With the imminent release of Windows Vista to consumers this month, Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux, has claimed Microsoft's latest desktop effort is over-hyped and not a revolutionary advancement. "I don't actually think that something like Vista will change how people work that much," Torvalds told Computerworld. "I think it, to some degree, has been over-hyped as being something completely new and I don't actually think it is."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-11-18
True words, Vista got to much hype lately.
Its interesting that such poor designed OS can have such hype.
What MS have done fot that long 5 years? Aero?
I will only quote one of osnews.com members:
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16937&comment_id=201331
Member since:2005-07-06
And where exactly do you get that it is so poorly designed?
Have you even used it?
Vista is mostly new. The whole network stack is new, the presentation layer is completely new, lots of new UI elements (it's not just about Glass, the UI has changed quite significantly in many many aspects.
And you know, for the first time ever, my Windows experience has actually gotten better over time rather than worse (and I am just talking about the final build here). In previous versions of Windows, performance would get worse and worse, things would start crashing more and more often, and things would become more and more quirky.
My experience with Vista has been exactly the opposite.
Another way to tell that Microsoft actually did a pretty good job with Vista (not saying it's perfect, at all), is that the people on MacBreak Weekly actually started to talk about Vista and they all had stuff that they liked about it. These guys are die-hard Apple fanactics and they were actually praising Windows (which they have a tendancy to trash on a regular basis).
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-12
kwanbis says...
sorry, but what is so innovative and so new that took ms 5 years to develop, with a budget like of NASA (according to them)?
Let see...
* Re-write of the networking parts. => Check.
* Improve security (with help from NSA) => Check.
* Unnecessary eye-candy to make it LOOK new => Check.
* Implement DRM infrastructure. => Check.
Here's two interesting articles about the DRM implementation in Vista.
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
Output Content Protection and Windows Vista
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx
(Doc is on the right-hand side)
*sarcasm*
Sounds wonderful! I can't wait to buy it!
*sarcasm*
Member since:2005-11-05
* Improve security (with help from NSA) => Check.
http://www.nsa.gov/selinux
Linux has been doing this for years so I guess that makes Linux the innovater. Not only that, but Windows *still* has 0 forms of Mandatory Access Control like Linux, FreeBSD, and now Mac OS X (SEDarwin is being integrated into OS X proper)...
If you are comparing Windows XP vs Windows Vista, there is a TON of innovation. If you compare Vista vs the world, it isn't all that innovative. Not only that, but a brand spanking new TCP/IP stack kind of worries me as it hasn't had years of testing and security fixes like the one in XP has.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
It has taken five years for Microsoft to fumble out a new release, with mostly copied ideas.
And Yet... Some hobby coders have written a whole OS in this time - Haiku.
And Still... Robert has worked damn hard full-time, and got a fairly impressive beta in SkyOS.
And maybe... Firefox has encouraged an entire rethink of the Web in general (according to some).
And finally... Ubuntu has come from oblivion to become the most talked about Linux distro[sic]
I don't think Microsoft has been working hard enough.
Member since:2005-07-06
Haiku is a copied OS that was NOT developed by scratch (based off of the NewOS kernel, which has been in development longer).
SkyOS is nowhere near ready, or even somewhat mature.
How exactly has Firefox encouraged a rethink of the web? Yeah, Firefox is a decent browser, certainly no where near the best (though, the 3.0 alphas are promising, and take up much less RAM).
So you are saying that in 5 years Ubuntu got a good name for itself? Wow, what an accomplishment. Yes, I like Ubuntu, but it is just another distribution.
On top of that, who the hell cares how long it took to come out? That has nothing to do with anything.
Member since:2005-10-02
Vista wasn't developed from scratch either. Windows was from the very beginning an (more or less) illegal ripoff of Mac OS Classic.
SkyOS is more stable than Win9x, but is however rather mature. Stability is still an issue, but so is userfriendliness and performance in Windows.
FF managed to make designers follow standards and make users make their own decisions - IE managed to ruin the work on international standards, taking the freedom away from users, and creating a market for the phishing-gangsters (probably Microsoft's sole original contribution to mankind).
Yes, I like Ubuntu, but it is just another distribution.
Yeah, and Vista is just another version - nothing new, nothing better, nothing good. Lie down boy and wash your face.
On top of that, who the hell cares how long it took to come out? That has nothing to do with anything.
It has a lot to say. Considering all the things Vista should have been, and how much it actually isn't and how little it is, it's embarrasing for Microsoft that they cannot do better. All that time for nothing. It's funny though, that "Communist Hobby Coders" (according to your beloved Master) can do MUCH better than Microsoft. The lack of a properly controlled development process ought to make everybody think twice about buying Vista.
Member since:2005-10-02
Almost a decade in development, including a complete restart, and system requirements that's 10 times higher than what you would have using GNU/Linux with the same functionality (incl. 3D hardware acceleration).
So it's broken alright.
The fact you're a MS-zealot doesn't change that the least bit.
My Windows experience has become better through time, too, as Microsoft keeps copying the rest of us (e.g. Microsoft is a socalled "Fast Follower"). With Windows Mac OS X/Gnome 2 (aka Windows Vista) Microsoft has been hyping a system which is basically nothing but what everybody has had for about a decade.
Member since:2005-07-06
Oh please. A decade? Try 5 years (half the time that you stated).
The fact that you call my an MS-zealot shows how biased you are. I make comments pointing out where people like you spread BS, about any subject.
Enough with the copying. Please show me how Vista is like OSX or Gnome. Oh yeah, desktop search, oh wait now, they've been doing that for quite some time. Oh then there is the desktop composition... well no, that definately wasn't an Apple idea, nor is Apple's nearly as powerful, and Gnome doesn't do this stuff (as it shouldn't, not it's place to).
Perhaps then you are talking about the actual interface, then? Oh no, OSX and Aero are absolutely nothing alike. Gnome then? Well, no, the whole Gnome interface was originally a copy of KDE, which was/is based on the Explorer UI.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Linus has always has his head on straight and this time is no different. He's right. Vista *has* been over-hyped (like any other Microsoft OS of course) and it is indeed nothing revolutionary -- simply evolutionary, just like any other new version of an OS.
It won't change how people work on it's own. Even if it does eventually, it will be the result of third party software written for Vista which takes advantage of the new frameworks in it, and not directly because of Vista itself.
Edited 2007-01-19 17:02
Member since:2006-02-11
Nice piece.
And I agree, I like the level headed responses he gave, he knows where he sits in the scheme of things and doesn't , in this particular situation , comment out of his immediate field. That's an admirale trait, many people in his position could have been easily pompous and scathing in their response. Good one Linus
Member since:
2006-06-13
Member since:2005-07-06
@Zetsurin - depends who is doing the hype: actual users, who have used the product (Ubuntu, we know how quickly people turn around once they realize they don't know how to use Linux) or the company + writers + wannabe writers + reviewers (that get free laptop with free Vista and who know what else).
Member since:2005-07-02
Exactly. It's not Canonical hyping Ubuntu, it's the users. Contrast this to Vista, which is plainly over-hyped by Microsoft...
I don't think that Ubuntu is over-hyped, actually. It's a pretty good distro, and it has that hard-to-define quality that makes it an attractive brand. All in all I think it's a good thing for Linux, as it seems it has an easier time catching the attention of potential users than other distros...
Member since:2006-06-13
So we are deciding where the goal post lie on hype now are we? Hype is hype no matter where it comes from. Any sane company will be marketing their products. I personally would touch a Microsoft product with a 10 foot pole but if they aren't out there getting it known, then they don't deserve to be in business in the first place.
OSX Tiger, Leopard (I am an OSX user as well by the way), Ubuntu are terms which I see in the Web 2.0 world a lot more than Vista actually. I class that as hype, particularly with respect to Linux: it's bandied around as being the second coming for desktop users, which it isn't yet.
Member since:2005-11-14
Member since:2005-07-02
Member since:2005-07-06
There is a big difference between end users praising a piece of software and a company praising it.
A end user, generally speaking, has no vested interest in 'praising' an application, they aren't paid by the company (generally speaking) and simply praising it because they have a good experience, and thus, want to tell everyone else about it.
Marketing departments have a direct vested interest in hyping a product - their livelihood depends on drumming up enthusiasm about a product, no matter how minor or stupid the particular enhancement it.
One is motivated by money, the other is motivated by genuine enthusiasm about a particular product.
With that being said, Windows Vista, for all its great features, still is a fundamentally flawed product - over the last month there has been articles outlining the fundamental structural issues pertaining to the interdependence within the Windows code base, and due to that interdependence, how all hell can break lose if there is a flaw found in an underlying foundation of the operating system.
No only must Microsoft fix problems, they must make a compatible and yet secure work around of a broken feature as to maintain compatibility with an old application whilst at the same time maintaining security - so effectively, you end up doubling the size of your code base overnight with the need to create duplicate versions of a single API call - one that is fixed, one that is broken by security issue fixed.
Its complexity, and it is coming back to bite them in the ass - compare that to GNOME 2.x for instance; when the move to break compatibility was made, one of the first moves was to ensure that the desktop was modular enough as to allow rapid progress without needing to massively break compatibility, and here we are, over 4 years past the first 2.x release, and compatibility has been maintained, advances are being pushed forward, and most importantly, the degree of compexity hasn't reached Windows proportions whilst at the same time providing, what I consider, a superior user experience than what Microsoft has been able to achieve.
Its a pretty damn sad indictment when thousands of volunteers and part time hackers can work together to produce a framework and product which provides a superior end user experience on limited resources when compared to what the financial juggernaut that is Microsoft can do - heck, even compare it to Apple, and how much they invest, they're able to push out feature rich applications and operating system in a shorter space of time than what Microsoft could.
Look at how much each company has spent on R&D, compare what has been achieved, and quite frankly, I don't think Microsoft has gotten value for money when you compare all the variables which go to developing an operating system.
Member since:2005-07-02
*You* may consider that positive word-of-mouth about Ubuntu is hype, but I don't. I disagree that "hype is hype", in fact I consider this to be a smiplistic way of looking at it. To me, hype comes mainly from concerted marketing efforts on the part of the company that sells the product. With Ubuntu, it is the users, who enjoy the product, that simply express their satisfaction with the product.
I haven't seen anyone claim that Ubuntu is the second coming, by the way. I have seen a lot of people who enjoy it for what it is, as well as for what it isn't (i.e. a Microsoft product).
If you can't see the difference between the personal testimonials of people who enjoy Ubuntu and the multi-million marketing effort of MS in over-promoting Vista, then that's your problem. Most reasonable people, on the other hand, understand the difference between word-of-mouth and ad campaigns - hence the conclusion that Vista is over-hyped, to which I agree.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-02
It's not over-hype when a) it's driven by users, and b) it's true. Ubuntu really *is* one of the best Linux distros out there as far as "consumer-friendliness" is concerned.
Canonical doesn't have the kind of money MS has for pushing its new products. And - in case you hadn't noticed - getting convincing hype for crap products costs a lot of money...
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-11-24
Member since:2005-07-06
Sure. Enthusiastic users aren't necessarily well-informed, and they can be annoying, but if your product doesn't have such users, that's indicative of a problem. One of the biggest issues with Vista is how tepid the response has been in the press and online. There was a time when a Microsoft OS release was hailed with loud fanfare from the computing press (the reason for that being of course that fanfare sells magazines and Microsoft didn't have any competitors for the press to fawn over). Now that Apple is offering some visible competition for the first time in many years, the response has been much more reserved and much more skeptical.
Member since:2006-09-22
It's a good point to make. It's not like Canonical is holding huge events to hype up the next version of Ubuntu. By and large, the hype for Ubuntu (and Ubuntu is very heavily hyped, deservedly or not) comes from entusiastic users.
I disagree here: Promoting a product isn't over-hyping it. every software maker (MSFT, Canonical, whatever) can promote their products as much as they see fit; the problem is how you promote it: MSFT has been promoting Vista as the Holy Grail of operating systems, while the reality shows that they're (in some aspects) just getting on par with the competence. Of course, there _are_ new stuff in Vista, and besides UAC it's mostly good stuff but, hey, we've been waiting Vista for five long years...
And yes, there are _a lot_ of people saying "Ubuntu this" and "Ubuntu that" without even trying it. The same happens with many Vista, OS X and any othe OS detractors. There's (and always will be) a lot of poeple talking bullshit.
Member since:2005-07-07
Speaking of hype? Anyone ever heard of this little-known Linux distribution called Ubuntu?
Do you really think Ubuntu is that hyped? I would agree if you confined your complaint to the Linux crowd but the average person has never even heard of Ubuntu. That's not very good hype now is it? Everyone at this point has heard of Vista and a lot of people seem to believe it is going to change the way we use computers. Not so for Ubuntu.
Member since:2006-01-07
Member since:
2005-11-15
...if it weren't for the DRM limitations it imposes on its users, and the rabid protection of a double-dipping scheme Microsoft has in mind for all drivers that run on Vista.
Not to mention double-dipping terminal services.
In general, Vista is the Windows that sucks less when it comes to general use, general feature set and the like. However, it definitely isn't a "next generation operating system" as Microsoft has been seen billing it. In general it's just the interface quality that sets it apart from any previous release of Windows and that's hardly worth any additional money.
Saying that Vista is the best version of Windows ever is a bit like saying Biodome was Pauly Shore's best movie. 
Edited 2007-01-19 17:08
Member since:
2005-07-27
It seems Torvalds didn't look deep into Vista. A lot of stuff is quite a leap forward. Some things I am already using on linux, others are rather fresh in general:
1. Protecting the dumb trashware-installing-users from themselves by annoying them with security windows and running a lot of things with lower privileges. (at least 1/2 of my service calls are due to infestation)
2. Capable GUI eye-candy "scripting" engine similar to the one KDE is calling "Plasma" If you like iPhone's UI - you will likely see that level of "liquidity" on Windows.
3. New (bundled) collaborative apps like Meeting Space and "share-able" Calendar, and easier networking set up. Not exactly hot stuff - but a as group they make Vista a "revolution" in household and small-business communication.
None of these are technological leaps, but are behavior-changing steps. And, as that - fairly large leap forward.
Member since:2005-07-02
Point #1 is hardly revolutionary. It's common sense, and has been part of *nix OSes for years - scratch that, decades.
Point #2 is pure eye candy. Don't get me wrong, I love eye-candy. I'm a real sucker for it. I actually think it is the one that that will help Vista sell. That said, Beryl is already ahead of Aero, if not on a technological level (not having pixel shaders working yet) at least on an implementation level. The fact that it's a FOSS project also means we'll see tons of plugins (some good, some bad) for it that you won't necessarily get on Vista.
Point #3 is a yes/no for me. There are some revolutionary apps out there that are simply ahead of their time. Google Calendar comes to mind, with shared public/private calendars and the ability to access it from wherever you are...yet these apps are not used that much. Perhaps Vista will change that, but I'm not so sure. It is users who, ultimately, decide how useful an app is.
Personally, I think web apps that do this are more interesting, because they are by nature cross-platform.
All in all, I completely agree with Linux on this one. Vista isn't bad, but it's incredibly over-hyped. It's not a necessary upgrade for most users, and in fact only exists because MS needs to revitalized its OS revenue stream (and better control what users can or can't do with their machines). I won't advise my Windows-using friends to update to it, until they are forced to when they buy their next machine (unless it's a Mac...)
Member since:2005-07-06
3. New (bundled) collaborative apps like Meeting Space and "share-able" Calendar, and easier networking set up. Not exactly hot stuff - but a as group they make Vista a "revolution" in household and small-business communication.
Being a Vista Outsider some of these things make me wonder....
The Shareable calendar... is it iCal compatible? Does it import vCal files? Can it talk with Exchange?
I'm not too concerned about the "Easier Network Setup" I have a router with DHCP... plug and play for any fresh install of Windows, Linux or Mac OS X.
Do they bring back Personal Web Server? or maybe add NFS? How about compatibility with Unix file permissions so I can change them on our file server here at work?
Finally, Meeting Space... is this like a new version of NetMeeting, or MS Chat? (gotta admit...MS Chat was pretty cool with the comic-strip characters and stuff)
These are just some things I'm curious about.
Member since:2005-07-06
Being a Vista Outsider some of these things make me wonder....
The Shareable calendar... is it iCal compatible? Does it import vCal files? Can it talk with Exchange?
iCalendar is the only format supported. Through this support, you can import/export calendars, email and/or publish them to the web or other locations and automatically sync changes, and subscribe to other calendars.
Do they bring back Personal Web Server? or maybe add NFS? How about compatibility with Unix file permissions so I can change them on our file server here at work?
IIS 7 is available in Windows Vista Home Premium and up (Starter and Home Basic include some components for WCF, but not the web server). It no longer has a connection limit.
Windows Vista (not sure if the Home editions include it) includes Services for NFS, which provides an NFS client and administration toolis. If not included, it can probably be added to the Home editions via Services for Unix as is done currently with XP.
Finally, Meeting Space... is this like a new version of NetMeeting, or MS Chat? (gotta admit...MS Chat was pretty cool with the comic-strip characters and stuff)
Meeting Space is mostly for local ad-hoc use (e.g., a meeting where multiple computers are in the same room connected via wi-fi/LAN). You can give presentations, share files, your desktop and applications. You can also use it remotely to perform the same tasks, however, you'll need an additional application like Windows Live Messenger for chat/voice/video communication.
Member since:2005-08-11
"Do they bring back Personal Web Server? or maybe add NFS? How about compatibility with Unix file permissions so I can change them on our file server here at work?"
Personal Webserver didn't really go away, you could install IIS 5.1 on XP, and 5.0 on Win2k Workstation.
NFS functionality can be added with Services For Unix, which is a free download.
I don't know about IIS in Vista, bus SFU should still work, and I am going to try it right now
Member since:2006-04-18
1. Protecting the dumb trashware-installing-users from themselves by annoying them with security windows and running a lot of things with lower privileges. (at least 1/2 of my service calls are due to infestation)
Users are going to *maybe* read the message once, maybe not, and click OK. After that, they'll just click OK without thinking about it, just as with most installs you just click Next until it changes to finish.
A guy I knew in college used to get an error upon booting his computer every day. He used to click it before the text even rendered. "What did that say?" "I don't know, it comes up every day."
Member since:2005-07-07
1. Protecting the dumb trashware-installing-users from themselves by annoying them with security windows and running a lot of things with lower privileges. (at least 1/2 of my service calls are due to infestation)
It remains to be seen whether or not average users are going to turn UAC off or not. My guess it that they'll turn it off. Then you're left with virtually the same security as XP. Besides Unix has had limited accounts for a long time now. This isn't exactly anything new.
2. Capable GUI eye-candy "scripting" engine similar to the one KDE is calling "Plasma" If you like iPhone's UI - you will likely see that level of "liquidity" on Windows.
Again this is not new in any way. Worse yet is the fact that a large majority of computers in use today are not capable of running these effects.
3. New (bundled) collaborative apps like Meeting Space and "share-able" Calendar, and easier networking set up. Not exactly hot stuff - but a as group they make Vista a "revolution" in household and small-business communication.
Shareable calenders? That technology is already available to OSX, Linux, and Windows. Maybe I'm wrong but Meeting Space just looks like a reworked sharing interface. It's nifty for home users but not very revolutionary, and nothing that couldn't be accomplished before on Windows, OSX, or Linux.
None of these are technological leaps, but are behavior-changing steps. And, as that - fairly large leap forward.
I've played with Vista a little and I don't really see anything behavior changing about it. This start menu is still there, The window metaphor hasn't changed, and IE is now even shittier. Forgive me for not dropping my jaw in awe for a bloated 3D interface tacked onto a 2D metaphor, crammed full of new wizards and annoying security warning pop-ups.
Member since:
2005-07-10
Linus is mostly the level headed guy who talks sense. Even what he said about Vista is quite right. He doesn't talk bullshit like many other OSS zealots do like Vista sucks or poor designed OS etc.
If more OSS people were like Linus, i am sure OSS users would have felt better. The OSS zealots who do constant rant against windows and try to prove everyone who like windows wrong are the biggest damage to OSS. Wish those zealots never existed.
In fact it feels sometime that Linus admire Windows OS for what they have provided and knows it is important to have those things in Linux like plugging in a camera and it works. Windowss got that right quite before Linux.
I know Vista is over hyped but i still think Vista is a nice OS, it's install is big but with 1GB RAM it performs routine tasks way better than XP.
The looks are nice, underlying technologies got a overhaul like netwokring with NDIS 6, display drivers with XDDM, printing etc and on top the nicer and more consistent UI.
The only OS that can stand to Vista and mind it (stand to not win against) is OSX. Linux on desktop is ehhh noooooo comparison with consistent and integrated experience of Windows and OSX
Edited 2007-01-19 17:17
Member since:2006-06-13
Member since:2006-11-24
>> Wish those zealots never existed.
If you had your wish, there would probably be no linux or OSS to speak of. Atleast in the state it is today.
(if you are to believe RMS that is, and i partly do)
You can scream for what you want, let them scream for freedom if they so please.
RE[2]: Wish more people were like Linus
Member since:2006-11-24
Its allways been political for RMS, hence the term "Free Software". "Open Source" came later.
so its more the opposite effect, going more and more thowards bussines interests.
(im not saying its ALL bad though)
I agree he is a bit pedantic, but his message holds more water today than it ever did.
Member since:2006-01-12
I don't think you understand what is meant by "FREE".
The "FREE" part mainly applies to developers and would-be developers. Free to modify the code. The catch is that you should offer the same freedoms to others, as was offered to you. That's the point of the GPL.
It does NOT necessarily mean free as in give away at no cost. Even though most distros are given away for free, companies like Xandros, RedHat, Novell, Linspire, etc charge money for their distros. (For support contracts to business clients, paid support for desktop users, or to pay for proprietary codecs like MP3, WMV, etc, etc).
Those companies clearly make money on GPL'ed solutions. (Which counters your claim suggesting that you can't make money).
And the GPL v3? Have you actually read the drafts? Or are you just basing things on hear-say?
The GPL v3 is mainly about preventing Tivo-lization. That is, delibrately using hardware (DRM) to prevent users of that device from modifying the Linux code as they wish.
GPL3 does NOT mean DRM-free content. Developers can add DRM the content they distribute. If you want DRM and don't agree with GPL, write your own code. Its your choice.
Is that hard to understand?
Member since:2005-07-10
Is it so hard for you to understand that the cumulative number of jobs provided to software engineers by all GPL based companies is lesser than jobs provided by a handful of commercial companies?
For the ignonrant that you are, i will copy paste my older post again:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16891&comment_id=19...
and
And read this post:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16891&comment_id=19...
Now can you answer to the question i pose in second comment?
-------------
The reason is software ecosystem.
1. Universities do research and release code under BSD style license.
2. Many of these projects are very good and picked up by companies to commercialize them.
3. These companies (in turn software engineers in thse companies) makes money and make software engineering a lucrative discipline for students.
4. The companies donate some of the money back to universities.
5. Go to step 1.
This is the ecosystem promoted by BSD. GPL breaks that. If you ever read statistics, students are losing interest in computer science and once they see that it is not financial a good field to support their family, you will see even less people in this field.
That is why i like BSD and not Linux.
The all combined GPL based products have earned less money than even a handful of non-GPL products.
In a country like USA where a doctor charge 300$ for 30 minutes appointment, you need money to live a good life and GPL is not making software as an interesting field to make that kind of money.
I hope this explains well to you now.
Member since:2005-07-02
RE[3]: Wish more people were like Linus
Member since:2006-08-26
CrazyDude0, just read what you wrote:
Sorry buddy RMS is a communist whacko and i don't want to take an example from him in this very capitalist world.
It is very tempting to "take an example" from people, but I find that it is a tricky business. Just think for yourself and argue without invoking people like LT and RMS. If you are dead set against RMS's ideas, you should be prepared to argue using facts and logic.
Member since:2006-02-01
So if you follow RMS then yeah go for it. Be prepared to live a life like RMS i.e. a small apartment with no one to love, no wife, no family, no children.
Sorry buddy RMS is a communist whacko
You heard it here first, folks: release your software under the GPL, and no-one will ever love you, you disgusting filthy Commie.
Member since:2005-07-06
I use OS X regularly (I have a MacBook), and I would not say it is more consistent than GNOME. GNOME is the most consistent desktop this side of classic MacOS, period.
That said, OS X is a prettier environment. Vista is certainly flashier than GNOME, but it still has the essential Windows incoherence that keeps me from saying it's good looking. And Vista's mechanics are just bad, bad, bad. What, praytell, is the logic behind the toolbar/menubar placement in Vista? And why does every Vista app seem to handle this crucial UI element differently?
Member since:2006-08-26
In particular, I wish more people would think for themselves. You use a tiny article with a few conservative statements from Torvalds to help you generalize about how he is the model for people to follow. How convenient is his moderate tone to prop up your own positive feelings about Vista. However, Linus has also said:
"Microsoft isn't evil, they just make really crappy operating systems."
Linus has now worked for a few years for OSDL which is the corporate side of GNU/Linux, so he has had to moderate his tone. To some people, moderation equals correctness. Those people need to introduce themselves to logic and evidence.
Is Linus the voice of reason? All I know is that he is human and makes mistakes (sometimes embarrassing ones such as the Bitkeeper debacle), which you would acknowledge if you were trying to hold him up as everyone's model.
However, the biggest problem in your post is the implicit assumption that Torvalds's POV, "open source", matters more than the "free software" POV. I.e., that technical merit trumps freedom and ethics. His POV constrains his comments, and you will need to argue why his POV is superior to the others.
Member since:2006-04-21
"Microsoft isn't evil, they just make really crappy operating systems."
"Evil" is certainly an overused word, but it's not like MS make "really crappy operating systems"or change the .doc standard every few years out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it to promote the "goodness"of their wallets.
Linus has now worked for a few years for OSDL which is the corporate side of GNU/Linux, so he has had to moderate his tone.
I don't see that; I think he's always been one of those people who can make a point subtly, and perhaps more effectively for that reason.
Is Linus the voice of reason? All I know is that he is human and makes mistakes (sometimes embarrassing ones such as the Bitkeeper debacle), which you would acknowledge if you were trying to hold him up as everyone's model.
People, (especially Linus-like and hackerish people) like him exactly because of that. It's a nice change from the hero-worship Gates and Jobs and their companies receive and promote; to hear either of them you'd think they were incapable of mistakes. Gates was even awarded an honorary British knighthood for "services to computing" (or, to be more accurate, "sending the computing industry back into the Stone Age"), for heaven's sake. He may be incapable of business mistakes, but judging from DOS and Windows, if he programs then he's certainly not incapable of programming mistakes.
Member since:
2005-07-06
While I agree that Torvalds is usually better-balanced than other OSS zealots, this time he's speaking as marketing guy rather than being objective.
I agree Vista failed to be "revolutionary" by failing to introduce ALL stuffs they planned to. However, under the hood there's a lot of meat and even advanced stuff which most OSes aren't featuring.
Plus, MS (as market leader) can enjoy the possibility to be very slow in their releases, as all market leaders are. Yet, with .NET 3, Office 2007 and other tools, Microsoft proved to be able to drive new paths and explore new ways, even if market leaders usually don't do that as that's a bet they don't need to afford.
I'm afraid Torvalds words have a backtaste of someone who's a bit sad not to be able to keep up, even if he's working hard. Historically, to beat a market leader (expecially when close to monopoly), you need to release VERY revolutionary products to steal enough market share while the leader tries to keep up. I would ask Torvalds: where is your revolutionary stuff, man?
If you're not able to deliver revolutionary products, you will only be scratching the surface of market leader and while you struggle hard to gain your 1% market share, leader will have its new products ready and will get another 2%.
Linux, being unable to keep up, is still fighting this war on the price level, not on the features level. Sad but true.
(Notice that this is different in the server market which is completely different from desktop one and where Windows had to keep up with Unix-dominant player.)
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2005-07-07
I'm afraid Torvalds words have a backtaste of someone who's a bit sad not to be able to keep up, even if he's working hard
I think you might be confusing Linus Torvalds with some of the developers working things which Microsoft can actually deliver something as well.
I am pretty sure that from the point of view of a Linux kernel developer Microsoft is the one who is not able to keep up, since it is essentially restricted to a very small range of hardware platforms, quite limited cluster capabilities, etc.
From a end user's or application developer's point of view Vista might have quite some improvements, assuming you are referring to this part when using the term "market leader"
Member since:2005-10-06
You appear to believe that Linus, himself, personally, writes every line of every Linux app.
WOW he's productive! No wonder he finds it difficult to keep up with Microsoft, when they are releasing such wondrous shiny innovation like Office 2007 (ever tried Office '97 - it does everything every normal person expects from a word processor - oh! wait! it isn't new and innovative! it's ten years old so it must be really useless! No "new paths" or "new ways" there!)
If these products are what people see as "innovative" then God help innovation.
Member since:2006-04-21
Linux, being unable to keep up, is still fighting this war on the price level, not on the features level. Sad but true.
Erm, since when is Linux "unable to keep up"? In 17 years it has gone from a microkernel to a fully-functional desktop OS on a par with Windows and MacOS X, whilst Windows has gone from a bloated, overhyped, crappily-implemented OS to... an ever more-bloated, over-hyped, slightly less crappily-implemented OS.
Oh, sorry; you're right. Linux isn't able to keep up; it's too busy racing ahead.