Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Apr 2007 16:50 UTC
Windows It's been a while since the latest Microsoft-should-open-source-Windows article, so SJVN felt compelled to write one. "Although Microsoft may claim otherwise, Vista, from both from a technical and business point of view, is proving to be a failure. Why not turn it over to people who have shown time after time that they can deliver the goods?"
Order by: Score:
gilA
Member since:
2006-02-09

I just spend a billion dollars developing software so that I can give it away? In other news, IBM announces z/OS, z/VM, z/TPF, System i are now open-source.

Reply Score: 4

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I just spend a billion dollars developing software so that I can give it away? In other news, IBM announces z/OS, z/VM, z/TPF, System i are now open-source.


They could still sell support licenses like they already do (ever wonder why OEM's are so much cheaper and you can still buy them without being a hardware manufacturer?).
But I imagine they would lose a lot of sales and I really can't see them even considering it either. Besides, if Windows is truly the nightmare of security problems many claim it to be, and the FOSS many eyes principle truly works then given open sourcing Windows the few months it takes to distribute repairs would be a nightmare of zero day exploits.

Reply Score: 4

MORB Member since:
2005-07-06

Give away shitty, clunky technology in exchange for free manpower to fix it for you? Doesn't sound that bad of a deal.
Microsoft would actually have more to gain from it than the open source community, because I can guarantee you that there is most likely not a single useful thing to learn from vista's source code - except that a sprawling bureaucracy managing an army of developper does result into an horrifying, towering heap of utterly shitty code.

Of course, it will never ever happen. Microsoft is determined and inflexible. If they end up in a hole, they'll keep digging no matter what.

Edited 2007-04-13 21:16

Reply Score: 5

CowMan Member since:
2006-09-26

There's tonnes to learn! Then, unless your Novell, get your #$@ sued for.

Edited 2007-04-14 15:37

Reply Score: 1

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Replying only to the title of your comment: Going only by the amount given away by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, and the average development cost of $5B for a version of Windows, Bill Gates has effectively given away 2.5 different versions of Windows over the years.

Reply Score: 2

nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

Why not turn it over to people who have shown time after time that they can deliver the goods?


Sure we could turn the Windows Source over to the Debian team, and then the operating system could take 2 years to come out. Oh wait that already happened so what is the gain. And what is this nonsense about open source developers delivering the goods? Honestly both open source and closed source have seen their fair share of failures as well as success.

Open source != success, Closed source != failure, and it is a little insulting to everybody from the software developer to the CEO that works on a software product for profit to insinuate this.

Reply Score: 5

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21



Sure we could turn the Windows Source over to the Debian team, and then the operating system could take 2 years to come out.

Oh wait that already happened so what is the gain. And what is this nonsense about open source developers delivering the goods?


There are more OSS projects than Debian, and giving it to Debian might result in delays, but probably less delays than Vista suffered. They might also use some of their quality control talent.

Honestly both open source and closed source have seen their fair share of failures as well as success.


Open source and closed source, yes. Technologically, however, Microsoft is widely seen as a failure even by those who applaud their business suckcess. Whoops. Freudian slip.

Open source != success, Closed source != failure,


That goes both ways: Open source != failure, and closed source != success.

and it is a little insulting to everybody from the software developer to the CEO that works on a software product for profit to insinuate this.


It's also a little insulting to everyone with a modicum of intelligence and/or honesty, not to mention Redhat (not to say they aren't members of either group) to insinuate you can't make a profit from free software.

Reply Score: 1

nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

It's also a little insulting to everyone with a modicum of intelligence and/or honesty, not to mention Redhat (not to say they aren't members of either group) to insinuate you can't make a profit from free software.


Is that the really the only way you know how to argue by twisting what I say to fit your view of the world. There is no difference between Open Source and Closed Source software, just different methodologies for getting the same job done. In addition my statements were in response to the original poster, and they were a reply.

Sure you can make a profit from Open Source, but you can also make a profit from Closed Source. That was never what was in debate, my comment was how insulting it was to say that for profit software automatically equals failure.

Also open source software wouldn't be were it is right now if wasn't for the tons of money that companies like AT&T, Xerox, IBM, Sun, and Microsoft poured in to universities for research on software and hardware. Nobody has ever analyzed what it would mean if all software went open source, and the distribution was free. The development of new software and research benefiting computing would slow.

You may disagree and you are entitled to, but one thing you can't disagree with is that money = research and research = new developments. So maybe you should think twice about your view of the world.

Because the benefits of Microsoft Research are in your home right now. Especially if you have digital TV which is based off the Microsoft research on IP-TV, which is based off Microsoft's research in to streaming video over the internet. But nobody uses that, (www.youtube.com, video.google.com), do they?

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

"It's also a little insulting to everyone with a modicum of intelligence and/or honesty, not to mention Redhat (not to say they aren't members of either group) to insinuate you can't make a profit from free software.


Is that the really the only way you know how to argue by twisting what I say to fit your view of the world.
"

Nice try. Nevertheless, the insinuation that open source software robs developers of profits stands there in black and white.

There is no difference between Open Source and Closed Source software, just different methodologies for getting the same job done.


Oh, but there's a big difference. Open Source depends on standing on the soldiers of giants; closed source centres on reinvention of the wheel.

In addition my statements were in response to the original poster, and they were a reply.


I fail to see the relevance of this.

Sure you can make a profit from Open Source, but you can also make a profit from Closed Source. That was never what was in debate, my comment was how insulting it was to say that for profit software automatically equals failure.


Also open source software wouldn't be were it is right now if wasn't for the tons of money that companies like AT&T, Xerox, IBM, Sun, and Microsoft poured in to universities for research on software and hardware.


Actually, open source would be a lot better off if Microsoft were not the company it is. Sun also is not blameless in the proprietary technology department, even in software.

Nobody has ever analyzed what it would mean if all software went open source, and the distribution was free. The development of new software and research benefiting computing would slow.


I think you will find that the first sentence above invalidates the second.

You may disagree and you are entitled to, but one thing you can't disagree with is that money = research and research = new developments. So maybe you should think twice about your view of the world.


I don't remember ever posting that I'm against research. Maybe you should think twice about your view of what I write. In fact all editions of UNIX upto and including Seventh Edition were research - and THEY were open source.

Because the benefits of Microsoft Research are in your home right now. Especially if you have digital TV which is based off the Microsoft research on IP-TV, which is based off Microsoft's research in to streaming video over the internet. But nobody uses that, (www.youtube.com, video.google.com), do they?


So Microsoft actually made one contribution to the world outside itself, did it? Wow. That overshadows all the effort they have spent destroying competitors. Not.

Reply Score: 1

nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

I don't remember ever posting that I'm against research. Maybe you should think twice about your view of what I write. In fact all editions of UNIX upto and including Seventh Edition were research - and THEY were open source.


But where did the money come from for that research. Yes companies who's practices weren't open. I believe AT&T was the father of UNIX, and they are hardly close to an open company. So don't get up on your high horse and pretend to be above everybody, you are using software that may be open, but the research was bought by the proprietary software you now speak against.

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21


But where did the money come from for that research. Yes companies who's practices weren't open. I believe AT&T was the father of UNIX, and they are hardly close to an open company. So don't get up on your high horse and pretend to be above everybody, you are using software that may be open, but the research was bought by the proprietary software you now speak against.


And when did it all start to go wrong for UNIX? When it was made proprietary?

Reply Score: 2

nberardi Member since:
2005-07-10

And when did it all start to go wrong for UNIX? When it was made proprietary?


UNIX was always proprietary, maybe you should re-read your history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix , it wasn't until Berkley decided to make BSD that the UNIX idea emerged from the proprietary idea. Then from BSD emerged NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Solaris. Then Linus came a long and took the same UNIX ideas and made Linux.

But in the beginning UNIX was a commercial product for commercial purposes and AT&T licensed it out for many years until SCO bought the rights to the license during the break up of AT&T.

So with out the funding of mega proprietary organizations like AT&T and GE UNIX would never exist. So do us all a favor at OSNews and read a book or at least a wikipedia article.

Reply Score: 2

Should be titled:
by Nelson on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:01 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Dear Mr Gates, throw away the billions Microsoft invested into Vista and essentially give away the primary work your company has been doing for the last 5 years.

Perhaps someone should tell that guy to give away his house or his car? Better idea, someone give away his computer so he can't post this nonsense.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Should be titled:
by bornagainenguin on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:59 UTC in reply to "Should be titled:"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Give me a break!

Microsoft has already thrown away millions on Vista, all open sourcing Windows would mean is an admission of what we already knew--Microsoft is better at languages and "business math" than it is at actually producing something useful...

Why keep throwing more good money after bad when you can open source and (hopefully) reap the benefit of having your code worked on people passionate about code?

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 5

RE: Should be titled:
by butters on Sat 14th Apr 2007 01:36 UTC in reply to "Should be titled:"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Should be titled: Dear Mr. Gates, your company has proven itself incompetent at securing a proprietary operating system, so why don't you open it up and really let the black hats have their way with your customers?

You can't open a proprietary software system unless it is relatively secure against white-box attacks. Windows can't even stand up to black-box attacks. Open source is an incredibly efficient development model, but it is not a silver bullet for quality and security problems. In fact, the reality of distributed open source development raises the bar substantially in both of these areas. The code has to be clean, and it has to be robust. Otherwise nobody is going to be able to contribute, and everybody is going to be able to exploit it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Should be titled:
by psychicist on Sat 14th Apr 2007 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Should be titled:"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

Since you are an AIX developer, could you say that the code is higher quality than what is available for example in GNU/Linux or BSD?

I think it's not a matter of proprietary vs open source but more like high-quality vs low-quality. In this respect Windows doesn't stand a chance but AIX, HP-UX, OpenVMS and MVS will continue to exist because of their proven quality.

And nowadays it's a fact that most commercially-available proprietary software (especially) for Windows is not very good although there are some good ones mostly from other companies than Microsoft.

In this sense third parties keep the Microsoft ecosystem alive while they could so easily kill it off by releasing versions for multiple platforms. GNU/Linux at least sets the bar high enough that something like Windows cannot compete.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Should be titled:
by butters on Sun 15th Apr 2007 07:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Should be titled:"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

It depends how you define quality. AIX doesn't depend on code quality to produce a high-quality release. It's put through millions of hours of pre-release testing with almost 100,000 test cases run in various workload patterns across our entire hardware product line. The service team says that 95% of all customer issues result from a customer choosing not to apply a fix we issued in response to internal testing.

I won't comment specifically on our internal defect rate, but suffice it to say that we cannot use a "release early, release often" strategy with AIX. The AIX kernel is significantly more sophisticated than any other UNIX kernel. The code quality is inconsistent across subsystems and generally mediocre. We don't often do proactive code cleanups. If it's working, we leave it alone until we discover defects or update the functionality.

I've hacked both the Linux and AIX kernels, and the differences in how they achieve a quality product are like night and day (or likely the other way around). The Linux kernel code is like a work of art compared to AIX, but AIX provides a much higher assurance to the customer that we've done everything in our power to ship a quality OS.

Another AIX developer put it best: AIX kernel development, for better or worse, is for black-belts only. That's why we can't open source it like Sun has done with Solaris. It wouldn't be productive, and it wouldn't have the best interests of our customers in mind.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Should be titled:
by vegai on Sat 14th Apr 2007 10:20 UTC in reply to "Should be titled:"
vegai Member since:
2005-12-25

If Vista source code was released, tens of thousands of programmers would die laughing.

I'm talking Monty Python's "Killer Sketch" becoming reality.

Nobody wants that, I hope.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Should be titled:
by knightrider on Mon 16th Apr 2007 16:13 UTC in reply to "Should be titled:"
knightrider Member since:
2006-12-11

LOL....

Reply Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:07 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

I don't think Vista needs to be saved yet, and at one point I agree it would be need to be open sourced but please not under GPL.

Edited 2007-04-13 17:12

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by archiesteel on Fri 13th Apr 2007 22:27 UTC in reply to "..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

at one point I agree it would be need to be open sourced but please not under GPL

Why not? It's not as if it would make sense to produce closed-source derivatives in this case...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 13th Apr 2007 22:33 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Because the less contact with the FSF the better, at least to me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by archiesteel on Fri 13th Apr 2007 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

You don't need to have contacts with the FSF to license software under the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 13th Apr 2007 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

As long is related to the FSF like GPL is, its a problem to me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: ...
by archiesteel on Fri 13th Apr 2007 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

The GPL is not related to the FSF. It's a license.

I think you're letting ideological concerns cloud your judgement, here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: ...
by Almafeta on Fri 13th Apr 2007 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

The GPL is not related to the FSF. It's a license.


Erm... they are intimately related, as the latter owns the former. Here's the first three lines of the license:

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991

Copyright 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: ...
by archiesteel on Sat 14th Apr 2007 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

The latter may have the copyright on the text, but that doesn't mean you owe them anything if you use their license. I could make a video game where you could throw eggs at RMS, Moglen, etc. and license it under the GPL, and - as immature as that would be - it would be perfectly legal and neither the FSF nor anyone would be able to prevent the game's distribution.

The GPL is a legal text. Use it or don't use it depending on your needs, that's fine. On the other hand, refusing to use it on ideological grounds (which basically boil down to: "one should be able to profit from the labour of others while denying others the same opportunity from their own") seems a bit silly to me.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by abraxas on Sat 14th Apr 2007 14:52 UTC in reply to "..."
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

I don't think Vista needs to be saved yet, and at one point I agree it would be need to be open sourced but please not under GPL.

I agree. Why would I want Windows to be released under the most successful open source license ever? I would rather see it whither and die under a lesser open source license.

Reply Score: 1

Don't get it
by Duffman on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:11 UTC
Duffman
Member since:
2005-11-23

Linux users waste their time saying that Vista just suck, and now they want it open source.

I think I missed something ...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Don't get it
by jessta on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:02 UTC in reply to "Don't get it"
jessta Member since:
2005-08-17

it does suck.
but it would probably suck less if some modifications could be made.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Don't get it
by ma_d on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:12 UTC in reply to "Don't get it"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Linux users waste their time saying that Vista just suck, and now they want it open source.

I think I missed something ...

Yes, and the evil force of republicans/democrats are out to get you with their welfare/big corporations.

Linux != FOSS
FOSS != Linux

Linux people != FOSS people
Linux people is not a subset of FOSS people
FOSS people is not a subset of Linux people

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Don't get it
by TaterSalad on Fri 13th Apr 2007 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Don't get it"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

Call me confused because I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

What do you mean by "Linux != FOSS"

Linux IS free and open source software, but not all free and open source software is Linux. I thought that was one of the major selling points of linux is that it is free and open source for anyone to use provided they give back any modifications made to the source.

The same goes for this statement too "Linux people is not a subset of FOSS people".

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Don't get it
by ma_d on Fri 13th Apr 2007 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Don't get it"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29


Linux IS free and open source software, but not all free and open source software is Linux. I thought that was one of the major selling points of linux is that it is free and open source for anyone to use provided they give back any modifications made to the source.

The same goes for this statement too "Linux people is not a subset of FOSS people".


There is a large group of Linux advocates who are not FOSS advocates. I'm referring to groups of people (not the systems themselves) and by equality I mean that the right is a subset of the left and the left is a subset of the right (right and left side of the equation).

Linux is open source, but not everyone advocating and making Linux is pro-open source. The same goes for the other side.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Don't get it
by TaterSalad on Fri 13th Apr 2007 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Don't get it"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

That makes more sense, thanks for clearing it up.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Don't get it
by Duffman on Fri 13th Apr 2007 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Don't get it"
Duffman Member since:
2005-11-23

Sorry but the news is published on linux-watch.com and if you click on the name of the author you will see:

Ziff Davis Internet Linux & Open Source Editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Reply Score: 2

the smell of "news"
by Oliver on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:11 UTC
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

omfg - somebody pays you while writing such nonsense? Ziff Davis is indeed a very rich company.

Reply Score: 2

No chance
by twenex on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:11 UTC
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

By chance, in this quarter's UKUUG newsletter a Microsoft spokesperson was quoted as saying something which, in the form it appears below, crystallises the opinion of the way Microsoft does business I've held since at least the day I left Windows 98:

Microsoft make a lot of money out of closed-source. They do not care how crap their software is, as long as it makes them money.

Therefore as long as they can get away with preloading Vista onto new computers, they will do so no matter what people think of it. And there is not a hope in hell that they will opensource Vista soon.

Maybe the fact that I only realized this yesterday (in the form presented here) makes me dense; but it doesn't make it untrue.

Reply Score: 5

v RE: No chance
by Spellcheck on Fri 13th Apr 2007 20:58 UTC in reply to "No chance"
RE[2]: No chance
by raver31 on Sat 14th Apr 2007 06:57 UTC in reply to "RE: No chance"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

He might have meant their products can be compared to crap,(noun), because installing their products "might", have the same effect as someone dropping their bags and having a massive dump on the motherboard.

See, that is the problem with spellcheckers in general. They can check the words for misplaced letters, however, they cannot check the context the words are in.

Edited 2007-04-14 06:58

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: No chance
by twenex on Sat 14th Apr 2007 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No chance"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

He might have meant their products can be compared to crap,(noun), because installing their products "might", have the same effect as someone dropping their bags and having a massive dump on the motherboard.


ROTFL. Oh, man, that is funny.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: No chance
by Vendor on Sat 14th Apr 2007 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE: No chance"
Vendor Member since:
2006-11-14

"crap" used as an adjective is perfectly acceptable in British English (though not in American English), as is "shit" - so it would be also be acceptable to say:

Microsoft make a lot of money out of closed-source. They do not care how shit their software is, as long as it makes them money.

For those still in school, you could try taking these two variants into your English class, as a way of sparking a fascinating debate on the many subtle differences between British and American forms of English.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: No chance
by twenex on Sat 14th Apr 2007 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No chance"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

"crap" used as an adjective is perfectly acceptable in British English (though not in American English), as is "shit" - so it would be also be acceptable to say:

Microsoft make a lot of money out of closed-source. They do not care how shit their software is, as long as it makes them money.


Although personally, I would find "shitty" more acceptable than "shit" here, but "crappy" equally as acceptable as "crap".

Interesting language!

Reply Score: 2

Can they deliver better goods?
by gonzo on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:13 UTC
gonzo
Member since:
2005-11-10

Well, if those guys "can deliver the goods" why don't they deliver something better than Windows (Vista)?

You know, those guys are "delivering" Windows replacement for the last 10+ years.. yet we're where we are: Windows is on 90%+ desktop computers and according to EU comission dealing with MS, Windows Server is on about 75% workgroup servers..

Reply Score: 4

RE: Can they deliver better goods?
by twenex on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:22 UTC in reply to "Can they deliver better goods?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Well, if those guys "can deliver the goods" why don't they deliver something better than Windows (Vista)?


Linux? Solaris? MacOS X?

I'm going to steal that comment somebody made just today, because it's so good: To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD's is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there.

You know, those guys are "delivering" Windows replacement for the last 10+ years.. yet we're where we are: Windows is on 90%+ desktop computers and according to EU comission dealing with MS, Windows Server is on about 75% workgroup servers..


One word: Preloading. I thought SJVN's article was the mark of an ignoramus, but Jeeze.

Reply Score: 5

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

There are computers with other OS preloaded like Linux and OSX but the marked rejects them because in someway they fail to give what the user needs.

Reply Score: 0

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

There are computers with other OS preloaded like Linux and OSX but the marked rejects them because in someway they fail to give what the user needs.


Oh please. Are you seriously trying to tell me "the user needs" viruses, spyware, crashes, spam, and handholding to the degree Windows provides them?

If, and only if, Linux is offered on an equivalent number of models to Windows, by major manufacturers, out in the open like Macs, and still doesn't sell, then you can start telling me that Windows is better than Linux. Not before.

Edited 2007-04-13 17:34 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

I did't say Windows was better or not I said it gives what user needs and the other fail to do that, and about the security I have zero problems with spyware or virus and I have zero problems with stability because is rock solid, actually crash less than Ubuntu on me, but you see, the computer experience and productivity it is more than just the OS, is also the 3th party programs that makes you productive and those programs makes the OS irrelevant and till those options exist in alternative OS the market will keeps rejected them.

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I did't say Windows was better or not I said it gives what user needs and the other fail to do that, and about the security I have zero problems with spyware or virus and I have zero problems with stability because is rock solid, actually crash less than Ubuntu on me, but you see, the computer experience and productivity it is more than just the OS, is also the 3th party programs that makes you productive and those programs makes the OS irrelevant and till those options exist in alternative OS the market will keeps rejected them.


There are plenty of people who would do well with a noob-friendly version of Linux instead of Windows because they don't use anything beyond what a typical desktop version of Linux would install anyway and anyway I know people who use their computers less than 3 hours a day six days a week and still get spyware and just because Ubuntu crashes doesn't mean that Windows is a better OS it could be your configuration and their are other Linuxes out there and if the OS makes it impossible to uses the 3rd party programs because of viruses or spyware or crashes then it doesn't matter how many more thousans or millions more apps the OS has now does it and anyway plenty of people now are switching to MacOS X and it is as feasible to put Windows in a dual boot or virtualized configuration with Linux as it is with MacOS and anyway the number 1 request for an application to be ported to Linux is about to be ported to the Web where it will be accessible not only from Windows and Linux but also from BeOS and AmigaOS and RiscOS and any other OS and lastly next time please use punctuation I'm running out of brea--

Reply Score: 5

GhePeU Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes and they still choose windows as their os.

Please, those people don't even know what an OS is (and why should they, they just want to use a computer), they use windows because they went to a shop, asked for a pc and received a pc with windows preloaded.

Reply Score: 2

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Yes and they [plenty of people] still choose windows as their os [instead of a noob-friendly version of Linux]."

No, they don't choose.

First, they don't know that it's possible to choose, second, they don't know what to choose from then. They take what is preinstalled. There is nothing else than "Windows", didn't you hear it? And Linux is a game. :-)

The intention is simple: People want it working right now, with no work to be done before. It has to run by itself. And they want to have the same "pictures" at home as they might know it from their place of work.

School did not teach them. Life does not teach them. They don't teach / educate theirselves.

Maybe you're considering my statements harsh or even impolite, but that's reality I had to deal with every day. Maybe it's different in the US, but in Germany people just don't care. Don't care about what they're doing, don't care about viruses, about security, about interoperability, about anything...

People are not interested in OSes because they don't use the OS, they don't work with it. Instead, they're using applications, and these should be the ones they know from work or from their neighbor (who gives them pirated copies of "Office" or "XP"). The basic demand is simple, the applications are available on Linux today, they are easy to use - but nobody knows them. Know "Nero"? Sure. But know KB3 (K3B)? No, never heared of it. The "Explorer"? Of course, I have it at work. But what's Thunar? What's a Konkveer (Konqueror)? A Carfine (Kaffein)? Or a Dshearst (YaST)? :-)

Reply Score: 2

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Opinions are like a$$holes - everyone has one. You might think your opinion matters, but in reality, it's an opinion in a sea of voices.

The primary problem is to do with applications - which is why I've been mandating for many years now that Microsoft must be forced to not only support OS X users with Microsoft Office, MSN Messenger, Windows Media Player etc, but also support Linux and BSD. The numbers are there. If they want to argue that Linux doesn't have enough numbers, then why the hell is Microsoft porting code to OS X, which has just as many users as Linux, probably less?

MS Office is the stumbling box to Linux becoming more main stream. Period. Imagine how many businesses would dump Microsoft Windows and run Linux on their corporate desktop if MS Office ran on it. And I don't mean virtualisation. Once Linux penetrates the business market, it will start to gain ground elsewhere. I'm already seeing more and more people aware of Linux, but many are afraid to move because it means learning a new operating system (always hard), finding new applications (and learning them), or trying to make Windows applications run in a Linux environment.

I guarantee Linux would take off if the above listed applications, and also Photoshop and AutoCad were ported to it. These big software vendors won't make a move to port until Linux users probably number 25%, and that won't happen because Microsoft uses it's illegal monopoly on office suites to force users to continue to have to use Microsofts poor operating system offers.

I have a 2 month install of XP that is already falling apart...and no, I don't visit any nasty sites, yes I have anti spyware software running, anti virus software running, and no, I don't click on things willy nilly either. It's just plain unstable in so many ways. I ONLY use Windows XP because I'm a photographer on the side that uses Photoshop CS2 and also Capture One Pro and Neat Image. None of them either run on Linux under WINE/Cedega/Crossover office, or run very well. Open source equivalents simply do not match the above applications and my needs, imho. As a user, I'm being dictated to as to what operating system I can use and I don't really like it.

Oh, and it's dyslexic and I didn't find that comment very funny. Dyslexia is not a very funny thing for an individual to suffer from, a bit more respect for those unfortunate people wouldn't hurt you.

Dave

Reply Score: 2

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

If, and only if, Linux is offered on an equivalent number of models to Windows, by major manufacturers, out in the open like Macs, and still doesn't sell, then you can start telling me that Windows is better than Linux. Not before.

Well, you'd have to be able to get Windows for $0 too, to make it fair, right?

But.. why is it (Linux) not offered by major manufacturers, ask yourself please. Because Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, etc. don't know about Linux? Really?

No conspiracy theories in your answer, please ;)

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

But.. why is it (Linux) not offered by major manufacturers, ask yourself please. Because Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, etc. don't know about Linux? Really?


Dell and HP offer Linux.

Most OEMs are wary of retaliation from Microsoft, however. In the past this was commonplace (offer something else than Windows and you lose your Windows OEM discount...)

This is no conspiracy theory, either, but the reality.

Reply Score: 4

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Dell and HP offer Linux.

Yeah right. It is so insignificant that I'd be ashamed to make that argument.

Come on be realistic - when was it last time you saw HP desktop PC preloaded with Linux at, for example, Best Buy or Staples, etc.

Most OEMs are wary of retaliation from Microsoft, however.

Yeah, right.. How come they sell it on servers then? It just not correct. Maybe they were, some 9-10 years ago, but today? Can't believe that.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Yeah right. It is so insignificant that I'd be ashamed to make that argument.


Dell seems pretty serious about their latest Linux offering. Also, realize that outside of the US market there is a bit more demand for it. I recently learned that Lenovo *does* sell Linux laptops, but only in China...

Come on be realistic - when was it last time you saw HP desktop PC preloaded with Linux at, for example, Best Buy or Staples, etc.


I was thinking more of B2B offerings, not B2C.

Yeah, right.. How come they sell it on servers then?


Because Servers are a totally different beast altogether. The market used to be mostly UNIX, so it's only logical that there would be demand for Linux. Also, the profit margins are not the same in that market, and OEMs are less vulnerable to MS in that area.

For someone so arrogant, you don't seem to know your stuff that well.

It just not correct.


Nor your grammar.

Maybe they were, some 9-10 years ago, but today? Can't believe that.


It's certainly less severe today than it used to be, but I wouldn't say it never happens. Anyway, "once bitten, twice shy" says the proverb. Even if MS is less aggressive on that front (which is debatable) that doesn't mean OEM are not wary of it.

Reply Score: 4

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

But.. why is it (Linux) not offered by major manufacturers, ask yourself please. Because Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, etc. don't know about Linux? Really?

Actually, Dell are about to and HP do (the one to large clients, and the other with an obscure version).

Some facts in your replies, please.

Reply Score: 3

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Actually, Dell are about to and HP do (the one to large clients, and the other with an obscure version).

As I said already, when I see HP (Gateway, Acer, Lenovo) preloaded with Linux and sold at Staples, BestBuy, etc, then it will make a difference.

Reply Score: 0

FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

Oh please. Are you seriously trying to tell me "the user needs" viruses, spyware, crashes, spam, and handholding to the degree Windows provides them?

No, the user "needs" to be able to get an e-mail from somebody, click on a link and watch the funny video. The user "needs" to put their DVD's on their video iPod. The user "needs" to use the all-in-one software for their all-in-one printer/fax/scanner/copier. The user "needs" to let their kids play the computer game that came on their box of cereal.

It is nice to dream though.

I'm not trying to troll or anything. I run Gentoo Linux on 3 of my 4 computers and run Gentoox on my xbox. I keep my 4th computer running Windows around when I need to do any of the stuff mentioned above plus I'm sure I missed some.

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

No, the user "needs" to be able to get an e-mail from somebody, click on a link and watch the funny video. The user "needs" to put their DVD's on their video iPod. The user "needs" to use the all-in-one software for their all-in-one printer/fax/scanner/copier.


As far as I know, all of these can be done in Linux (as long as the printer/fax/scanner/copier is a HP or an Epson).

For the game on the cereal box...well, I'd hardly call that a selling point. There's a reason these games are given out inside cereal boxes (I should say were, because the fad has kind of gone by): they suck. Big time.

Kids today play games on consoles. Gaming is less and less an issue for Linux adoption.

I'm not trying to troll or anything. I run Gentoo Linux on 3 of my 4 computers and run Gentoox on my xbox.


Why did you feel the need to mention this? Either an argument stands on its own, or it doesn't. Whatever you run (or claim to run - no one can verify if it's true or not, after all) is irrelevant.

Is Linux for everyone? No. Neither is OS X, for that matter. Yet both are viable alternatives for an increasing number of people. The idea that Linux needs to be a *total* replacement for *everything* Windows does is fallacious. Those whose needs are satisfied by it will use it.

Incidentally, I am noting an increased interest in Linux and OS X around me as people are more and more fed up with viruses, spyware and crashes with Windows. They may not be ready to switch, but they sure ain't happy about their current situation. That's a reality you shouldn't deny.

Reply Score: 5

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Oh please. Are you seriously trying to tell me "the user needs" viruses, spyware, crashes, spam, and handholding to the degree Windows provides them?

No, the user "needs" to be able to get an e-mail from somebody, click on a link and watch the funny video. The user "needs" to put their DVD's on their video iPod. The user "needs" to use the all-in-one software for their all-in-one printer/fax/scanner/copier. The user "needs" to let their kids play the computer game that came on their box of cereal.

It is nice to dream though.

I'm not trying to troll or anything. I run Gentoo Linux on 3 of my 4 computers and run Gentoox on my xbox. I keep my 4th computer running Windows around when I need to do any of the stuff mentioned above plus I'm sure I missed some.


You can do all of that by running Windows virtualized.

Oh, and the first by running any GUI mailer in Linux.

Reply Score: 2

Skyhusker Member since:
2005-07-06


Oh please. Are you seriously trying to tell me "the user needs" viruses, spyware, crashes, spam, and handholding to the degree Windows provides them?

If, and only if, Linux is offered on an equivalent number of models to Windows, by major manufacturers, out in the open like Macs, and still doesn't sell, then you can start telling me that Windows is better than Linux. Not before.

Are you telling me if you put one <insert luxury restaurant here> next to every McDonald's and the latter sells more, they're a better placer for eating?

Sorry, but a successful product and a good product aren't the same thing (ok ok, there might be some correlation but that's not the point).

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The market doesn't reject them. The market hardly knows the existence of these options. Try buying a PC in Denmark with Linux preloaded. It's not possible, and sale of Linux isn't advertised nor aimed at ordinary users.

A more active strategy in regard to selling PC's with Linux/*BSD preloaded has just begun. It'll take a few years in order for this to seriously take off. OTOH there's a lot of dual-booting going on. Especially Ubuntu is popular with the younger next-generation power users. You'd be surprised to see how many youngsters are advocating use of Firefox, Gimp, Inkscape etc. - even on Windows.

A few more years and Linux/*BSD will see a surge in installed bases when the youngsters are grown up.

Reply Score: 5

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

The market doesn't reject them. The market hardly knows the existence of these options. Try buying a PC in Denmark with Linux preloaded. It's not possible, and sale of Linux isn't advertised nor aimed at ordinary users.

Very. Good. Point.

A more active strategy in regard to selling PC's with Linux/*BSD preloaded has just begun. It'll take a few years in order for this to seriously take off. OTOH there's a lot of dual-booting going on. Especially Ubuntu is popular with the younger next-generation power users. You'd be surprised to see how many youngsters are advocating use of Firefox, Gimp, Inkscape etc. - even on Windows.

A few more years and Linux/*BSD will see a surge in installed bases when the youngsters are grown up.


And then curmudgeons like us will complain about environmentalists who steal our profits by writing green source ;-)

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

What is "green source"?

"Curmudgeons"? ... heeey I'm not that ancient yet ;)

Reply Score: 2

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

In Brazil the poeple have access to computers with Linux preinstalled and get selled and guess what? they wipe out Linux and install Windows XP.

Reply Score: 2

aGNUstic Member since:
2005-07-28

Probably with the same cracked CD of XP.

Where are your sources or are you deliberately being a gilipollas?

Reply Score: 1

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Probably with the same cracked CD of XP.

And ain't sad they prefer a pirated version than a free version? I wonder why they don't like the free version.

Where are your sources or are you deliberately being a gilipollas?

If will give you the sources if you say please.

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Please :p

Reply Score: 2

aGNUstic Member since:
2005-07-28

LOL. I love OSNews. ;-)

Reply Score: 1

merde Member since:
2007-04-05

And ain't sad they prefer a pirated version than a free version? I wonder why they don't like the free version.


The same reason why people use cracked mIRC (Charset? What's that?) instead free XChat. They don't know any better and everybody around use it. It's a FACT.
It amazes me how often THEY tell me that I have wrong encoding... (In Polish ircnet iso-8859-2 is a standard, not cp-1250 /default encoding in Windows, used by mIRC/).

Reply Score: 1

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"In Brazil the poeple have access to computers with Linux preinstalled and get selled and guess what? they wipe out Linux and install Windows XP."

May I ask if these "Windows XP" are pirated copies?

Reply Score: 2

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Does it matter?

Reply Score: 0

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Does it matter?"

Not to me, I was just curious. Maybe it says something about moral judgement and development of personality... :-)

And, yes, it does matter to MICROS~1, because they don't get money; but they get popularity and propagation, this makes them happy, too. Again more people who believe in needing them...

Reply Score: 2

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

May I ask if these "Windows XP" are pirated copies?

And if those are pirated copies indeed (and we all know they are), then we can say that people rather risk fines and use pirated Windows than free Linux.

Kind of says enough about Linux, does it not?

Reply Score: 2

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"And if those are pirated copies indeed (and we all know they are), then we can say that people rather risk fines and use pirated Windows than free Linux.

Kind of says enough about Linux, does it not?"


No, it does not. In fact, it says "enough" (at least a lot) about those people.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Nope, it says a lot about those persons.

Reply Score: 2

Trollstoi Member since:
2005-11-11

What is an original copy? Never heard of it here in Brazil...

Reply Score: 1

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"What is an original copy? Never heard of it here in Brazil."

I cannot remember to have used such a term, because it's completely nonsense... an original copy... A copy is a copy, not an original. I was just curious if the wiped off Linusi would be replaced with licensed copies (which is the opposite of a pirated copy).

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

In Brazil the poeple have access to computers with Linux preinstalled and get selled and guess what? they wipe out Linux and install Windows XP.


Sources please, otherwise it's only FUD.

Reply Score: 2

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

There are computers with other OS preloaded like Linux and OSX but the market rejects them because in some way they fail to give what the user needs.


--Fixed for spelling and grammar.

You are assuming that:
1.) The market works and does this.
2.) The market has had enough time to do it.

I'll let you have number one since so many people agree with it, but I'd like to see evidence for number two.

Reply Score: 3

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

And how much time do you think the market needs?

Reply Score: 0

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD's is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there."

If you're working long enough in the field of data processing and information technology, you'll soon recognize this law:

The worst solution always prevails.

(In German: Das schlechteste setzt sich durch.)

You can easily figure out the implications of this law. :-)

Furthermore, I'd pay attention to use all-quantified statements including "everyone". Give one contra-example and the claim is proved to be untrue. Applied simple logic. :-)

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

"To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD's is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there."

If you're working long enough in the field of data processing and information technology, you'll soon recognize this law:

The worst solution always prevails.

(In German: Das schlechteste setzt sich durch.)

You can easily figure out the implications of this law. :-)


Heh. I think it needs to be amended to "the worst adequate solution always prevails". Any more releases like Vista and Microsoft are in serious danger of becoming an inadequate solution - witness the complete lack of apps targeted to Vista, for example.

Either that, or the increasing popularity of Linux and Mac shows that they are the worst solution: I can live with that!

Reply Score: 3

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Heh. I think it needs to be amended to "the worst adequate solution always prevails". "

Take the example of media sizes: disks: 8", 5.25", 3.5" (decreasing), CDs: 5.25" again. Alternative: MD (mini discs), safe handling because of cartridge. Did not prevail.

Take the example of the PDs (as the "mother" of DVD-RAMS), coming in a cartridge, hard to destroy data, reliable. Did not prevail.

Take the examples of video tape recorders with automatic indexing and archiving function. Did not prevail.

You can surely get more examples of solutions that were good in fact, but did not make it to the customer because of bad marketing or stupid pricing. On the other hand, you can get examples of crap that made it to the customer for years because of good marketing. :-)

"Any more releases like Vista and Microsoft are in serious danger of becoming an inadequate solution - witness the complete lack of apps targeted to Vista, for example."

It still is to new, I think. Developers would have to spend money again to get a development environment to create "Vista" binaries.

"Either that, or the increasing popularity of Linux and Mac shows that they are the worst solution: I can live with that!"

Oh come on, where's the good and fine oh joy "market share" statement? Neither Mac nor Linux have one! :-)

But I fear, if Linux is getting more and more like some strange MICROS~1 product, it really might get worse... let's see how this tendency develops.

I for myself can always live with the result because I'm not using any MICROS~1 product, any Mac or any Linux (last two ones just for my individual entertainment). :-)

Reply Score: 4

psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

But I fear, if Linux is getting more and more like some strange MICROS~1 product, it really might get worse... let's see how this tendency develops.


Linux is not getting worse at all. There might be some distributions such as Ubuntu that attract Windows people but thankfully there are still distributions like Slackware, Debian, Arch and Gentoo.

And there is always BSD and Solaris too :-)

Reply Score: 1

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Linux is not getting worse at all."

Maybe "worse" was not a good description of what I'd like to mention. Let me say it more verbose: While some aspects of security and ease of use are getting better, other ones are fading. You might consider them not neccessary anymore, obsoleted or unusual, but some of them are intended. In many cases, Linux is far ahead in comparison to its competitors. The mentioned loss of aspects of security and ease of use is one means of making Linux more user friendly, I think.

"There might be some distributions such as Ubuntu that attract Windows people but thankfully there are still distributions like Slackware, Debian, Arch and Gentoo."

Distributions that look (and maybe feel) like "Windows" are Linux's chance to get more usage share (and therefore, maybe oh joy oh market share), that's why I welcome them. They have a certrain group of (potential) users they're targeting at, but I'm convinced there's not "the one Linux of choice". The different distributions may have their advantages and disadvantages, so one has to look and even try which distribution fits best.

"And there is always BSD and Solaris too :-)"

I'm aware of this fact for years now and I am happy to still have the choice what OS to use. :-)

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

"Heh. I think it needs to be amended to "the worst adequate solution always prevails". "

Take the example of media sizes: disks: 8", 5.25", 3.5" (decreasing), CDs: 5.25" again.

3.5" floppies prevaileds. MD's didn't prevail because (a) they weren't enough of an incentive over CD's to switch (most MD's sold, I think, were used for home recording rather than off-the-shelf music) (b) they were single-supplier aka proprietary (c) because of (b) they wree expensive.

Alternative: MD (mini discs), safe handling because of cartridge. Did not prevail.

"Take the example of the PDs (as the "mother" of DVD-RAMS), coming in a cartridge, hard to destroy data, reliable. Did not prevail.


Again, they were more expensive than CDs and less cumbersome.

[qTake the examples of video tape recorders with automatic indexing and archiving function. Did not prevail.
"

Is that a reference to BetaMax? Again, single supplier/higher cost.

"Any more releases like Vista and Microsoft are in serious danger of becoming an inadequate solution - witness the complete lack of apps targeted to Vista, for example."

It still is to new, I think. Developers would have to spend money again to get a development environment to create "Vista" binaries.


True - but then that was also true of DOS, Windows, Win95, WinXP... I don't recall any of those suffering from a dearth of apps at the time of launch, with the possible exception of Windows 3.0.

"Either that, or the increasing popularity of Linux and Mac shows that they are the worst solution: I can live with that!"

Oh come on, where's the good and fine oh joy "market share" statement? Neither Mac nor Linux have one! :-)


Tell that to the people that use the latter in servers...someone also on this site I think made the point that in some areas, Mac marketshare is really very high.

But I fear, if Linux is getting more and more like some strange MICROS~1 product, it really might get worse... let's see how this tendency develops.


I too used to fear that. In fact DIY distros like Debian and Arch seem to be doing just fine.

Reply Score: 2

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Oh come on, where's the good and fine oh joy "market share" statement? Neither Mac nor Linux have one! :-)

Tell that to the people that use the latter in servers...


1. MacOS costs money and you need new computer to run it (legally). And people want Apple hardware too.

2. Linux is free and runs on your existing PC.

Linux then should have much larger market share than Mac. It does not. Why? Because it is crap.

I bet if MacOS was available for $0 and Apple made it legal to run it on any PC, it would have much much higher market share than Linux, it is kind of obvious. Heck, I'd get it too, just for fun.

Edited 2007-04-14 17:19

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Oh come on, where's the good and fine oh joy "market share" statement? Neither Mac nor Linux have one! :-)

Tell that to the people that use the latter in servers...


1. MacOS costs money and you need new computer to run it (legally). And people want Apple hardware too.

2. Linux is free and runs on your existing PC.

Linux then should have much larger market share than Mac. It does not.


Hmm, let's see. 25% of market share on servers and 5% on desktops (Linux) versus 5% on desktops. When I went to school 30% was 6 times higher than 5%. Perhaps if you went to school you should get a refund?

I bet if MacOS was available for $0 and Apple made it legal to run it on any PC, it would have much much higher market share than Linux, it is kind of obvious.


And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. Besides, I doubt it would unless they open-sourced Aqua, which is another thing that isn't going to happen until hell freezes over (again).

Heck, I'd get it too, just for fun.Edited 2007-04-14 17:19


Obviously, then, you enjoy being shafted by proprietary companies. I for one do not share your sexual appetites.

Because it is crap.


Methinks you doth protest too much. Or just confuse Linux with what you come out with here.

Reply Score: 3

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"3.5" floppies prevaileds."

I didn't claim they did not prevail. Now, they are obsoleted; USB storage sticks or SD cards have taken over their function.

"MD's didn't prevail because (a) they weren't enough of an incentive over CD's to switch (most MD's sold, I think, were used for home recording rather than off-the-shelf music) (b) they were single-supplier aka proprietary (c) because of (b) they wree expensive."

(a) up to (d) are the results of bad marketing, I think. In aspects of handling security and usability they were superior to the CD.

"Again, they were more expensive than CDs and less cumbersome."

Expensive, yes, see reasons above. Cumbersome, no, they could be accessed directly (direct access storage device) via standard SCSI or ATA commands and could hold any file system needed (FFS, EXT2, even DOS) or no file system at all (tar).

"Is that a reference to BetaMax? Again, single supplier/higher cost."

No, I didn't talk about BetaMax, I saw this feature on a VHS video tape recorder. Single supplier, yes, closed standards... but a useful feature, don't you think?

"True - but then that was also true of DOS, Windows, Win95, WinXP... I don't recall any of those suffering from a dearth of apps at the time of launch, with the possible exception of Windows 3.0."

This tells a lot about the OS. And I agree, DOS programs could only be run until "Windows ME", I think...?

"Tell that to the people that use the latter in servers...someone also on this site I think made the point that in some areas, Mac marketshare is really very high."

Have you notices ":-)"? It indicates a humous statement. Of course Linux and MacOS have noteable market shares, but in most cases if someone suggests using Linux or MacOS, some MICROS~1 guy comes along and shouts out there's no market share. :-)

MacOS and Linux are still present in niche markets only. The reality shows that this state is changing, and I welcome this development.

I like to introduce the difference between market share and usage share. The first one is connected to money, the second one is not.

"I too used to fear that. In fact DIY distros like Debian and Arch seem to be doing just fine."

What does "DIY" mean? In fact, I like Archlinux and Slackware a lot, but I prefer BSD.

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

OK, let me state my point again, since you seem to have missed it: All the products you quoted failed because they were proprietary and/or too expensive, without offering significant enough benefits over the entrenched ones. The fact that 3.5" floppies (as well as 5.25" ones) are now obsoleted by USB sticks is irrelevant, since USB sticks weren't around when the technologies you quoted were.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
I'm going to steal that comment somebody made just today, because it's so good: To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD's is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there.
"""

An oldie but a goodie. :-) If Operating Systems Were Soup:

http://tinyurl.com/37zz8u

Edited 2007-04-13 18:33

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Hahah! Thankyou, that was hilarious (yes, even the bit about Linux!) 8D. Beats a Youtube Microsoft video any time!

Reply Score: 2

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Linux? Solaris? MacOS X?

I'm going to steal that comment somebody made just today, because it's so good: To say that Windows is the best operating system around because everyone is using it is like saying that MickeyD's is the best restaurant around, because everyone eats there.


Don't forget that both Linux and Solaris are free. Windows is not, it is far from that.

One word: Preloading. I thought SJVN's article was the mark of an ignoramus, but Jeeze.

Even on servers? People that buy servers don't know about alternatives?

Companies that sell desktop PCs, don't know about Linux? They don't know they could preload it?

Yeah, I agree: Jeeze.

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21


Don't forget that both Linux and Solaris are free. Windows is not, it is far from that.


It's effectively "free" with a new computer.

One word: Preloading. I thought SJVN's article was the mark of an ignoramus, but Jeeze.

Even on servers? People that buy servers don't know about alternatives? [/q]

Sonny, Linux is more popular on servers than anything else. In fact the growth rate of Linux on servers is higher than that of Windows.

Companies that sell desktop PCs, don't know about Linux? They don't know they could preload it?


I mean that customers don't know about Linux because companies don't preload it. When you have to completely miss the point in order to make yours, you don't really have one.

Reply Score: 3

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Sonny, Linux is more popular on servers than anything else.

Well, I'm sure Microsoft would like to use that argument in EU. Alas, they can't.

Not really, according to EU comission dealing with Microsoft these days. That is one of the reasons why EU is pressuring MS so hard to deliver the specs on the protocols.

Since 1999, Windows server market share has increased from 35% to around 75% today in the workgroup market.

See it for yourself:
The Commission said Microsoft had a 35 percent 40 percent share of the workgroup server market in 1999 when the EU executive began its investigation. Between 2001 and 2003 that grew to 60 percent, and now Microsoft has 70 to 75 percent of the market.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6169555.html

Reply Score: 1

doctor_shim Member since:
2007-01-17

Microsoft has deals with company's like Dell, Gateway, or Hewlett-Packard so that their latest software is pre-installed with a new PC. That's what gives them the market share. It's not that users are holding on to their seat in anticipation to go out and buy the latest boxed version of their operating-system.

True, some do. But most of the time, they deal with what they got out-of-the-box. If that was untrue, then why don't people go and remove OS X on the new Intel-based Macs, and put Vista on instead? It's because Windows is not a superior product. At one point it was, but no longer is.

Reply Score: 2

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

If that was untrue, then why don't people go and remove OS X on the new Intel-based Macs, and put Vista on instead?

I didn't say nobody uses MacOS or Linux. They do have about (max) 5% of desktop market. You will always have that.

Reply Score: 1

Dear Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
by dylansmrjones on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:17 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

I am sorry, but I fail to see the point of your article. Again.

Reply Score: 5

an article ...
by pandronic on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:18 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

... straight from fantasy land

Reply Score: 4

A cynics view
by ameasures on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:19 UTC
ameasures
Member since:
2006-01-09

>> throw away the billions Microsoft invested into Vista

There was a recent article on OSNEWS by an ex-MS developer saying that his total years output was about 200 lines of code - because of the many layers of management flip flopping on every decision. So the billions invested are partly because they have billions to burn...


>> from a business point of view ...

Microsoft has so much influence on the channels for new machines that this will inevitably be a financially rewarding for them. Apple has definitely lost an initiative with the delays to Leopard.


>> from a technical point of view ...

It is early to say, and there are complex influences. Those that like Windows XP will adjust to like Vista.

One complex issue is that some fast machines that aren't "Vista ready" will be turned over to other operating systems much earlier than would otherwise be the case.

Reply Score: 5

Down with skool
by moleskine on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:37 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Naughty Bill G. Off for another caning from headmaster Steven J. Vaughan Nichols, I see.

Hmmn, Vista may or may not be much good but, hey, let's keep an open mind here. I haven't tried it yet and probably won't for many months or until 2008. But I think I'll form my own judgement on it rather than listen either to the boosters or to the mongers of doom. After all, Vista may turn out to be very good - for me, though maybe not for you. Each to their own.

In the meantime, SJVN is in danger of becoming the John C. Dvorak of open source. He still does post some good and helpful stuff (unlike Dvorak) but boy is it interspersed with rants and nutty pieces (only too like Dvorak). At the moment his two hobby horses of fear and loathing seem to be Debian and Vista. Let go of them, mate. They're only operating systems and by 2012 we may all be using Solaris anyway, for all we know. Life's too short.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Down with skool
by Bully on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:33 UTC in reply to "Down with skool"
Bully Member since:
2006-04-07

Hmmn, Vista may or may not be much good but, hey, let's keep an open mind here. I haven't tried it yet and probably won't for many months or until 2008. But I think I'll form my own judgement on it rather than listen either to the boosters or to the mongers of doom. After all, Vista may turn out to be very good - for me, though maybe not for you. Each to their own.


There are 2 things you already can know about it without testing it yourself.

1) it's to expencive
2) the system requirements are to high.

Enough reason to no bother testing it for yourself.

Reply Score: 1

I just want...............
by Accident on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:41 UTC
Accident
Member since:
2005-07-29

What he was smoking, because that must have been what he was doing when he wrote it.

Reply Score: 3

o_o;
by Almafeta on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:44 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

It's been a while since the latest Microsoft-should-open-source-Windows article

Even the staff of OSnews are making fun of OSnews for reporting on this... wow.

Reply Score: 5

Please dont...
by vasper on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:45 UTC
vasper
Member since:
2005-07-22

Please don't opensource that monster. Not that you could, or would, or needed, or wanted, or thought of it.

You should rush to fix the problems Vista has because at the end of 2007 XP (truly the best OS to have come out of Microsoft's labs) stops shipping with new PCs you will probably see a surge of pirated copies and that's not all. Of course there will be fugitives to Linux and Apple.

Although I only use Windows at work, I would like to see a better Vista. It is to everyones advantage. But if we don't it is of good to no one. Just your pockets for a little while, until people understand the extortion and switch.

Reply Score: 1

Point of the article
by JohnX on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:50 UTC
JohnX
Member since:
2005-11-06

Point of this article is simple: page views.

People hate microsoft and love to read stuff like this, no matter how crazy an article might be.

Everybody's happy: "geeks" get their quick fix not realizing they are being manipulated, article writer gets his ad dollars and "news" aggregators like osnews get thousands of more page views with yet another pointless flame war.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Point of the article
by twenex on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:18 UTC in reply to "Point of the article"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Actually, I take back some of what I said before: Most of the article is good. But that crazy idea that MS will open source the crown jewels - whoa!

(Yes, I realize that in this case the crown jewels are made of cubic zirconia and paste!)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Point of the article
by Jon Dough on Sat 14th Apr 2007 09:07 UTC in reply to "Point of the article"
Jon Dough Member since:
2005-11-30

You're right, of course. I could see from the title of the article that it was a troll. Since I expected it would hook many readers into posting some knee-jerk reaction, I had to peruse the comments. I was not disappointed.

Reply Score: 2

Failure
by sb56637 on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:52 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

Millions of copies sold at hundreds of dollars each is now considered a "failure" from a "business point of view"? I want a business failure like that!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Failure
by gonzalo on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:34 UTC in reply to "Failure"
gonzalo Member since:
2005-07-06

Mmmm... invest a couple of billion dollars. Sell a couple of million copies at a couple hundred bucks.

You'd really want that?


P.S. Not saying Vista only sold a couple of million copies or that they invested 2 billion dollars either. Just saying beware of vague figures and consider what they invested to argue if it's a failure or not ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Failure
by sb56637 on Sat 14th Apr 2007 01:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Failure"
sb56637 Member since:
2006-05-11

>>Mmmm... invest a couple of billion dollars. Sell a couple of million copies at a couple hundred bucks.

You'd really want that?
>>

No I would not! You're right, I didn't think about the development investment. But let's not forget that Vista has only been publicly released for a few months, I'm fairly sure it will rapidly increase its market share whether it's a piece of junk or not.

Reply Score: 1

Huh boy
by samad on Fri 13th Apr 2007 17:57 UTC
samad
Member since:
2006-03-31

Open source is good for things like Linux because emphasis is on good design and engineering. Open source is bad for things like Vista because emphasis is on market profitability. The author wrongly assumes Vista's emphasis is good design.

Edited 2007-04-13 17:59

Reply Score: 5

RE: Huh boy
by twenex on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:02 UTC in reply to "Huh boy"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Open source is good for things like Linux because emphasis is on good design and engineering. Open source is bad for things like Vista because emphasis is on market profitability. The author wrongly assumes Vista's emphasis is good design.Edited 2007-04-13 17:59


Quite correct. (of you)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Huh boy
by melkor on Sat 14th Apr 2007 11:20 UTC in reply to "Huh boy"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

That's why closed source software will never compete - the marketing types just don't understand the technical things, they just want a pretty thing that sounds good, and will sell and make lots of money.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

I did like the article
by eantoranz on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:01 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

Of course... to ask to open source Vista is just wishfull thinking... but the article is a nice condensation of many things that are wrong with Vista (with hyperlinks and all). I'd point that article to my Microsoft-loving friends (I just did, by the way) so they can get the picture (horrible picture, dare I say) of Vista.

Reply Score: 5

RE: I did like the article
by ralph on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:19 UTC in reply to "I did like the article"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Wow. Finally someone who understood the article.

It's an article about how vista is a failure and about how this shows that open source is a better way to develop software.

The call to open source vista is just the rhetorical icing on the cake.

Reply Score: 5

Who would work on it?
by rayiner on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:08 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

An open-source Vista would be pointless. At this point, I don't think anybody outside of Microsoft could even maintain the bottomless pit of complexity that is the Windows source base.

Windows now contains over 50 million lines of code. Judging from how long it took to get Vista out the door, its apparently not even maintainable by their tens of thousands of programmers who are intimately familiar with the system. Heck, Microsoft could probably open source it without any worry of people stealing their ideas. I mean, who'd ever be able to find anything in there?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Don't get it
by Kochise on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:26 UTC
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

@jessta : "it does suck.
but it would probably suck less if some modifications could be made."

If Vista needs to be open-sourced for improvement, why not yet focusing on improving Linux first which is open-source for far longer ? Vista "sucks" but obviously you can't get it out of your head...

Kochise

Reply Score: 1

What is he on?
by lopisaur on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:28 UTC
lopisaur
Member since:
2006-02-27

Lately I'm coming to the conclusion that SJVN has been smoking crack. And quite a lot.
Open-sourcing Vista. Yeah, right.

Reply Score: 1

Microsoft Windows Vista is now open...
by systyrant on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:33 UTC
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

for business, but the code remains closed.

I have to agree with most of the other post in saying that it's not even a pipe dream.

I think Microsoft should "give away" Windows and sell support and such, but asking them to open source Windows is like asking the open source community to close source their stuff. Simply put... it ain't gonna happen.

On the off chance Microsoft did actually open source Windows it would at least give some credibility to that notion that open source code makes it easier for hacker to find exploits. (Which is why I'm amazed that Windows ever gets hacked... being closed source and all.) ;)

Reply Score: 1

In Related News...
by fretinator on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:36 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

* Churches stop taking offerings, switch to ad-supported model

* Bears discovered using public facilities

* Pope declares he's actually Episcopalian

* RMS on cover of G.Q.

Reply Score: 1

Open-source Windows...
by Almafeta on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:42 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

The day Windows goes open-source is the day I switch to SkyOS. (I already have the disc just in case.)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Open-source Windows...
by fretinator on Fri 13th Apr 2007 19:22 UTC in reply to "Open-source Windows..."
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

The day Windows goes open-source is the day I switch to SkyOS. (I already have the disc just in case.)


Don't worry, I hear Dell will be offering it pre-installed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Open-source Windows...
by Almafeta on Fri 13th Apr 2007 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Open-source Windows..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Don't worry, I hear Dell will be offering it (SkyOS) pre-installed.


Holy potatoes!

Are you serious? If so, then I'm buying a Dell... where have you heard this?

Edited 2007-04-13 19:49 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Open-source Windows...
by fretinator on Fri 13th Apr 2007 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open-source Windows..."
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, I was kidding. BUT...

I hope that is the kind of choice we have soon. Dell is trying the waters with Linux. Who knows, users may someday have a lot more choices. However, the whole support thing would have to be worked out. This may be one of the ways some of these communities can make a living - by offering support for their product to customers of OEM's like Dell. That way the OEM doesn't have to have technicians on staff for all the OS's they offer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Open-source Windows...
by Almafeta on Fri 13th Apr 2007 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open-source Windows..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

I doubt any major computer company is going to outsource support again anytime soon. Look at the recent India debacle -- using outsourced support resulted in a loss of quality most of the time, with resulting losses in reputation and business.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Open-source Windows...
by fretinator on Fri 13th Apr 2007 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Open-source Windows..."
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

You have a good point there! However, I just can't imagine Dell technicians getting up to speed on Linux (or other OS's). In this instance, I would see Dell as selling the laptop, but the user (as part of their purchase) would also be buying support from the creator of the OS - Novell, Redhat or Canonical (creator of Ubuntu). The contract would be between the user and the creator of the OS. Of course, the problem would be if Dell thinks something is Novell's fault, and Novell says something is Dell's fault.

Edit - changed Suse to Novell, since it is the company.

Edited 2007-04-13 21:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Open-source Windows...
by Silent_Seer on Sat 14th Apr 2007 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Open-source Windows..."
Silent_Seer Member since:
2007-04-06

LOL, ow shucks, I was hoping Dell would pre-install Haiku first. Maybe even Syllable......! No dearth of competitors to Windows.

Reply Score: 1

Real point of article
by JeffS on Fri 13th Apr 2007 18:54 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

I very seriously doubt that SJVN really thinks that Vista would ever be open sourced, or was even very serious about his suggestion.

The real point of the article is three-fold:

1) As has already been pointed out, page hits, which leads to, more importantly ...

2) Pointing out Vista's very very very serious flaws, and how MS's empire of desktop OS monopoly is gradually crumbling, and to further espouse ...

3) The open source vs proprietary development models - that the open source is superior for fixing bugs and security holes.

Sometimes, SJVN can seem to off the deep end, and a total fanboy. But his pieces are usually well though out, and well backed up with lot's links. Thus, I think he's too smart to think Vista could ever be open sourced, or to seriously suggest that.

He's just making an extreme statement in order to make more serious, and quite valid, points.

So get over it, folks.

Edited 2007-04-13 18:55

Reply Score: 4

Open source Windows?
by TaterSalad on Fri 13th Apr 2007 19:14 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft has an army of programmers that understand how an operating system works. They employ about 70,000 people. I understand not all of them are programmers but I'm sure a fair number are. But if Microsoft were to open source Windows who is going to look through the millions of lines of code with a good understanding?

Microsoft has teams to work on individual parts of the OS. Open source programmers are capable of working on an OS but do they really have the resources to do it? Outside of the core linux and bsd developers the rest are application developers. The core teams are small compared to what Microsoft employs.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Open source Windows?
by rajj on Fri 13th Apr 2007 19:36 UTC in reply to "Open source Windows?"
rajj Member since:
2005-07-06

I think 70,000 people is well beyond the negative return threshold. Having more people is a liability not an asset.

Reply Score: 2

OS vs. websites?
by Darkelve on Fri 13th Apr 2007 19:46 UTC
Darkelve
Member since:
2006-02-06

I don't know about programming and operating systems... but I know when I have to develop, work on, or work with a website, I prefer a clean, standards-based website over a mass of table hacks and transparent pixels any day!

So actually, I'm not sure that Linux programmers (Linux end-users usually aren't going to program anyway, that's a silly argument) would be so happy to have the 'pleasure' working on Vista?

Reply Score: 2

keep it
by kiddo on Fri 13th Apr 2007 19:59 UTC
kiddo
Member since:
2005-07-23

hmm. Although this idea seems like the uttmost nonsense to me and I don't see Microsoft doing anything like that in their entire corporate life (they will die before that... unless they survive past 2100)... If, in some alternate dimension, that was ever to happen...

Part of me would like to say "no thanks, you can keep it".

Reply Score: 2

Easy
by cjcox on Fri 13th Apr 2007 20:08 UTC
cjcox
Member since:
2006-12-21

Also, play the guitar on the moon while underwater breathing in pure chocolate with a large rapid snake wrapped around your pinky toe and singing the words to the Zimbabwe National Athem backwards in pig latin while chewing on 22 carat diamonds taken from heart of Mt. Colima.

It could happen!

Reply Score: 0

oversimplified
by trenchsol on Fri 13th Apr 2007 20:13 UTC
trenchsol
Member since:
2006-12-07

First, letter should be addressed to Mr. Balmer, not to Bill Gates.

Microsoft will make profit from Vista, so they are not motivated to opensource it. As long as there is money in it, MS will keep things the way they are.

They could fix the flaws, if they realy wanted to. I think that their OS is just good enough to bring them profit. Higher quality would mean higher costs. The quality of Windows is just above the acceptable limit. It is not good enogh for me, but seems to be good enough for the majority of consumers.

Bugs in Open Source software are not always fixed promptly. I would not like to mention names, but there are people on ego trips that take an idea of bugs and flaws in their software as a personal insult. I remeber once the other person fixed a bug and he was called a thief by the author.

Hints: well known email software and network adapter driver. Some of you will probably recognize what is it about.

In the end, it might be just my personal opininion, but, if I wanted Windows, I would use them, Open Source or not.

Reply Score: 1

Impossible
by MikeekiM on Fri 13th Apr 2007 21:31 UTC
MikeekiM
Member since:
2005-11-16

Microsoft, the least technical solution in almost all markets, maintances it's market position by secrecy, blocking api's and backroom deals. Open sourceing Microsoft OS would allow the User Base to FIX all the BLOCKING tech Microsoft has implemented.

Meaning, greater interop and an easier market for competetion.

So, yes, I'm for it. But, will it happen? Not a chance.

Reply Score: 1

It will never happens
by TruongNinh on Fri 13th Apr 2007 21:34 UTC
TruongNinh
Member since:
2007-04-13

Until David Copperfield "open-source" his magic trick, Bill Gates will never do. He will take vista source code with him to grave, well encrypted it with TrueCrypt might be.

Reply Score: 1

Gullible Jones
Member since:
2006-05-23

It hasn't happened, it isn't happening, and it's never going to happen.

If moaning that Jobs should open-source OSX is useless, I don't even want to think about how utterly worthless this effort is.

Reply Score: 0

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

What is Darwin then ?

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

What is Darwin then ?

The crippled, bastard stepchild of OS X*? You don't get Aqua with Darwin, do you (rhetorical question). Indeed, seems to me that interest in Darwin has declined recently.

*Not that I have anything against crippled stepchildren, seeing as I am one. Or bastards - in the technical sense (which I ain't).

Reply Score: 2

why
by nivenh on Fri 13th Apr 2007 21:39 UTC
nivenh
Member since:
2005-07-06

why is open-source always touted as the magic bullet solution to [insert your problem here]?

vista isn't doing well because it creates just as many or more problems for the average person than it actually solves. i don't think open sourcing it would resolve those problems any faster than if MS were to just admit its problems and address those issues themselves.

they've invested too much in anti OSS hype and the "vista is doing great!" hype to turn back now. and while the typical (i hope) human can see mistakes they've made and be open about making them, corporations typically can't lest their finances suffer.

the only question left is.. why on earth did i spend time replying to this article... [ponder]

Reply Score: 1

Good Article
by ghostdawg on Sat 14th Apr 2007 00:42 UTC
ghostdawg
Member since:
2005-12-31

From my experience I can say I know of a few people who have bought a used PC with no OS pre-installed, then call me to help them set it up. When I get to their house, they say they want Windows installed and I ask if they bought it. Of course not, they thought I would supply it. I tell them I don't have it either and then offer to install Linux.

Most of these people are not tech savvy and once I install linux, their pretty much satisfied because all they want to do is surf, email and maybe know how to write a letter or whatnot.

Reply Score: 2

Since we're in fantasy-land.....
by Phloptical on Sat 14th Apr 2007 00:45 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

How about Microsoft taking a page out of Apple's book and opening up the kernel while keeping a hold on the UI "eye-candy", if you can call it that.

Of course we all know this article is nothing more than to stir controversy, and Microsoft will never allow anything like this to happen. It's about control and predatory business tactics.

Reply Score: 1

Who wants shit on a stick?
by Wowbagger on Sat 14th Apr 2007 06:06 UTC
Wowbagger
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why not turn it over to people who have shown time after time that they can deliver the goods?


Apple? Why would they even need that pile of bugs and bloat?

Reply Score: 1

nice idea
by roger64 on Sat 14th Apr 2007 07:18 UTC
roger64
Member since:
2006-08-15

I think this proposal is very valuable. Every good citizen on earth should take care of poor ailing Vista.
I wonder why Microsoft would oppose such a shining idea.
Simply brillant.

Reply Score: 1

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
by h3rman on Sat 14th Apr 2007 07:29 UTC
h3rman
Member since:
2006-08-09

What's with the J, Mr. Nichols?

Mumbo Jumbo?
Steve the Jester?
Steven the Linux Jingo?

You give the FLOSS world a bad name.
Why don't you discuss how Ubuntu's, Fedora's, Mandriva's betas are doing? How about some talk on under the hood technology? Is that too technical? Some previews on what's new (no, I don't mean screen shots).

Microsoft is irrelevant to us.
Leave them alone.

Edited 2007-04-14 07:30

Reply Score: 3

v !@#$%
by methodguy on Sat 14th Apr 2007 08:01 UTC
So what if it was upen-source
by dwave on Sat 14th Apr 2007 08:10 UTC
dwave
Member since:
2006-09-19

It would still suck and therefor I wouldn't use it.
But yes, I agree with the author that at some point Microsoft will have to give up on his hous brand to stay competitive. The rest of the article is just stating the obvious: That Vista is a disappoinment for many - nothing new here.

Reply Score: 1

Thanks for the quote, Tom :)
by Googol on Sat 14th Apr 2007 11:10 UTC
Googol
Member since:
2006-11-24

... spares me reading the article, very sensible of you. Anybody who fails to see that Vista CANNOT fail because in a few month time it comes preinstalled on just about any PC that would have shipped XP otherwise is a lunatic. Where is the business failure in that? MS is doing fantastic for they get bashed for their crappy software since the DOS days.
Having said that, I can hand-count the times W2K crashed on me in many years and the same is true for XP in 2,5 years. I won't make the switch to Vista though, all good things have to come to an end eventually ;)

Reply Score: 1

As if that would work
by robilad on Sat 14th Apr 2007 14:17 UTC
robilad
Member since:
2006-01-02

Even if Microsoft, after some impossible event, decided to release Vista under an Open Source license, there is a very small chance that there would be many unpaid volunteers who actually understand enough of Windows code base to be able to make major improvements to it. It's neither the way things are done in the Windows ecosystem, nor would the tens of millions of lines of code be very accessible to newcomers.

Reply Score: 1

VistaBSD
by happycamper on Sat 14th Apr 2007 15:04 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

I think MS should open source Vista under the BSD license, since
99% of windows vista code comes form FreeBSD.

Edited 2007-04-14 15:06

Reply Score: 0

Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

Look at Codeplex*, Microsoft's competitor to Sourceforge and Freshmeat. They hardly get any traffic.

If Microsoft were to go open-source, they'd start with their own first-party site, perhaps inviting specific teams to work on specific parts of the Windows engine. But if they can't get their own open-source software to work, there's no reason to expect them to make Windows open-source.

* http://www.codeplex.com/

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I think that's the first thing you've written that I agree with.

Reply Score: 2

Windows XP sucked at the beginning
by theosib on Sat 14th Apr 2007 19:50 UTC
theosib
Member since:
2006-03-02

I remember when XP first came out and everyone way talking about how they were never going to upgrade. Windows 2000 was great, and XP sucked.

Well, it did. Compared to 2000, there were lots of proplems with XP that had to be ironed out. After several years of bug fixes, Microsoft managed to eliminate many of the stability problems and turn XP into not an excellent but reasonable desktop OS, comparable to, say, what you get from Ubuntu right now.

Vista is Microsoft's attempt to play catch-up with MacOS X Tiger. And after a few service packs, they may get there, at least on the surface. Microsoft isn't interested enough in good engineering to actually try to complete with MacOS at all levels. Fortunately for them, most users of Windows don't understand or care about the difference; they just want to use MS Office and see pretty animations. Of course, by the time Vista's all fixed up, circa service pack 2, Leopard will be old news.

But that's the way of the tech industry. Microsoft plays catch-up to Apple, and everyone else plays catch-up to Microsoft. Basically, they all suck, and Vista isn't really any kind of sore thumb here... it's just another beta-quality OS that just happens to be new, so it's getting a lot of attention.

It seems to me that people spend way too much time screwing around, complaining about Microsoft. They are what they are, a monopolistic giant of a good-idea-imitator. There are better things that people can do with their time, such as identifying the problems with Free Software operating systems like GNU/Linux and FIXING them. Of course, they don't, and that gives Microsoft more time to catch up.

It's much easier to complain than to actually DO something.

Reply Score: 1

psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

I remember when XP first came out and everyone way talking about how they were never going to upgrade. Windows 2000 was great, and XP sucked.


Well I used 2000 for 18 months and it wasn't until SP2 that it didn't suffer from the most stupid bugs I had seen since abandoning 98.

My intention was to go to Linux after 98 but SUSE didn't really work on my hardware and I didn't know enough about it at that time to fix it. So 2000 was my refuge from a horribly unstable Windows 98 experience until I got Linux working the way I wanted.

I first dipped my toes in the water with Mandrake 8.1/8.2. Mandrake 9.0 has very big performance problems. So in 2002 when Red Hat released version 8 I switched to that.

The Xft support made the system usable for my family as well. Then having gone through Red Hat 9 and Fedora Core 1 I landed onto Slackware Linux in 2003 and have been using that ever since.

It seems to me that people spend way too much time screwing around, complaining about Microsoft. They are what they are, a monopolistic giant of a good-idea-imitator. There are better things that people can do with their time, such as identifying the problems with Free Software operating systems like GNU/Linux and FIXING them. Of course, they don't, and that gives Microsoft more time to catch up.

It's much easier to complain than to actually DO something.


I have been doing exactly that for the last few years. I am of the opinion that many distributions are patching too much unnecessarily so it could also be something like "don't patch/fix what isn't broken".

Unsatisfied with any system before I have settled on Slackware Linux and am building packages for it to make it a complete system usable for end-users. I also contribute to Slackware/Armedslack development.

My friends, relatives and customers are very happy because they get a stable, fast and complete system that doesn't require any maintenance to keep running unlike their previous Windows eXPerience.

Edited 2007-04-14 20:11

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

It seems to me that people spend way too much time screwing around, complaining about Microsoft. They are what they are, a monopolistic giant of a good-idea-imitator. There are better things that people can do with their time, such as identifying the problems with Free Software operating systems like GNU/Linux and FIXING them. Of course, they don't, and that gives Microsoft more time to catch up.


Have you been tracking the progress of Linux desktop distros recently? Indeed, the progress of Linux itself is phenomenal compared to that of Windows.

It's much easier to complain than to actually DO something.

Particularly when you have no control over the way the software is developed and/or packaged...

Reply Score: 2

What?
by bullethead on Sun 15th Apr 2007 17:41 UTC
bullethead
Member since:
2005-07-10

What a load of bullshit.

Reply Score: 1

Naive
by funny_irony on Mon 16th Apr 2007 05:01 UTC
funny_irony
Member since:
2007-03-07

It is naive to believe that open source Vista is the solution to all problems. It is easier to dump Vista and rewrote all MS applications for Linux.

Reply Score: 1