distros than Windows versions, the difference has been lessened and this is perceived as an advantage.
2) The fact is that many people perceive that the main new features of Vista are eye-candy related, and the fact that MS has dropped a lot of the other announced features validates this up to a point. From a consumer's point of view, it makes little sense to get Vista without buying new hardware.
In other words, without the fancy stuff there might not be an incentive to switch to Vista at all.
My problem with "your take" is that you responded to weak arguments with even weaker ones. You may claim that they are "false" (which is debatable), but you'll need to make a stronger case for it if you don't want people to doubt your words...
My advice to OSNews editors: just refrain from participating in discussions and to add short editorial comments in linked articles. This will help give the web site an air of objectivity.
Member since:
2005-09-13
Member since:
---
Any implementation of previous version of Windows will always make use of the best that is available at the time of the release, and then about a year later it will run on anything new. Besides, the remark about people still running Windows 2000 is dumb, because it implies people are using computers that are 8 years old. Maybe it is time to upgrade?
Member since:
2005-07-06
Not another article from this idiot. He has already proven he is a troll that's agenda is very clearly to push linux and put down Microsoft at any cost, even if it means posting false statements about Vista instead of actually doing fact checking.
Please, don't give this guy more coverage.
Member since:---
Member since:
---
The people who have run Windows all of their life will not switch to Linux simply because Vista will require them to upgrade their machine. They'll do what they always do. They'll wait until their current XP computer is full of malware and is at the point of where it simply will not run, and instead of reinstalling Windows, they'll call either Dell or Gateway and order a new computer, that comes shipped with Vista.
The ONLY way for those types of people to even consider another O/S would be if one of the top distros launched a HUGE marketing campaign (TV commercials, magazine ads, etc..). Also, as much as I enjoy running SuSE, there are improvements that must be made to the desktop in order to allow people to actually be able to use Linux. One of those things is that there MUST be a simplier installation method for the apps. Before someone starts trolling about install apps in Linux, and comparing package managers, etc...., none of them are good enough for the average Windows user. It's not familiar to them to have to drop out to a console and type in commands, and it's not familiar for them to have to open up another program (Yast) to install it. They simply want to be able to double click on the application, and have it installed.
There are too many people out there running Windows that are part of the "AOL meathead" generation that will never change, no matter what. And those types would be incapable of running any other OS (be it Linux or Mac). There are others out there that are tech savy when it comes to Windows, but just don't have any knowledge of Linux because they feel that there is no need. Again, that is due to the lack of any of the major Linux companies (Red Hat, Novell, etc..) launching any real marketing campaign. If Linux ever has a chance at gaining ground then that needs to happen. And, lets be real here - Linux will never "crush" Windows in our lifetime. Mac has a much better chance at doing that, but not until they release an OS that will run on the basic x86 box and not require people to switch hardware.
RE: Some of you guys need to come back to reality.....
Member since:---
and it's not familiar for them to have to open up another program (Yast) to install it. They simply want to be able to double click on the application, and have it installed.
It may not be familiar to run Yast or gurpmi or similar, but it really does not take much to learn it. Everyone that I have demostrated it to has really like it. However, just this week, I downloaded Acrobat Reader and Opera, double clicked on the rpm and they installed. What is so difficult about that? The notion that installing software on Linux is difficult, is am myth.
Member since:2005-07-06
Again, that is due to the lack of any of the major Linux companies (Red Hat, Novell, etc..) launching any real marketing campaign. If Linux ever has a chance at gaining ground then that needs to happen.
Both Red Hat and Nvoell are entreprise distribution. The former is focusing in enterprise environment and is not interested on home desktop.
Before someone starts trolling about install apps in Linux, and comparing package managers, etc...., none of them are good enough for the average Windows user. It's not familiar to them to have to drop out to a console and type in commands, and it's not familiar for them to have to open up another program (Yast) to install it.
You forgot there are actually frontend of thesse package manager such s Synaptic(for debian based distro and some rpm distros), Click'n-Run(Linspire), Yumex(Fedora).
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-06
So, yes, the Linux desktop does have a shot at breaking Microsoft's monopoly. I see a lot of unhappy people out there in a year or so who won't be able to cost-justify moving to Vista.
ROFLMAO I am one of those people that won't be able to cost-justify moving to Vista. So i will Cost-Justify moving to X86 OSX for all my computing needs. I may keep my XP machine around for legacy game play purposes. I would never consider Linux for serious desktop use.
Member since:
---
Ninety-nine percent of the Linux distros out there are irrelevant to the corporate market, and most new individual Linux users have never heard of them and couldn't care less.
If you aren't Red Hat/Fedora, SUSE, Mandrake, Debian, Gentoo, or Ubuntu (and maybe one or two others with COMMERCIAL presence like Linspire and Xandros), nobody but a true Linux enthusiast is going to care.
Whereas Windows IS the only software corporate America cares about (at the moment) - and there having seven editions is not helpful. Even today, with the existing seven, smaller companies are making the mistake of getting XP Home on their machines instead of Professional.
The main issue with Vista, however, is the incredible amount of hardware upgrades it's going to need to be able to run in standard corporate America - and the corps are not going to like that. Corporate IT people will like it because they always want shiny new PCs to work on - but the bean counters won't like it.
As for companies skipping upgrades, they ALREADY did that with 2000->XP - they skipped XP, which is why probably thirty percent of companies are still using 2000. Those companies will need to go to Vista - and they won't like the hardware cost.
Leased cost being fixed? Maybe, maybe not. Your lease runs out on old hardware, you think the leasing company is going to charge you the same price for current hardware? That's not the way business works - your lease cost will go up, not down.
In fact, given the way computer prices drop, I'm not sure a fixed lease is even cheaper than replacing dead machines with newer, cheaper hardware. The new hardware might well be cheaper than the replacement leased old hardware - of the same spec. But upgrading to new hardware with a higher spec is going to be more expensive than sticking with the existing spec hardware.
Member since:
---
Windows, OS X, Linux.. its all the same. Its like saying my icee is redder than your icee.
DOes it do what you want? Does it get in your way? DO you have to fool with it to much? These are the 3 questions you need to ask when comparing OS's.. It doesnt matter what OS you use.. If it doesnt do what you want. Dont use it. Does it get in your way (hinder production)? Dont use it. DO you have to configure it every 2 days? Dont use it. Is Autoupdate easy on all platforms? Yep. Is software installation easy on all platforms? Pretty much. So what is the problem.. If you dont like it dont use it. Its like that on all platforms.. No matter how far a penguin, devil, peice of fruit or shard of window pain is stuffed up your arse.
Windows, OS X and linux. They're all garbage in my opinion.
This site used to go over technological advancements relating to OS's.. Now its a bunch of idiots and stories to make the reading idiots bounce into each other. And all the posts sound like 17 year olds saying my Chevy rocks.. or Mopar= mo power.. get real.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-07-06
I can't really understand most of buzzing people are doing. Besides Linux trolls (yeah, next year will be THE year... and if it won't be, there will be another year more after it and... guess what? another... and another... and another...), I have two complains:
1) how can you say how much Vista will cost? While we might have figures, 1 year is still much time and things could happen. Price is not a problem now.
2) this relates to Linux guys too: wanna know why people don't switch to Linux? Easy: there aren't reasons to do that. Don't forget that people switches when there are REAL reasons, that is MAJOR ADVANTAGES. And that's why people simply didn't upgrade to XP. I can work with my Excel files on a W2000 (or W98) box... I can use Word, I can surf the Internet and whatever. I simply don't need XP (not me, I'm speaking in general... I AM using XP ;-) and now commercial will make me pay for XP. At worse, I'll get it if/when I'll change my PC.
And here's the magic: people won't switch to a newer PC if there aren't VERY GOOD reasons. If my PC works for me and do what I need, I won't change. At max, I could buy that cheap old memory sticks to be faster but that's all.
You're not considering that the old gold era when each HW improvement brought substantial improvements to the way people could do things has gone. Now most PCs are largely more powerful than people needs (beside gaming, of course). That was not the case between W95 and W98 or W98 and w2000 plus first Windows versions weren't very stable while since W2000 Windows is a very good environment.
That's the whole Vista bet: a new dramatic HW improvement which will hopefully bring PC sales up (remember that Windows revenues mostly come from pre-installed base). The bare fact that Microsoft could wait 5 years between XP and Vista is a signal that XP is largely suitable for most people.
Will Vista be successfull? Of course. Will it replace XP base and force old W98 and W2000 users to upgrade? Only if it can deliver major advantages. What's next major advantage? Talking to your PC and make it do things only by saying "Open Outlook and check my e-mails".
Member since:
---
Every time a new version of Windows approaches, people make the argument that the need to upgrade hardware will push users to Linux.
Sorry, that does not compute.
Windows users who can't or won't buy new hardware to run Vista are much more likely to stay with their current verson of Windows than move to Linux. As the article says, that's what they've done in the past. Why would users behave differently now?
People, especially businesses, change operating systems when the current OS no longer meets their needs. If people are happy running XP, they've no incentive to move to Vista and no incentive to move to Linux.
Member since:2005-06-29
There's also the recycled PC market. Those Windows licenses often tend to not be on the machines anymore.
There's also people who will be thinking ahead to when XP goes off support. Thinking "we may be able to get 5 more years out of what we got."
Then there are people who don't like the DRM.
Then there will be, in my opinion, driver problems to scare people. Vista will have the most complex GPU gfx system to date. Far more complex than Quartz-Extreme.
You know, there are people who swear by XP being the worst thing Microsoft's shipped: And they're not even mad over the activation. They actually believe that XP is bloated. Yes, XP, bloated.
Member since:
---
"How many Linux distributions can you choose? Even if you only take the commercially viable ones, they will still outnumber the 7 Vista editions."
They may outnumber but at least they are not a scaling list of crippled versions. Each Linux distribution can be turned into anything type of system you like. Lets see the Visata Start Edition turn into a server or even a decent desktop - don't hold your breath
Just goes to show there's a mug born every minute to buy Windows and they have to defend their choice to the death as no-one likes to be taken for mug even though they see it themselves.
Member since:
2005-07-13
Desktop linux isn't a replacement for Windows, it's an alternative. Being an alternative, it means determining your priorities and requirements, and deciding if a switch makes sense. There is no absolute one-size fits-all answer.
The Microsoft zealots crow that that companies will stick with Win because it comes pre-installed already, that it's easier to use, and that Office is untouchable. They seem to think that companies have deep pockets and don't look at software licensing / annuity costs when looking for necessary cost cutting. They seem to think that migrations to new Windows platforms are painless and companies don't mind running mixed environments. In their minds, companies would never take a new PC and overwrite the pre-installed OS with an older version because that's their corporate standard, and companies jump at the change to roll out Redmond's latest and greatest. They would never consider that a windows migration carries implied costs over the simple licensing. They would never consider that faced with a necessary migration due to vendor cancelled support (hello NT 4.0 and Win2K) anyways, it may be worth evaluating alternatives.
The linux zealots think that anyone using Microsoft is braindead because linux exists. They think that companies should throw caution to the wind and base their IT infrastructure on fast changing, unsupported OSS because it works well for them personally. They think that because they hate Windows, that everyone else must hate Windows as well and would jump at the chance to use Gnome or KDE's GUI. They think it's a conspiracy against them that every hardware vendor doesn't jump through hoops investing in and supporting a platform used by, at best estimates, maybe 3% of the total market. They think that the cost formula for organizations comes down to the cheapest price and a solution that is good enough. I will resist the urge to discuss command lines and scripting and the elitist attitude that people must learn them if they are to be worthy, because it's up to the smart distros to hide the backend from Joe Corporate and make sure that the GUI just works.
The biggest obstacle desktop linux has to overcome is commercial support from hardware and software vendors. Corporate users aren't going to like having to rely on reverse-engineered drivers and would feel much more comfortable having a 1-800 # to call when their scanner or laser printer doesn't work properly. They aren't going ot be comfortable using OSS apps that seem to be in perpetual beta status, no matter how accepted they are by the OSS community at large. Again, they want an app that will work on their system and a number to call and complain when something doesn't work. They aren't going to accept obscure error messages or referneces to missing libraries and having to post in forums for help when they need it. Basically, if they're going to switch to desktop linux they aren't going to accept giving up the comfort zone they have with Windows. Their priorities are far different and far more defined than the average users that respond to flame-baiting articles in this board.
But the winds of change are in the air. Just as one example, there is a region of the world many of you may have heard of called Asia. It's a place that gives Bill and Steve nightmares without end, and it has nothing to do with piracy. It's a place where IT is developing at a fast pace and isn't necessarily stuck in the conundrum much of the western world is with vendor lock-in issues. It's a place where the Chinese government is refusing to allow Microsoft dominance and is throwing it's weight behind linux. It's a place where you can purchase HP and other name-brand systems with a number of different versions of linux pre-installed, for cheaper than the Windows versions. No doubt some of those pre-installations are overwritten with a pirated copy of Windows, but that's not the real point, not now. It's a place where the hardware manufacturers and software manufacturers are going to have to figure out a linux strategy if they want to be players in the game. And it's a market that has the potential to dwarf the impact of the Western world on IT trends. And as long as manufacturers are supporting Linux in the east, it's only a matter of time before they see the real opportunity in the west and grow the cajones it takes to stare Microsoft down and offer competing products. Won't happen tomorrow, won't happen this year, may not even happen next year, but it will happen.
Linux won't replace Vista, any more than it has replaced XP. The only real concrete issue is that Microsoft's dominance is no longer assured as it has been in the past, and they will likely be facing true competition for the first time in a very long time. Competition ultimately brings out the best in companies even if it fragments the market in the meantime, so live with it. In the end we all win anyways.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
---
Yes, there are many Linux ditros. BUT: ***ALL*** of them (pretty much, anyway..) offer you everything Linux has to offer - only in different flavours. With Vista's versions, these are only in existance because each of them is a crippled version to some extent. So you can't do all the things you wanna do with all Vitas, while you can with any Linux flavour.. huh ! Geddit?
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
and 15 distributions of Linux 2.6.12 is that on Windows, the Windows app will work on all 15 version of Vista but on Linux there's little to no chance that a given app will work on all 15 distributions of Linux 2.6.12.
I'll take my chances with Vista than get locked on a Linux distro. There's a greater probability of Novell or Redhat going under than Microsoft, talk about the Linux lockin!
RE: Difference between 15 versions of Windows Vista...
RE[2]: Difference between 15 versions of Windows Vista...
Member since:---
Microsoft takes great pains for backward compatibility - no one can argue that.
This is not my experience. I have had no end of problems in using files from one version of Word in another, and Access backwards compatibility is abysmal.
what if all my software is in .rpm format and I decide to move to Ubuntu?
No problem. Name one piece of software that is available in RPM that is not avialable in some other format to Ubuntu? Name just one. If it is available, then there is no lockin. You are making this up.
Member since:---
Member since:---
Try Acrobat - I only see .rpm and .tgz - I don't see .deb - yeah I know that .tgz can be used on debian but then you have no knowledge of what is installed.
You aren't looking at this problem from a system maintenance point. If I cannot get .debs I cannot get report of what version is installed. I cannot get a manifest of what files are there and what files are checksumed.
Stop actiing like idiots and think this through. You guys should really take a CS course or two.
Member since:---
Try Acrobat - I only see .rpm and .tgz - I don't see .deb - yeah I know that .tgz can be used on debian but then you have no knowledge of what is installed.
Aha! There you are, no lockin! But I see you still try to deny it.
You may not have the knowledge, but that does not mean that you cannot get it. You are grasping at straws here. You are setting up paper tigers. If you install from a tgz, there is plenty of information available to you about what was installed and where. Just because you do not know where it is does not mean that it is not there.
You made that claim about lockin. You made the claim about RPMs. It might not be available the way you expect it. But that does not mean it is not avialable.
This has been an excellent example of Windows zealotry FUD.
RE[7]: Difference between 15 versions of Windows Vista...
Member since:---
ll I'm saying is that if Linux distros are all compatible with one another, why can't I take a Nvidia driver binary from SuSE and plug it into my Redhat kernel! (I challenge you!)
For the same reason you can't take an nvidia binary driver for winXP and install it on win98 - different kernel versions. So fucking what.
Member since:2005-07-02
Indeed. Technically, you could take a binary Nvidia driver from SuSE and use it in the RedHat kernel if both were the same exact version. Of course, since both kernels are customized compared to the vanilla kernel, you might encouter some issues, but that's beside the point. The fact is that the Nvidia driver is NOT just any software, it's a kernel module. If you take just any statically-linked standalone software, it should work on any Linux system. That's how companies such as Codeweavers can distribute a single installer for all distros.
As one of the posters said, "don't believe the hype"...this is one of the popular FUD items to currently float around these comments sections...
RE[9]: Difference between 15 versions of Windows Vista...
Member since:---
All I'm saying is that if Linux distros are all compatible with one another, why can't I take a Nvidia driver binary from SuSE and plug it into my Redhat kernel! (I challenge you!)
No, that is not all you are saying. You made repeated statements about lockin. Theses statements are completely false. You are making false statements about incompatibliity with this claim of lockin. This is FUD.
I never made claims about 15 versions of Vista, but you say that I have. Again FUD.
You are digging yourself into a big hole here.
Member since:---
Ever heard of Linux Standard Base? Ever heard of compiling from source. As it is today most packages can be used on most distros. .deb can be converted to .rpm , .rpm to .deb , .tgz to .rpm or .deb , and .deb and .rpm to .tgz and so on.
Try using win98 drivers or apps on win2k3. Doesn't work. Suse specific drivers however may work on LFS or Fedora 4 or Mandriva - it's mostly a matter of simple configuration.
But take an app for XP home and heeey.. it doesn't run on XP Pro or vice versa. The same goes for XP and Win2k3 and win2k and XP.
There is very little incompability on GNU/linux. It's mostly a failure on sysadmin part in regard to configuration of said system.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
P.S. Before anybody calls me a GNU/Linux zealot, remember: I've been using windows since 1990, dos before that, OS/2, mac os 7.x, BEos and a dozen other systems. I don't care about the system in use - I just care about facts.
RE[9]: Difference between 15 versions of Windows Vista...
Member since:2005-07-02
With the tarball you can easily make a .deb with checkinstall. That's what I do in the rare cases where I don't find .deb for my Kubuntu laptop. This means that the package appears in the package database and can be removed/upgraded later on, etc.
Stop actiing like idiots and think this through.
Stop jumping the gun in calling people idiots, and research this beforehand yourself.
Member since:---
Member since:---
> his is not my experience. I have had no end of problems in using files from one version of Word in another, and Access backwards compatibility is abysmal.
I think you're making this up. Howcome no one has complained to microsoft about word compatibility?. In my experirence, my Word97 files opened up perfectly in Word2K and Word2K3. I don't use access but My 2K Exel spreadsheets worked fine on my Exel97 version. But what you are talking about is application compatibility - I'm talking OS compatibility - I've never had one problem with XP-designed apps running on my XP Home edition and my XP Media Center. Never had problems with games on XP or SoundForge. But foo on LInux - I couldn't get my SuSE version of Skype working on Fedora Core 4.
Member since:---
As for lockin - I can assure you that lockins in Linux are far more painful than lockin on Windows - Microsoft takes great pains for backward compatibility - no one can argue that. Linux on the other hand breaks backwards compatibility in one point release.
Name one point release that has broken compatibility? Most projects are at pains to ensure that point releases do not break binary compatibility. Here's an example - bought ut2k4 a while back. Since then, I've changed from Mandrake to Gentoo, in the process upgrading from a 2.4 to 2.6 kernel, and changing from xfree to xorg with point release increaases, and upgraded nvidia drivers - but ut2k4 still works fine. Same with binary only mainactorv5 - this has survived the same upgrade path. So before you believe the hype, actually give us some real examples.
You can absolutely be locked into Linux - what if all my software is in .rpm format and I decide to move to Ubuntu? The filessystem layouts are different, the menu items are different, the startup scripts are different.
That is just laughable, showing you clearly understand nothing about how distributions and packaging works.
Member since:2005-07-06
Like a typical Linux zealot you changed my words - I said 15 flavors of WIndows Vista
Pratically a Linux distro has advantage over Windows Vista becaue user can choose the method of installation without the need to get a seperate flavor. I have succesfully installed Fedora Core 4 on a Tablet PC with an external CD-ROM drive. No need to get distro Tablet PC edition.
- who the hell was talking about WIndows 2k and Windows XP or Windows 95? Infact you can run WindowsXP app on XP, XP-PRO, XP-MediaCenter. Right now I'm having a problem getting a Linux app to run on Redhat and SuSE.
Which expose your complete lack of knowledge about the package managers from either distros you listed.
You can absolutely be locked into Linux - what if all my software is in .rpm format and I decide to move to Ubuntu? The filessystem layouts are different, the menu items are different, the startup scripts are different.
How about trying to run firefox.rpm package on Windows XP?
RE[4]: Difference between 15 versions of Windows Vista...
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
---
One thing I'd like to see before Linux storms the masses, is for the other potential distros to get up to the standard thrown down by Ubuntu. We need HAL/DBus included, new versions of Gnome sent out in a timely fashion, good installers that can deal with odd FS types (*cough* FAT/NTFS), good hardware auto-detection, clear out the bloat in the startup services and secure by default iptables/permissions/mount options/services.
Member since:2005-06-29
What distribution isn't secure by default today? The only one I've used recently that threw up a storm of services was RH, but it defaults to blocking all ports on eth*.
Seriously? It's not 5 years ago when everything ran telnet by default.
I'm not sure on HAL. But all kinds of distributions keep a recent version of Gnome out.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
---
I don't know here some of you people get your infomation from, but Linux is already making small inrows into the desktop. Places like Germany Linux desktop is make good headway in schools. It starts from the ground up and may businesses are looking at OSS/Linux desktop/OO.o switch, it like anything which needs time to mature and it's starting as we speak.
Oh did I forget the china, India who are adopting OSS and Linux desktop, two of the biggest developing economies in the world. You really thing these contries will use Vista?, not a chance.
Member since:
---
As you can see from these countless articles many of which are from Microsoft. They are trying to head off
whatever OSS and Linux can do, trying to convice us there opensourcing there own code. Do you see how much Linux is having an effect on Microsoft now already?
Linux is claim as not even starting on the desktop or not ready, yet Microsoft seem to so knee jerk reactions on a daily basis. How many of you people are average Joe and using Linux?, I bet loads, because average Joe comes from Windows with pretty lacking in any computer skill thanks to Windows.
Linux is on the desktop weather you like it or not and a huge % of people are linux desktop users from Windows (duel boot), or have in some point tried it.
No body ever talks about that since the average Joe many well use taste Linux later on by recommendation , or simply just trying, where are thoughts figures hey?. Stop the crap about Linux desktop because there are more Linux desktop users than Mac-OSX, so there's over 12 million linux desktop users already.
Member since:
---
Bottom Line: If you're content with your current version of Windows and have no interest in moving to Vista, why would you move to Linux, or any other OS?
The operative concept here is that if they've no motive to move to Vista, they probably don't have a move to move to Linux.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
They said the same thing about XP. Not enough people converting, too expensive to buy the hardware.
Hogwash. Everything, hardware and software, will be released for this new platform. Ground breaking games, revolutionary hardware.
Plus all the business infrastructure is already in place. Whine about Microsoft all you want, but Active Directory, .NET and MS Office are the standard. And no free software can match them all.
Member since:
---
When you install windows you have to go download firefox (average Joe don't know how to do this)same with every other application they need. Linux you get firefox, thunderbird without the need to download it , or use a package from another distro.
Both me, my uncle and mum use Linux as there desktop, so can anyone come up with any REAL facts to challenge that? because Vista is not a upgrade path for a lot of people I know.
Member since:---
What all drivers broke?. I had 0 problems when I upped to SP2. So I cannot support your claim.
Interesting 
Did you use signed or unsigned drivers? Did you use the oldest available drivers or had they been upgraded since installation of XP? And what XP version was it? Home or Pro or ?
In regard to graphic cards, many of my friends were hit by broken drivers to nvidia based cards. Funny enough I'm using such XP drivers on my Win2K3 without any glitches (had to use them to run 1600*1200 with 32bit colors).
Again, I cannot stress how much backwards binary compatibility is a sign of thoughtful design.
I can agree completely on that one. Anyone who's studied or is studying CS should know that. But thoughtful design isn't exactly Microsoft's strongest side. This is why they're dumping old legacy code from release to release. You ought to try to open a publisher98 file in publisher97. You cannot. So no compatibity there. You can however open a pub97 file in '98. But not a pub2000 in pub98 nor pubXP in pub98. And sometimes you get a somewhat garbled result when opening an old pub-file in publisher2000 or publisher XP (2002). But this could be due to faults in the file during save or copying from one media to another. I ought to test that
Solaris and Apple work hard on backwards compatibility but Redhat or SuSE or Mandrake don't give a damn.
I'm calling bullshit on this one. I've been using Redhat until recently (switched to LFS) and you can be sure they won't release a new kernel without making sure things are working properly. That's why they're releasing kernel so (relatively) seldom. I'm personally using a heavily patched 2.6.12.5 kernel (UTF-8 enabled in regard to console and several other patches).
But with that said, I'd still wish the linux kernel was released using the old scheme with 2.6 being stable and 2.7 being unstable. I don't really get the new numbering scheme.
But at last thing. Don't go updating your kernel unless it's absolutely necessary. I don't know if you've studied CS but I'll assume it. Then you know that you don't fix it if it works.
And Microsoft has had its own shares of broken compability in regard to updates. I know from win2k3. The virtual desktop for XP doesn't work on Win2k3 .. however my XP drivers works fine as stated earlier.
Sorry for the long post.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
Member since:
2005-07-30
Member since:
---
1- It gets an easy and vendor neutral install system, next->next->finish sort of thing. No compilation, no developing tools needed (usually not installed if you choose non-developer profiles during OS installation making things worse), no header-files required, no extra libraries and similar downloads to resolve dependencies. I cannot help but wonder how can anybody possibly think of Linux as a viable alternative for developing nations when you're supposed to have a broadband always on internet connection just to install things/find documentation/download endless dependencies. Not even in industrialized countries this is always the case due to people that simply can't afford it (poors do exist and they should have equal access to resources) or live in places where broadband has never arrived. With Windows (and no, I'm not promoting Windows, and yes I'm comparing the two OSes because it's what people will do), you can for example download stuff at, say, university and take it home resting assured that it will install fast and without asking for you to install another thousand libraries before proceeding (libraries/dependencies that in turn have their own dependencies). No "Damn! It doesn't install! What the hell is this libazz.lib? Why they didn't put it in the archive? I'll have to go back tomorrow and download it. Hoping that it will be enough. Good thing I didn't format that Windows partition yet.". Not everyone has enough patience. The installer should not rely on a given desktop or library to be installed(QT/GTK) and possibly provide a text-only interface for console installations. This may seem too much, but if a standard installer is made nobody will have to reinvent the wheel each time, just use the standard and you're fine. This would, finally, put an end to ongoing war among installers ("Just do apt-get xx.kkl","No Emerge is better", "RPM -abcde zzz.n-n.xx.yy is the Right Way","urpmi zzz.n-n.xx.yy and you're fine" etc).
2- it gets rid of command line for administration. Adding users, change hardware configuration and such should be done with a GUI. For example if I change my video card the system should notify me and enter in VGA mode (for x86) and let me change configuration from the desktop. No XF86Config-4.conf or xorg.conf tweaking. A normal user should not even be aware ot their existance and still not be stuck with a # prompt and cryptic logs to read(of which he doesn't even know the existance let alone figure their meaning). The system should be your nanny. That's what non-tech user wants. I have a lot of non-tech friends(obviously they all run Windows). For time to time when they come to me for some advices I try to take some shortcut to speed things up. Things like "open a shell and type the command hostname" just because it's faster than obtaining the machine name via the GUI(well, it's faster for me). Guess what thay answer? "Open what?" "The shell. A command line." "Uh?" "OK. Press Win+R and type cmd.exe" "c m d . e x e? Did I get it right?" "Yes." "An ugly window some crap appeared" and so on... They had a PC for years and they never ever had to deal with text commands, compilation("Compiler? What is it? A new game?"), etcetera and still they run antiviruses, firewalls and all sort of things. An user should non even know that such a thing as a console does exist.
3- it gets a common framework for administration stuff. Ok, I have this wonderful installer or GUI for the firewall/mail server/machine configuration/younameit. If I want to pass from Novell to Redhat will I have to learn everything again or there are some common(standardized) tools? The maker of the ditribution can provide his own too, but is there something I can use regardless of the brand of my Linux installation? No? It better be.
4- it gets a consistent look and feel. Having Qt and GTK programs on the same screen with different window look and different ways to operate is the worst thing you can show to people you want to evangelize. Qt, GTK, and the rest should all default to the same user-defined behaviour and look, not the other way around. I know there is some effort to standardize menus and other stuff, but it's been years since we started talking about Linux desktop and still we are miles away from the target. An user should be able to jump from a desktop to another without losing his settings/program entries in menus, etc. As of today it's a struggle even to set KDE or Gnome(or anything else) as the default(use the switchdesk command, oops, it's not there, go change your startup scripts) on many distributions. There should be a fast GUI way to do it. The same goes for change of screen resolution/color depth and screen settings in general. For years we had to edit text files. Now you can do it from the GUI, at least the resolution. Provided that you or some script launched the little program that does it. Otherwise have fun trying to guess what the program is, since often it's not even in the menus. What's wrong with a rightclick on the desktop where converts go look for it?
Well, these are four points but the list is far for complete. We should remember that, like it or not, people will compare Linux with Windows and as long as Windows will be this much easier to use, Linux will be no match for it. I know that each vendor has its tools and doesn't want standards because this is seen as a threat the their sales(more standards=less vendor lock), but the community could work from the bottom. Let Slackware, Debian, Fedora(if Redhat permits), Ubuntu, and all the other community based distros do it and the big names will have to follow. I don't think that the sales would really suffer, I don't believe that enterprises buy, say, Suse over RedHat because of Yast. Enterprises look at service. If someone would be allowed to sell an OS compatible with Windows only better, but with no or lousy service, it would fail miserably. And anyway there's lot of space to customize Linux distros even following standards.
Well, end of the rant. God save the Penguin.
Bye
Member since:---
1) It's there. Look at autopackage. It's even simpler than next->next-finish.
2) It's already there. You dont't have to use CLI. Just take a look at RHEL or most other linux distros.
3) You must specify this closer. What kinds of administration tools? This one is unclear to me.
4) They're working at it. Look at freedesktop.org. Even windows apps running on linux via wine will get a consistent look and feel. But this is a non-issue. There are no OS'es with consistent look and feel. On Windows, mac OS, OS/2, Haiku (and other B*OS'es) there is a lack of consistency depending on the user installed applications.
Usually when people complain about a missing feature, it's usually already there. This is true for most operating systems and their respective DE.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
Member since:---
> 1) It's there. Look at autopackage. It's even simpler than next->next-finish.
It is not there. You can have a thousand package manager but if nobody use them, you're stuck. Surf the internet and see how many Autopackage stuff you find. With Windows if you have to install 10 programs you can download *10* files(documentation aside), burn them on a CD, take the CD to the target machine (with no internet connection) and install them in a few minutes. Do the same on a Linux machine with no Internet connection, no compilers, no use of CLI and no hand modification of configuration files. Then do the same (with the same files) on different flavours of Linux. Let's say that they are all based on the same kernel and are recent.
For things like Autopackage to succeed, distromaker should start using them as their standard, so that developers would follow. Make custom package manager stuff deprecated and difficult to build (but keep it easy to install) and everybody will have a easier time. And, very important, don't ask additional downloads unless you really don't have other choices. Deal yourself with the dependencies. Average user doesn't know and doesn't have to know.
> 2) It's already there. You dont't have to use CLI. Just take a look at RHEL or most other linux distros.
Nope. Again, strip development tools off your machine and start installing stuff. And try to configure services beyond a very simple level. You're really telling me that you've never touched .conf files and such? You never have to open a shell? Not even, for example, if your video card is not recognized or if it's drivers are screwed up? Never ever?
> 3) You must specify this closer. What kinds of administration tools? This one is unclear to me.
I mean that different brands use different tools to perform similar task. I wish I could jump from one distro to another being able to configure the system in the same way. Distro maker could provide their own tools if they so desire, but if I need to be productiove *now* I can use the standard tools. Then I can learn the new ones if I want. For third party software I would like to see a base program, where anyone can put a plug-in for his own applications. Something like the MMC but better, since MMC is crap. This base program should provide a scripting language (and possibly some RAD builder for it) to allow plug-ins to expose applications settings on screen in the form of checkboxes, combos, radio button, etc and configure the application accordingly. Obviously these tools should be as standard as the GNU tools, otherwise they would be useless.
> 4) They're working at it. Look at freedesktop.org. Even windows apps running on linux via wine will get a consistent look and feel. But this is a non-issue. There are no OS'es with consistent look and feel. On Windows, mac OS, OS/2, Haiku (and other B*OS'es) there is a lack of consistency depending on the user installed applications.
Yes, they're working on it, but the integration progress is slow. At this rate Vista will be history when it finally becomes true. And as of other operating systems, yes, applications can choose their look but if they don't want to, then the system will provide them the standard, which is consistent. This is not only a issue of desktop programs like Gnome or KDE. X offers no standard look, so programs must either use Qt/GTK/else or make their own, with poor results and time subtracted from mantaining the application. User wise settings regardless of the libraries (Qt/GTK/else) you use should be a good step forward.
> Usually when people complain about a missing feature, it's usually already there. This is true for most operating systems and their respective DE.
Linux has many features but under the name Linux you can find radically different stuff. People doesn't care about ethic, free software and stuff. They care about things that adapt to them and not vice-versa. Things that will make their life easier without struggling to install, configure and use stuff. Average use does not know and doesn't want to know about compilers, vi, text files and shells. He wants to click here and there and no more than that. Why many of the people that start using the Mac then stay on the platform? Because they like the ethic? Because they love Jobs? Or maybe bacause it gets the job done easy and quick?
Another problem is the attitude. Thing like "Instead of complaining start coding.", "If you don't Linux how things work here then go to hell and stick with Winblows." do not help Linux. Not everyone has the time/skill to help coding and insulting does not help getting new users. It the Linux wants to become a viable alternative it's it that must adapt not the users. This how it works, worked and will always work. This is where Linux fails. To all those that can make a difference I send the wish to change things.
>dylansmrjones
>kristian AT herkild DOT dk
Now a little note to you. If I sounded bitter or personal in this reply, well, that's not directed to you. Your answer has been polite, so don't take anything personal because it's not. English is not my mother language and I may have been a bit too harsh. If something sounded offensive I apologize, that was not my intention.
PS. With Linux I'm referring primarly to Linux distribuitons and not the kernel itself. Linux desktop problems lay most in Userland code. The rant is directed even on BSDs even though I must admit that I never used them so I may be really off target here.
