OSNews

I prefer Windows.

Just because you prefer Windows, it should be the only preinstalled option for everybody else?

Actually I did it on purpose to prove a point. I am glad I succeded.

You are purposfully posting offtopic for being modded down?

Wouldn't it be better to just skip discussions of articles you are not interested in?

So you admit the purpose of your post was not only irrelevant to the story and off-topic, but purposefully trying to stir up the ardor of the thin-skinned?

No wonder you got modded down.

Xubuntu 6.10, why? I've previously used Kubuntu and before that, Gentoo on my laptop but Gentoo was a bit too high-maintenance.

I'm currently posting this from a Fedora Core 4 system I have to use at school (because of proprietary software, believe it or not)

"""So you admit the purpose of your post was not only irrelevant to the story and off-topic, but purposefully trying to stir up the ardor of the thin-skinned?

No wonder you got modded down."""


I am a Linux advocate and I strongly disagree with the modding down.

Ronald, your *original* post was on topic and phrased well.

Paraphrased: I need this and that app and *prefer* Windows.

That's a good post. A bit gratuitous, perhaps. But non-offensive, in my book. You state a preference and you state your reasons.

Guys, while I'm well aware that the moderation system around here is a joke, we don't want to be the ones abusing it. It *hurts* the reputations of Linux and Open Source to do so.

Now, I've abused the system myself at times. It's just *so* easy to do. But it's pretty easy to see that it was a mistake to do so.

We often claim the moral high-ground. Now, maybe that's right, and maybe it's wrong. But it sure as hell means that our actions need to be above question lest they be used against us.

Let's mod this guy's *original* post back to where it should be. I'd say a 1 would be appropriate. I've already given it my +1.

Ronald, your second post was flame bait and no one should be surprised that it was modded down, though it might have been better not to. But then again, you probably shouldn't have posted it.

Sincerely,
Steve Bergman

Edited 2006-11-14 17:55

Just because you prefer Windows, it should be the only preinstalled option for everybody else?

He didn't say that. He was talking about his own personal needs, not yours. What you need is your own business.

Earth calling Jon Dough.

Name one way in which the average user will find GNU/Linux superior to Windows ... let alone OS X.

http://www.beryl-project.org/

Ahhh yes, experimental software that provides you with useless effects.

I'm sure people will fall head over heels for that, when given the choice between it, OS X, and Vista.

I am glad that you agree , its a nice change from your usual self.

You know what would be impressive , you actually formulating a clear and precise demand for something that would impress you for real , who know's you might just get it.

I don't need to formulate any demands ... I already have exactly what I want. It's called a Mac. :-)

Having someone install it for you is not the problem, most people would be happy to just have a blank box.

The problem is having to pay for Windows when you're not going to use it.

really don't get why people think there a dire need to have pre-installed Linux boxes. 99% of the people who load up Linux on a box wouldn't stand for someone else loading their OS for them

I think there are different target groups.

Those who will do their won customized installation anyway get the advantage of having a fully setup reference installation: which modules are loaded, how xorg.conf looks like, etc

Another group are people who might use custom installations on their own systems but would not midn having a vendor supported version on a second machine in the house or at a relative's place.

Depending on the installed distribution there is another group: people who never do anything else than what they got initially, i.e. do not buy additional hardware or software, more or less use it like a TV set or a type writer.

This is good. Now that Microsoft have been forced to act competitively, we are finally seeing some progress.

Cultists believe legislation mandating "open source" (when they mean GPL) is competition.

That is not what I'm talking about. We already know about your OSS fixation. I'm talking about the fact that Microsoft licensing actively prevented ISV/OEMs from selling other operating systems, by

a) Not allowing any dual-boot system (This is why BeOs isn't with us today).
b) Charging OEMs for each processor they sold, NOT each copy of windows.

And you say that closed-source software engenders choice. Ha.

And still ... .4% of sales
How can you measure a free operating system by sales?
There is no way that .4% is accurate. For a start, at least 60% of internet servers (NOT domains) still run linux. Then there are dual-boot machines which make up the majority of Linux installs. The real figure for Linux installs is closer to 4% than .4%. Once systems begin to be sold pre-installed (Not what Dell does) by system vendors, there is a chance that more people might begin appreciate OSS.

The problem is that 90% of users vote with their arses. So all these 'market share' figures mean very little. If Linux came pre-installed on every Machine, and people had to fork-out $250 to install Windows, the scene would be VERY different.

I'm talking about the fact that Microsoft licensing actively prevented ISV/OEMs from selling other operating systems

Microsoft has always worried about piracy.

OEMs get a fantastic deal on the OEM copy of Windows, and it would have been very easy to rip Microsoft off by reporting more sales of alternative OS's.

OEM's always had the opportunity to sell a retail copy of Windows with the PC's they were selling.

How can you measure a free operating system by sales?

Actually I was using the .4% showing on web logs and wrongly using the term sales.

.4% is in fact the installed base of Linux.

For a start, at least 60% of internet servers (NOT domains) still run linux.

Actually, the 60% comes from counting PARKED DOMAINS hosted by large hosting companies.

The majority of Fortune 1000 companies use IIS.

If Linux came pre-installed on every Machine, and people had to fork-out $250 to install Windows, the scene would be VERY different.

But they don't have to. The OEM price for Windows is around 40$ on a Dell.

As I've noted, people prefer to pay for pirated cd of Windows than download Linux for free.

As I've said, Gartner found that up to 80% of the PC's with Linux installed have Linux replaced with a pirated version of Windows.

Edited 2006-11-14 04:53

Any evidence for the last claim? And how many are dualbooting Windows and Linux?

Well it's true according to Gartner at least, and I think they're talking about India specifically for the 80%. For the West, the figure is about 40%

http://news.com.com/Desktop+Linux+a+vehicle+for+pirating+Windows/21...

*LOL* Gartner...

So some people may buy a PC with linux and replace it with possible illegal Windows. Some people buys a PC and replaces Windows with Linux. And some people buys a PC without an OS and installs possibly illegal or legal Windows, or perhaps Linux.

Not to mention people who installs an illegal version of Windows on a PC already shipped with Windows, because they want to upgrade.

No matter what the truth is, one cannot expect to find it from Gartner. Its ties to Microsoft are extremely tight.

Microsoft has always worried about piracy.

That is no excuse for charging OEMs for selling other Operating Systems.

the 60% comes from counting PARKED DOMAINS

I explicitly said SERVERS and NOT DOMAINS. Look at netcraft. Look at netcraft, of the top 49 hosting Sites (NONE OF WHICH ARE PARKED DOMAINS, they are websites for big companies) 22 are Linux, and 11 are Windows.

But they don't have to. The OEM price for Windows is around 40$ on a Dell.

Read what I said, you'll realise that I was talking about the case where the OEM software isn't included.

The majority of Fortune 1000 companies use IIS.

I would like to know your source for this BS. I wrote a scripts to query the websites of the top 100, 200, and 300 Fortune 500 companies, 45% reported Windows Software, and around 20% took steps to hide their Server Software. Because the practice of spoofing the 'Server' header is much more common in Linux, the probablility is that this 45% figure is accurate, unless you have more reliable information.

As I've said, Gartner found that up to 80% of the PC's with Linux installed have Linux replaced with a pirated version of Windows

The figure you're looking for is 40%, not 80%. We're not in Asia, and you neglected to mention that the 80%only applies to Asia.

.4% is in fact the installed base of Linux.

So you're happy to quote Gartner when the figures support your fanatical beliefs, but when Gartner say that the worldwide Linux install base is 5%, you ignore it? It is commonly accepted that 4-5% is the
'market share' not 0.4%.

Look at netcraft, of the top 49 hosting Sites (NONE OF WHICH ARE PARKED DOMAINS, they are websites for big companies) 22 are Linux, and 11 are Windows.

Actually, places like GoDaddy have millions of parked domains. When they switched for Windows 2003, the market share of Apache (on Netcraft) dropped a significant amount leading people with a brain to concluded Apache's "lead" over IIS on Netcraft is mostly an illusion caused by parked domains.

I would like to know your source for this BS

http://www.port80software.com/surveys/top1000webservers/

So you're happy to quote Gartner when the figures support your fanatical beliefs, but when Gartner say that the worldwide Linux install base is 5%, you ignore it?

Fanatical? I think we know who the fanatics are don't we?

As for the market share ...

Google used to publish OS share on its zeitgeist page until 2004. Linux was at 1% year after year after year even when IDC and Gartner suggested otherwise.

Since that time hundreds of millions of more PC's have been sold with Windows on them. I se enog reat evidence of Linux on the desktop.

OneStat puts Linux at .4%. I believe them as it is closer to Google.

So what your saying is that Microsoft pay GoDaddy to make parked domain and its why IIs is seen as having increased , interesting.

http://www.port80software.com/about/

IIs vendor claim IIs is used the most ...

"I think we know who the fanatics are don't we? "

Microsoft astroturfers like you ?

"Google used to publish OS share on its zeitgeist page until 2004."

No , they published OS share who used Google.com , problem was GNU/Linux user used mostly Konqueror/mozilla/firefox integrated search wich dont connect with Google.com , but you already knew that.

"Since that time hundreds of millions of more PC's have been sold with Windows on them."

Thats the point GNU/Linux advocate make , Windows get sold by default without an offer of choice. They also forbid dual booting by contract.

"I see no great evidence of Linux on the desktop."

You mean Beside the 33% user wordlwide ...

"OneStat puts Linux at .4%. "

www.onestat.com

"More than 50.000 companies worldwide use our web site statistics or the free counter."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/?p=262

" this research is "is based on a sample of 2 million visitors divided into 20,000 visitors of 100 countries each day.""

But the real question here is wich of the 160 GNU/Linux vendor listed in the article database will you buy another GNU/Linux system from ?

My original statement still stands:

at netcraft, of the top 49 hosting Sites (NONE OF WHICH ARE PARKED DOMAINS, they are websites for big companies) 22 are Linux, and 11 are Windows.

To your credit, in disbelief that the www.port80.. figures were correct, I wrote a quick script (available if needed) to repeat the test, the result was 51% reporting IIS. (Close to the 54% reported by port80software.)

This might be a result of Microsoft targeting fortune 1000 companies, we'll never know. I might get round to doing a more scientific test, using as many servers with separate IPs as possible, in the future, if I get time.

Fanatical? I think we know who the fanatics are don't we?

http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16475&comment_id=182065

Game, Set, and Match I think.

) Not allowing any dual-boot system (This is why BeOs isn't with us today).

totally off topic here but why do some people think that BeOS was killed by MS?

Heck Apple did plenty of damage to them long before they decided to go x86.

In my opinion the only thing that killed BeOS was an egomaniac at the helm of the company.

- please feel free to mod this down as it truly is off topic!

In my reading about the Anti-trust suits brought against Microsoft, aparrently BeOs after going public, did a deal with several ISVs to dual-boot Windows and BeOs for free. Microsoft sent out the Lawyers to crush the ISVs because it was against the System Builder agreement.

a) Not allowing any dual-boot system (This is why BeOs isn't with us today).
b) Charging OEMs for each processor they sold, NOT each copy of windows.

Aren't you aware how long ago this was the case? (Hint: Nearly a decade). Isn't it time to move on, psychologically speaking?

"Aren't you aware how long ago this was the case?"

Its still the case today :

Dell.com , no multi-boot
Hp.com , no multi-boot
Gateway.com no multi-boot
etc ... no multi-boot

The only company that does hardware and somewhat do multiboot is Apple.

Non-sequitor. The fact that these companies don't provide multi-boot doesn't mean that they are contractually excluded from doing so by Microsoft. The fact of the matter is that they don't want to support multiple OSes because it's fundamentally brittle. You do understand the distinction, correct?

"The fact "

Yes , lets not get the fact in the way of your scripted answers , sorry ...

"doesn't mean that they are contractually excluded from doing so by Microsoft. "

Yes , because its not the contract that they are the most afraid to loose/break its the high level preferential threatment on price per machine for big OEM.

"The fact of the matter"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater

I prefer the fact in reality.

"they don't want to support multiple OSes because it's fundamentally brittle."

-- The term brittle, when applied to software, means software that may appear reliable, but will fail badly when presented with unusual data. --

Pretty description for Windows OS ...

"You do understand the distinction, correct?"

Yes , OEM dont offer Multi-Boot because of Microsoft illegal contract and pressure and threat , yes I make the distinction , do you ?

The only company that does hardware and somewhat do multiboot is Apple.

Yeah. They dual boot with Windows. Not Linux. Even Apple understands Linux users are miniscule.

"They dual boot with Windows."

Yes and GNU/Linux and BSD and Solaris and ...

"Not Linux."

Really ? Thats right if you add GNU/Linux + Windows and Mac OS X that a triple-boot aka Multi-boot and your only talking about Dual boot , sorry , I lost you there , with my fancy english.

"Even Apple understands Linux users are miniscule."

Yes , we take less space on HD then Windows and Mac OS X and yet offer more software by default ... but you know what they say the best stuff come in small package.

Any evidence for those claims?

No? Thought so....

Why not? It's perfectly doable - just like building your own home workstation/server.

You're going to build your own laptop?

WEll no and naturally that would be the exception for me.

I'd still price compatible laptops from all vendors and if I could get a laptop with windows installed and put linux on it after purchase I'd go that route if it were more affordable and offered the features I want.