OSNews

+1

Linux as a decent and usable desktop has been around for...What? Maybe 2 years? Not more than that. But now more and more people try it out and become converts.

not entirely...

It depends or your perspective. I first got into Linux with RedHat 5.2 It was far prettier (enlightenment etc), more powerful and faster than Windows 98. It pretty much equaled if not bettered Windows 2000 at the time. BeOS was nice too back then but didnt seem so well supported.

Then Windows XP came out and suddenly to joe user Linux looked old graphically speaking and since then aesthetically has been going downhill. That at least was the case until Kwin, Beryl, Compiz and 'enter your current flavour here' came out and suddenly its up there on par with Vista and MacOS X.

I think the pretty eye candy is bringing people back to Linux (that and the poor adoption of Vista) and I hate to piss off you hardcore command line users but until the system is aesthetically pleasing then that will always be the case. In 'Joe users' eyes if it look powerful then it is powerful

Yes, the eye-candy is what made me adopt Linux (who wants an ugly desktop anyway, like the early days of Gnome, remember?). Not many years ago, default desktops weren't eye-candy. I would say the first eye-candy distro has been Ubuntu. And it's been a success.

"Yes, the eye-candy is what made me adopt Linux (who wants an ugly desktop anyway, like the early days of Gnome, remember?). Not many years ago, default desktops weren't eye-candy. I would say the first eye-candy distro has been Ubuntu. And it's been a success."

No fanboi, Ubuntu wasn't the first eye-candy distro. Novel's SLED Desktop 10.0 was the first distribution to provide (and have enabled by default) Compiz and XGL. SLED 10 was also the first distribution to sport the innovative SLAB menu and Gnome control center. Even Mandriva was first with Metisse, an innovative alternative to 3D desktops. Ubuntu didn't adopt these innovations until much later. And, while we're on the topic of Ubuntu's so called eye candy, need I remind you that Ubuntu still sports craptacular brown wallpapers and garish orange icons by default. If one wants to see what Ubuntu could look like if done right, then look no further than Linux Mint.

Edited 2007-11-24 00:33

I am shooting from the hip here, but I don't think the success of Ubuntu was due to some superior eye-candy.

For me I don't really care what a distro's default theme looks like as long as it has solid package management.

When Ubuntu became popular most of the 'Desktop Distros' (Mandrake, Fedora, SuSE etc.) were RPM based.

Who remembers manually installing RPM's one by one searching out and installing 5 or 10 dependency RPM's?

RPM was improving but still wasn't great (urpmi -xx *).

Gentoo had a decent package manager but the installer was not "grandma friendly" and it took a long time to compile stuff.

Debian had a solid packaging system but was not as polished as some of the RPM based distros. It was a sleeper and I wish I would have used it earlier, but I didn't.

Enter Ubuntu> The refinement was there, it had an installer that worked, and most importantly the Debian packaging system and huge repository means no more messing with that nightmare of my childhood that is rpm.

I know the rpm distros have improved (I tried Fedora 8), but I like Ubuntu.

And yes, it used to frustrate me that when using many other distros I would have to Google and search through forums for obvious things like getting Macromedia flash or Java working.

ubuntuguide.org is nearly perfectly executed and I attribute at least a small portion of Ubuntu's success to the ease of that web site.

Edited 2007-11-24 02:36

Now, I'm not going to argue that it's grandma friendly. But a 'decent' package manager? I absolutely love portage. Sure, compile times are long, but if you look at what portage's goal was (maximum flexibility), it's absolutely fantastic at that.

"One definition for "eye candy" is "something that is most remarkable for its visual appeal." Therefore, I believe my references to Novell's innovative SLAB menu and control center for Gnome are valid arguments"

Considering the similarities between the XP start menu and the Slab menu, I doubt that you can call it innovative. Useful, sure, innovative, no.

It's a shame. I actually think Xubuntu's default themes are the best of the *buntu's. I never liked Ubuntu's default theme.

"Ubuntu still sports craptacular brown wallpapers and garish orange icons by default".

I love the dark brown and dark orange look and feel. It's warn and feels good.

"look no further than Linux Mint"

This is how it looks like: http://linuxmint.com/img/screenshots/celena/1024/mintassistant.png

I'm not thrilled by the colors.

"No fanboi"

Ah! A Mint fanboy!

As the GP said, it's all about perspective. The breaking point of the migration for me was discovering the Blackbox+bbkeys combo on Linux, under X. It did what Gnome and KDE couldn't, it made me switch and stay switched. Granted, it wasn't their merit alone, a lot of things and apps in the Linux ecosystem contributed, but it was a sort of catalyst. So for some people it's performance, not eye candy, that matters.

My first linux was slack 7 in 2000. coming from a mac background, I was seriously fed up with windows, and so was really open to alternative operating systems. I remember printing out the slack book and binding it in a local copy shop. That, and the linux newbie administrator guide were my bibles. IMHO, slack is the best distro to learn on, because it has very little distro specific stuff to get dependant on.

Anyways, all that to say, eye candy is the last thing that attracted me to linux. It was the alpha-geekness.

When I went to upgrade from RH 4.2 to 5.0 on my then-dual-boot home machine, I realized I had not booted Windows 95 for over a year. I wiped out the Windows partition, installed RH5.0, and haven't looked back. (I have been using Mandrake/Mandriva for the last 5 or 6 years)...

I think you are strongly oversimplifying. With Beryl/Compiz Linux already looks much better than Vista and has eye candy that Vista can only dream about. But i wouldn't care if it looked like CDE. What is missing for me are special interest Apps or at least some basic compatibility with Windows Apps (which wine still does not offer and - i get the feeling - probably never will).

Now i hear you saying: "But special interest apps are only important to a minority!" The problem is, most of the minorities aren't served now and many minorities do add up. Right now, Linux is uninteresting to the gamers, video editors, musicians, cg artist, etc.
That is imho the reason Linux hasn't taken over an significant desktop share on the home desktop. We will see whether or not that is ever going to change.

I agree with you Alleister. I love Compiz and find it to be far more than "eyecandy." It's task switching ability is far better than Vista's "flip3d" which requires one to take their hands off the keyboard and click an icon in order to flip through them - one may as well just click which app they want while they're down there instead.

However another kill-app I have is media center ability and MythTV has a long long way to go before it comes close to media center, even after one gets beyond the titanic sized un-user friendlyness.

Try Ctrl+Win+Tab.

Unfortunately people have been pushing Linux on the desktop for more than 2 years.

Before the flame war begins, I would like to just point something out. If this is the same study commissioned by Kace, yes you definitely need to take this with a grain of salt...a very large grain the size of a watermelon. Nobody, at least with any credibility does online surveys. The reason being is obvious, first and foremost is you have to insure that respondent A is who they say they are. You must also insure that respondent A does not answer for respondents A, B, and C. I unfortunately see these online polls and surveys used way too much these days. People seem to have a blind
faith in the internet. I can go on and on listing all the faults done on this. For years I have been associated with such research. In college I worked for a market research firm some 18 years ago. Now, through association a good share of my clients are research firms. The most any have ever used for online tools is to recruit people to take part in focus groups where a controlled environment can be maintained.

Before certain people start ranting on and on, I would strongly advise them to look in the archives circa 2001 at what was said about XP, and before that Win2k. I happened to have been around when NT 3.5/4.0 was pushed to replace 3.11. I also happen to remember quite a few people saying that nobody is going to switch to NT.

This has nothing to do with the merits or lack there of for Vista, simply that any time a new OS such as this is released there is always going to be this backlash and hesitation towards adoption. What does need to be said is more how people are currently viewing XP. 99.9% of our clients have no interest in Vista simply for one reason; they have absolutely no reason to upgrade. XP is perfect for them. But the thought that businesses are going to simply move to either OSX or Linux is laughable at best. The only way this will EVER happen is twofold. Windows has to truly come out with something unusable, and the competition has to come out with something that is beyond exceptional so that there is simply no choice in the matter. This is how the real world works, as it does with just about any marketplace. While fanboys may already see Linux as being the closest thing to GOD, and Windows as the devil, mind you the majority of people in this world do not share these beliefs.

Best example here is to take a look at AMD vs. Intel. For some time AMD produced a better quality, lower cost, higher performing CPU, yet consider the struggle to gain marketshare. Yet CPUs are interchangeable. I can take any desktop and replace the Intel with an AMD and it will still run the same applications. The same can not be said for an OS. It is not to say that alternative from Windows can not be introduced into the workplace, we do this all the time replacing certain services with Linux over Windows where Linux is a better option. But merely replacing Apache for IIS for a website that is not done in ASP is one thing, to replace Exchange and the corresponding desktop OS and applications is another. While there certainly will be some companies over the years that may transition, the actual percentage point will remain quite low for some time to come for good reason.

People here will in the end just see what they want to see out of this. While I personally and professionally have seen no reason for Vista adoption, the reasons being are based on the judgment that there simply is no need at this time, anymore than there is a need for new hardware to replace SCA with SAS. Others are certainly going to use this as ammunition, they are welcome to it, but this does not mean they are any wiser for it.

"Unfortunately people have been pushing Linux on the desktop for more than 2 years".

There's a difference between pushing a shiny and mature Linux distro to the public and pushing a distro that is not ready for the masses. Remember how long it used to take to customize your Linux distro after a fresh install to have samba, codecs, plugins, fonts, Java, Flash, to mount your USB flash drive, to mount your floppy drive, etc... Now all this is done so much easier.

"The only way this will EVER happen is twofold. Windows has to truly come out with something unusable, and the competition has to come out with something that is beyond exceptional so that there is simply no choice in the matter. This is how the real world works, as it does with just about any marketplace."

That's not how a marketplace works, but a place where the market doesn't work.

If one product has to be a total failure and the competing product has to be exceptional for it to get more market share, this is simply a perfect case of market failure.

I certainly agree with you though that the hurdles to a more widespread adoption of Linux are much higher than most people seem to think. But then again, there are some developments mentioned in the article, that might help linux adoption. Very low cost computers like the eee, Android, etc.
But maybe that's just the fanboy in me talking here.

Bingo!

A market cannot function if switching between the available products is prohibitively expensive or if they cannot be seen as direct replacements for one another.

No matter how much money and talent any competitor pours into it, Microsoft will always be the dominant platform vendor in the desktop market. The only event that can defeat Microsoft is the emergence a new class of client devices that challenges the prevailing notion of the "desktop".

In a sense, Microsoft defined the desktop to mean Windows. Any PC that doesn't run Windows isn't really a desktop, it's a Mac or a Linux box (or whatever). It's not the same thing, and anybody expecting it to be so is bound to be disappointed.

When consumers and businesses decide that they don't want to use desktops (or laptops), but rather handsets, palmtops, thin clients, set-top boxes, and closet servers, then Microsoft's choke-hold will begin to disappear.

I have to challenge your conclusion there. As you've probably seen, there's no end user computing field that Microsoft doesn't try to wiggle into. Handhelds included. So moving to a different platform type is in no way a guarantee that Microsoft won't follow (or that it's not already there).

No, what will challenge Microsoft will be enough consumers saying "enough is enough". By that I mean stopping using Microsoft products because they don't like poor quality, lock-in, attempted user control, and because they can find alternatives. And yes, it happens all the time.

Agreed. I'm not arguing that moving to new client roles dooms Microsoft's efforts to continue their dominance. But any change in market expectations opens the door for real competition, and free software platforms are well-positioned to give Microsoft a real run for its money.

Microsoft could very well end up winning the handset market even though Linux seems to be on the right track. It's a matter of execution, bringing the capabilities and resources of the free software community and its commercial partners to bear on these new challenges. It won't be a cakewalk, but it won't be fighting windmills like targeting the Windows desktop market.

I'm particularly disturbed by Windows Home Server, which should be the kind of post-PC turnkey appliance at which free software excels. Someone like Dell or Everex (or recent gPC fame) ought to start marketing a Linux-based headless network storage appliance. These should be selling like hotcakes at Wal-Mart.

I think that some scrappy startup ought to set up shop in Detroit and figure out how to get Linux-based touchscreen consoles into the dashboards of trendy, Gen-Y-oriented concept cars. The auto industry has got to be a huge untapped market for personal computing.

But if alternative platforms don't seize these opportunities, Microsoft will end up winning markets that are actually and practically up for grabs.

I'm not so sure that kind of innovation is going to come from the U.S. What with patents and Microsoft running the politics there a startup may have a very difficult time indeed.

The handset market is not that different from the desktop market where quality of Microsoft products is concerned. It's just that Microsoft haven't put a hold on it so far, and since Google got involved it looks like they might miss the train.

CE is quite crappy, if you'll pardon my French, and the software available is greatly restricted by closed source and the particular handheld architecture you get. At some point you're stuck with a rather small set of applications, with big gaps of functionality all over the place. This while embedded Linux distributions bring virtually all the FOSS software to handhelds or routers lucky enough to run them. Let me tell you, the moment I can install Linux on a handheld, I do it. Because once you're spoiled to the rich choices Linux offers it's hard to be content with Windows CE.

"Before the flame war begins, I would like to just point something out. If this is the same study commissioned by Kace, yes you definitely need to take this with a grain of salt...a very large grain the size of a watermelon."

LOL
Yep, its that same Kace "study" all right.

Before certain people start ranting on and on, I would strongly advise them to look in the archives circa 2001 at what was said about XP, and before that Win2k.

I know the dogma. Sources at that time complained about the new OS being resource hungry. People complained about windows XP, about XP consuming a considerable amount of memory.

With every successor in the MS line-up the hardware requirements increased.

The question is, is it inevitable? Is it an (un)written law that any new OS release requires a hardware upgrade?

Maybe not. Windows 7 seems to be aiming for a leaner Kernel than previous versions of Windows.

Normally I'd agree with you, but I think you're wrong in this case. Check the article here:

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5118924882.html

From the article:

"The survey group was not self-selected. Instead, an independently selected group of IT professionals from small, midsize and large organizations were e-mailed and invited to participate in the Web survey in November 2007."

The KACE survey should therefore not be considered invalid simply on the basis that it was done online. I see a lot of skepticism here from the usual bunch of Microsoft apologists, but really the KACE survey doesn't surprise me. I have yet to meet a single person around me (IT people and/or non-techies) who is enthusiastic about Vista, or looking forward to installing it.

It is a well-known rhetorical tactic to never acknowledge mistakes and always present failure as successes. I think this is what the MS apologists are doing now, however it's plain to everyone that doesn't have a strong opinion on the matter that Vista has failed to "wow" the masses, and that this is a good opportunity for alternative operating systems.

Depends on whom you ask.

MY year of the Linux desktop was somewhen 2000/2001.
It was the time I started doing everything but gaming on Linux, and I started having an "install and play" experience with my hardware and Linux.

Prior to that it was mostly out of interest and curiosity that I fiddeled around with linux.

Since then, more and more stumbling blocks have been removed from the installation and configuration path. Today I would expect that probably 30 - 50% of the home systems work with Linux either out of the box, or with minimum configuring work in a graphical configuring dialog. So it is definitely worth a try, life CDs are a fine thing there.

My aunt bought a brand new computer this summer with Windows Vista Home edition on it. She called because it was running extremely slow. Whenever I ran the Vista compatibility test, it scored a 2. Why on earth would anyone sell a system, that the OS that comes with it, would only register a 2? If they system is a low end system, then it should at least come with XP instead.

I know what you mean.. I was searching for a $300-$400 budget PC for my parents, and a lot of these machines had 512MB and came with Vista.

It is unfortunate that many of these PCs are coming with Linux (which virtually nobody wants) or Vista. If you're gonna sell a budget PC, at least offer it with XP. Selling PCs that are pre-loaded with Vista with only 512MB of RAM ought to be illegal.

I didn't mod you down. I agree with your statements about the OEMs.

I have to agree almost completely with you; piracy has always been the one thing that pushes forward new things. But, I've seen a pirated version of Vista available too, and someone here in OSnews comments section (some other story though) admitted using a pirated copy of Vista. So, Vista is available illegally and apparently works just fine. Yet it still hasn't kicked off.

PS. I don't support piracy, I have a license for XP on my laptop and desktop and I use Linux on every PC as my main OS.

Is it coincidence that you no longer need to validate WGA to get IE7?

I did pirate windows for many years... and even installed OEM BIOSes to fake vista into staying activated. These methods I believe dont work with Vista SP1 but I know there are others that do work.

The truth is, I don't even find Vista worth the effort to pirate anymore. Not because its harder (for me) but because I really think OSX / Linux is superior. I had actually thought of buying Vista, I'm so glad I backed out on that one. On this machine Vista uses 70% memory 30-40% cpu on idle. The same machine using linux uses 30% memory 5-15% cpu.

My gf would like to move away from her licensed copy of Windows XP. Sadly because of her line of work she needs Adobe products to work so Linux is pretty much out the question and its such a waste to replace a perfectly good PC (Alienware) with a Mac. I'd be more willing to buy Leopard (yes buy) and hackintosh it but sadly I cant be sure we wouldn't have to re-install everytime a patch came out.


THIS is where my take on Vista piracy comes in. I live quite far away from my gf, I cant just go round there everytime Apple decides to patch something and confuse her hackintosh. I'm an OS guru for my family/friends, I dont have the time whenever Vista barfs to go round and re-inject a new OEM bios even though I'd be quite happy to keep my own machines running. So I simply dont suggest/encourage that they install Vista. Actually I now actively encourage them to install Linux but that's not always possible.

So why did I not pay for windows before? Because everytime I didn't pay for windows, I get back at Microsoft for all the far better companies they have shafted out of existence. Then when I thought about it I realized I (and many other geeks like me) were actually promoting the windows platform and encouraging the monopoly I actually despised.

Morals aside, I do think businesses should pay for the software they use, if you make money using them why shouldn't people make money making them -- but thats another kettle of fish.

Personally, the one thing I think that will change the masses over is games... and sadly the majority of the games are made for windows. (Wine, cedega and cider are now helping that)

As a side note, I have proper licenses to Dos 6.22 Win 3.11 and Win 95. I have an OSX tiger license and a leopard one. I've provided £600+ to Mandrake in 'sponsorships' before they became Mandriva.

At home for personal use, I've ran 95sr1, 98, 98se, 2k, ME (gah!) XP, XPSP1, XPSP2, 2k3EE and ME II (err Vista) without valid licenses.

I do pay for what I believe in, I just lost my faith in MS to the extent they weren't even worth stealing anymore.

I don't get it. How does vista discourage piracy?

Activation, WGA and numerous other annoyances. They don't stop piracy but they make piracy a lot more annoying - hoping that that the annoying will get to a stage where people just give in and purchase the genuine copy.

Also, if you actually spent a bit of time reading what he said (and took an English class or two), he stated:

"I think much of the reason (among others) that Vista has not caught on is because of Microsoft's (fairly successful) attempts at discouraging piracy"

It is the anti-piracy measures which he stated inhibit the adoption of Windows Vista.

Edited 2007-11-24 13:02

Well, well, gather brethren, see the wonders. I don't think slower adoption means it's hard to circumvent the protection. Additionally, it's always really hard to come up with reasonable numbers of "adopted" pirated versions, and I don't think they include pirated versions' numbers (questionable if they even could) in those adoption numbers. What the slower adoption numbers show has much more to do with upgrade troubles, performance issues, and unplanned extra hardware costs than the WGA and protection features of Vista. Just as one hands-on example, we have the hardware that could laughingly run vista ultimate, we still don't upgrade [yet, at least], it just doesn't worth the trouble, we have work to do.

Who said that I agreed?

The point I was making was correcting what Luminair said - the fact that he couldn't even interpret something properly. Dear god.

People, learn English - it's not a difficult language to grasp.

Take it easy sister. Everything he said had nothing to back it up. You don't even deserve a reply, but here you go.

He suggested (without any evidence whatsoever) that Vista prevented piracy in some way that somehow leads to it being unpopular on planet earth. Sounds crazy and wrong to me. The pirates decide whether the world adopts things? What?

In the real world OEMs are selling XP machines because customers ASKED for XP instead of Vista, and that has nothing to do with piracy.

In the real world Vista is just is pirated as XP. The pirates had their way with it soon after release and now you can find it on chinese street corners for a dollar.

In the real world businesses aren't upgrading to Vista because they have no REASON to. It runs slower on the same hardware and offers next to no benefits over XP. Costs to buy Vista, deploy it, train people, upgrade hardware are real and significant.

So in the real world Vista is unpopular because people don't like it, not because it "prevents piracy."

Piracy is one of those issues where developers think they need to do everything they can to stop it, because it is "stealing" profit from them, and though that might be true, you need to look at it from another angle.

Moving a billion people from one OS to another is hard. Most people just don't care. It takes the early adopters saying, "Oh, yeah, I use Vista. It's pretty cool" to start the momentum.

Pirates are the best possible early champions of your OS that you can have. They generally are the most competent users of your software. They will do things like hack the registry in order to make it support a device, or fix a piece of software that doesn't work. They'll crawl through forum after forum trying to find a solution. Best of all, they won't bitch at you about how your software doesn't work, because they didn't pay anything for it.

I'm very of the mindset that if you are using someone's software for commercial reasons, and you don't pay them, then you are a douchebag. For home use though, people just don't have the incentive that they do at work to pay for something. Just charge a fair price for home use (not $500 for Vista "The Version Everyone Wants" edition), discourage passive copying (serial keys are fine), and then just let the pirates, who are your first adopters, the most likely to champion your product, and also the trailblazers through most issues, just pirate the software. It's too hard for most people to even install a full version of your software anyway, let alone learn about what a torrent is, find a site that has it, install the torrent application, download it using the torrent client, possibly extract it using compression software, know what an ISO or bin/cue file is, burn that to a disc, and THEN install the OS. 99% of people won't go through that, they will just wait to hear reviews, and if favorable, will go out and buy it for a FAIR price.

Microsoft discouraged pirates, who never early adopted the OS, and then charged $300+ for any version that people actually wanted, who had already heard all the negative press...and like I said, all of this added up to Vista having an extremely slow movement in the market. I honestly doubt it is going to end up hitting the critical mass needed to supplant XP, short of Microsoft really making some changes (Dvorak outlined some possible ideas, especially regarding price).

More than developers, it would be managers/marketing/lawyers... Lots of developers here would of loved to take the code with them when switching companies.

I take it you only speak of freelance developers, but in that case you are your own manager/marketer ;-)

Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't say developers so much, as they are the ones that generally care the least about IP. That is generally the corporate-types, that not only (understandably) try to protect the company's IP, but also (unreasonably) seek out to destroy anyone that ventures too close to their IP.

This of course all falls back to the inherent problems with IP and patents in the United States, but that is a discussion for another day.

I'm not 100% sure, because I didn't follow it that much, but I think it took longer than other Windows versions for the crackers to really get working, and by then most interest in Vista had sort of waned. If I remember correctly, XP was cracked fairly quickly. Additionally, things like WGA make it very annoying to update Windows and the various components.

Vista is definitely cracked at this point, and if you want to pirate it, you can. The point is, Microsoft made it harder this time around, and by the time the crackers worked through all of that, all the negative press had already gone around about Vista, everyone had generally been underwhelmed, and most people that would have pirated it (and thus, increased adoption of Vista en mass), either stuck with XP, moved to Ubuntu (or other Linux), or moved to a Mac (or built their own Hackintosh).

Every person that I know has a pirated Vista. The only reason you would have a license for the OS here would be if you snagged a laptop from the US with the OS already installed.

I have to disagree almost completely with you.

That's a laugh. They did not achieve anything by it. Vista is duplicated far and wide in spite of their "protection systems". If they really wanted to stop illegal duplication cold they would have done so. They didn't. They don't want to. Illegal copies is a big part of what made Windows a de facto standard.



Let's get one thing clear. "Pirates" means rings that duplicate CD's and other goods illegaly, for sale. People at home duplicating Vista are not "pirates". They may well be in their right to do so. At worst, they are breaking copyright law. In some parts of the world, it's still a civil offense. It should be a slap on the wrist.



There's absolutely no relation there. (Sheesh, "underground cult". Why not "underground mole people"?) MP3 became succesfull with users everywhere because it has no DRM, it does a decent job of holding all kinds of quality of music, and at the time it spread it was the only format that did this. Circumstances and its features made it what it is, not mole people.



If by "standard for graphics editing" you mean "I'll just grab a copy off the net and monkey around with it because I can't even use it at 10% of it potential" then yes, you're right.

The large masses that grab a copy of Photoshop and install it are irrelevant. They would never pay the full price for it, and they can't really use it. They'd be perfectly happy with much lesser graphics editors. The true professionals are far and few in between and they will pay for Photoshop because it's a matter of real professional need and pride.



Nobody's stealing anything. You can't "steal" information. Breaking copyright is not stealing, because software and music is not potatoes. You are infringing upon certain rights that have been granted to the author. It's more like using someone else's parking spot than stealing. But even that's not a good analogy, because that person only has one parking spot, whereas you can create infinite copies of software or music with almost zero effort.

Man, you're Mr.Semantics, aren't you? I think you misinterpreted and misconstrued almost every point of mine that you responded to. My apologies if English is not your first language and there was some sort of breakdown there, but short of that...you might want to cool down a bit.

Ok, I'll give you one response (unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time lately to spend on the OSNews Forums).

I have to disagree almost completely with you.

Fair enough.

That's a laugh. They did not achieve anything by it. Vista is duplicated far and wide in spite of their "protection systems". If they really wanted to stop illegal duplication cold they would have done so. They didn't. They don't want to. Illegal copies is a big part of what made Windows a de facto standard.

First of all, no, they can't stop piracy. Not without inadvertently locking out legitimate purchasers of their software (this was already seen with the activation issue they had a few months ago).

Second, I'm aware you can find a pirated copy of Vista now; I'm simply saying, it took a lot longer than it did with XP, and it is still more of a pain than it was before.

Let's get one thing clear. "Pirates" means rings that duplicate CD's and other goods illegaly, for sale. People at home duplicating Vista are not "pirates". They may well be in their right to do so. At worst, they are breaking copyright law. In some parts of the world, it's still a civil offense. It should be a slap on the wrist.

No, a (software) pirate is someone who illegally obtains, distributes, and/or uses a piece of software, without the permission of the original author. Whether or not you receive monetary (or other) compensation for that action is irrelevant.

Additionally, the penalty received for the action (from no penalty, all the way up to fine/jail time) is also irrelevant. If the above applies to you, then you are a software pirate.

There's absolutely no relation there. (Sheesh, "underground cult". Why not "underground mole people"?) MP3 became succesfull with users everywhere because it has no DRM, it does a decent job of holding all kinds of quality of music, and at the time it spread it was the only format that did this. Circumstances and its features made it what it is, not mole people.

Right, and for the reasons you listed above, it gained popularity UNDERGROUND (in the piracy community), before finally being accepted by the masses. So my point still stands...

If by "standard for graphics editing" you mean "I'll just grab a copy off the net and monkey around with it because I can't even use it at 10% of it potential" then yes, you're right.

The large masses that grab a copy of Photoshop and install it are irrelevant. They would never pay the full price for it, and they can't really use it. They'd be perfectly happy with much lesser graphics editors. The true professionals are far and few in between and they will pay for Photoshop because it's a matter of real professional need and pride.

Again, I think you really missed the point I was making. Why do those professionals choose Photoshop? Is it simply because they go to work and it is there? Sure, partly, but how many of them likely downloaded a pirated version of the software when they were 14, started playing around with it, figured it out, continued to use it in school, and then ultimately in their career? Probably around 95% of them? The reason Photoshop obtained absolute dominance (aside from being a very capable application) is because so many people pirated it for casual home use or learning, and then demanded it from their employer later on.

Nobody's stealing anything. You can't "steal" information. Breaking copyright is not stealing, because software and music is not potatoes. You are infringing upon certain rights that have been granted to the author. It's more like using someone else's parking spot than stealing. But even that's not a good analogy, because that person only has one parking spot, whereas you can create infinite copies of software or music with almost zero effort.

Fair enough. This is sort of a gray area. It depends on the ultimate intent of the person. If they would have purchased it, then it is stealing; otherwise, it is copyright infringement. So I suppose you need to handle it on a case-by-case basis.

Again, I think you've terribly misunderstood the point I was attempting to make. I was simply saying how those who pirate software, especially things like Windows operating systems, generally are the most powerful early adopters those companies can have, because they increase the size of the user base early on, which makes hardware and software vendors move faster in supporting the platform. Additionally, they provide the most work of any user base in finding solutions to problems. Also, many of them have positions (either professionally or unofficially) where they influence the technology buying decisions of others, and if they have experience using the new OS, they won't have a problem pushing others to use it.

Hope that helps clear things up a a bit...

Edited 2007-11-25 04:25

You know, it's ironic that you'd call me Mr. Semantics and then come out with such a textbook definition.

Except... around my little part of the world (where we sadly don't speak English as our native language) piracy is very well defined, both in the dictionary and in the text of the law. Individuals who download from the Internet are not even breaking copyright law, let alone being "pirates". Individuals who upload to the Internet are breaking copyright law, but they are most often not pursued, and if they're caught they're let off with a fine or a warning.

Compare with the US, where the copyright law is getting ridiculous:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/26/1612223&from=rss

I can turn you into a "pirate" by offering you a link which would make your computer download an image you don't own the copy rights for. I hope you'll still consider it irrelevant if you're asked to pay huge gobs of money or go to prison over it.



How does that "dominance" help Adobe? It doesn't. Millions of people using Photoshop to a very small amount of its potential and not paying for it are completely irrelevant to Adobe. They don't make Photoshop a standard in graphics editing. They don't exist as far as this issue is concerned. The professionals who choose Photoshop do. And they do not "pirate" it.

Photoshop is a specialized application. It is not a good example for your point. Choose another, look, pick a Windows version and I'll agree. Illegal duplication has definitely helped Microsoft achieve de facto standard status. Still, see below:



I got that, but I think you're overestimating the amounts quite a bit. The largest adoption vector out there is the thing called "default install". People who will get Vista due to this thing outnumber early adopters, geeks, gamers and enthusiasts by orders of magnitude. All those are just niche players. The vast masses of regular users out there care as much about Vista as they care about the software in the ROM of their microwave oven.

I think we're twisting very fine hairs here, by the way. We may agree on larger points, but if we get down to very small details we'll never see the end of it.

I think the piracy discussion has gone off topic, but you said something that is a pet peeve of mine:

"Nobody's stealing anything. You can't "steal" information. Breaking copyright is not stealing, because software and music is not potatoes. You are infringing upon certain rights that have been granted to the author. It's more like using someone else's parking spot than stealing. But even that's not a good analogy, because that person only has one parking spot, whereas you can create infinite copies of software or music with almost zero effort."

If I'm running a company and I hack into my competitor's computer system to obtain internal business information, but leave the information intact so my competitor still has access to it, have I "stolen" trade secrets, or not? Or what if I obtain copies of your personal info (medical records, credit card number, social security number, etc), have I now "stolen" that info? It's certainly not 'merely' "copyright infringement". Sorry, I think the idea that one can't "steal" information is bull.

Actually, you used another pet-peeve of mind, which is the notion that anything that consists of bytes qualifies as "information" and nothing more. I dont' think that an OS, computer program, video game, or any kind of software qualifies as "information". If I pirate a video game, what "information" have I obtained? The bytes making up the video game don't inform me of anything. They inform the computer on instructions to perform, but that's not "information" in the human sense of the word. I think certain people like to classify all pieces of digital media as "information" to devalue them and dismiss the hard work it took to create them. As in, "Information wants to be free, and all software is nothing more than information, therefore all software should be free. QED". On the contrary, a video game, or any software program, or music, or movie, etc, is a creation of humans, not merely information discovered and/or gathered by humans. But this is off-topic too.

Strange, when I saw the title of your post and your nick I was pretty sure I'd have to mod it down.
Eventually, I did the opposite :-)

Not because I share your view - as a matter of fact I couldn't disagree more! No, I like your comment because it leaves the door open to a rational discussion.

Most comments on this matter sound like
"You are EVIL! PERIOD!"
without any 'because' or 'I think'.

Speaking of 'I think':
I think we should probably take the discussion about the moral status of 'pirating' software to OSNews' 'conversations'.
If you use OSNews v4, that is.

This way, the discussion would be ON TOPIC and we wouldn't have to restate or re-restate our respective opinions in every second thread but could simply link to the conversation ;-)

Do you mean legally, or in common conversation? In the first case, no. Nothing was "stolen" per se. However, you would be guilty of industrial espionage. I don't know what the correct term is in this case, but I'm pretty sure it's not "theft", "burglary", "larceny" or any of the sort.

In the perspective of common conversation, the use of the term is acceptable, but that doesn't make it more accurate.



It *is* information. It doesn't have any distinct physical existence, and it is more than just raw energy - it is energy arranged in a coherent, logical manner. You may not agree with the term, but it is the correct one. What do you think the acronym IT stand for?



So, if electricity powers machines but not humans, it shouldn't be considered "energy" in the human sense of the word? That doesn't make any sense. Digital data is information; again, that is the correct term, whether you agree with it or not.

I don't pirate music, films or games. I work in the video games industry. Still, that doesn't change the fact that piracy *isn't* theft, and a video game *is* information. You don't need to change the meaning of words in order to decry something that is already illegal. Just stick to the facts.

It's how you use the information and what you do to get it that should (maybe) pe punished, not the simple fact of owning it.

In your examples, there are several negative actions. Breaking into another's computer or personal space is severely frowned upon by any society or community. If you obtain my personal info it depends on what you do with it, but generally you'd have to break some law to get to them. And the right to privacy is a fundamental right (or ought to be), which you'd be breaking.

And so is copyright. I'm not saying "information wants to be free" (which is silly, ofc). Creators deserve to be compensated for their hard work.

But you cannot force people to do so. This is where the fundamental differences between information and physical goods come into play. We cannot go on on treating intellectual goods and information as tangible and try to use the same rules. It simply won't work. It just gets us into more and more of a mess if people insist on saying things like "stealing information" and "intellectual property".

If you can't enforce something than it is useless to try and perhaps we should all think about alternative means of dealing with this. How about letting people pay for information of their own accord? Set their own price, work on the honor system? I frankly don't see why that would be more utopic than the notion that you can control every last bit of information once you release it out there.

Maybe i'm the exception, but if MS gave Vista Ultimate legally for free, i would still not want to use it. It is imho the worst actual OS at any price.

I have build a new system like this exactly with intel motherboard and kingston memory and a super cool case, and when I ran vmware 6 on it with 3 virtual machines It chocked totally. RDC to that system sometimes worked and sometimes didn't. bringing the system attention to log on was taking 10 seconds and some shortcuts didn't work espcially after intalling the latest RC of SP1. Added more ran to 4GB and the story is the same. Anyway, perfmon.exe didn't show that RAM is lacking or CPU time but I guess that HDD was so horribly performing due to something native to vista.
So next step is to use WD Raptor 10,000rpm disk and check performance; again no improvements...now what? RAID, it is not economic and safe to run RAID 0 just to run vista. So back to XP and good night till SP2

"It seems to me that this "Year of Linux" of yours will never come."

Personally, I'd like to see more things available for Linux, but I don't really care if my grandmother is ever using it. If she does not like Windows, she should get a Mac.

"Or will come just after the release of "Duke Nukem Forever"

I just pre-ordered my copy from a company in Nigeria. They said it will be out soon.

Edited 2007-11-24 02:46

It is already in the 2-3% usage rate, about half of OS X, and growing.



Are you sure you tried Ubuntu 7.10? Because you can now easily change the resolution from a GUI control panel. I don't you're being completely honest about how much you really tried Ubuntu. At the very least you have to recognize the fact that it gets much better with each release, no?

I've personally recently put two non-technical disgruntled users on Ubuntu (actually, one on Ubuntu and the other on Kubuntu). Not only have they stopped experiencing the problems they were getting on their XP installs, they love its simplicity and the fact that it comes with a load of application.

I was only doing this to give them a temporary reprieve from their buggy Windows boxes, but I think I've made two converts.

Well...their mantra has always been "Windows Everywhere", not "Windows Almost Everywhere"

A. There's a "militant element" in each and every group of people on this earth. From right-wing lunatics that hide in a cave in some forsaken mountain in Nabraska to a couple of greenpeace fanatics that demonstrate against nuclear power by trying penetrate nuclear facilities.
Heck, look back at previous -Windows- reviews and MS stories - you'll see dozens of Windows users celebrating MS success by attacking Linux.
Intel? AMD? Linux? OSX? Windows? Football team? Nations? Political views?
Why? Because humans are basically no different then a pack of wolfs.

B. Back to the point, while I am a Linux user and Linux developer, I'm also a Solaris and Windows user/developer. (though I dislike Windows personally due to MS EEE tactics).

C. Like you, I don't want a single dominant OS - I want 10 of them. I want standards; I want hardware that will work, out of box on Linux, Windows, Solaris, ReactOS and BSD. I want my browser, no matter what browser it is to display all the web-sites correctly.

D. Having said all that, Linux is facing an up-hill battle against an adversary that knows no limits and honors no rules. One can expect Linux developers and users (that are being threated by fabricated patents and law suites) to be somewhat paranoid and militant...

- Gilboa

Edited 2007-11-24 17:25

... Living some 6,000 miles from continental U.S, I'm allowed to make stupid mistakes for the sake of the argument.

I stand corrected.

- Gilboa

Sigh.
I made a mistake.
Said sorry - made a mistake.

We don't really need to keep this highly OT thread on life support, do we?

- Gilboa

There have always been sad people out there, and there will be for time to come. The useful people, the ones that make useful contributions, still think "let's make something that works for us". That's never changed.



Ah, but have you stopped to think that maybe they have a practical reason for not accepting competition? What if, in the face of true competition, most of their products would be exposed as sub-par? They'd go downhill fast. No, I don't think they're delusional, they know exactly what they're doing. Microsoft rose to and stays at the top by exploiting opportunity, backstabbing and shady tactics.

Name one product of theirs that absolutely shines and can stand on merit alone out there, and I'll show you a product that needs no shady tactics and can take on competition fairly. And then we'll look and discover that they did something shady anyway.

Edited 2007-11-25 00:22

Microsoft Vista has given corporations an opportunity and a choice. The first choice is to pay lots of money to upgrade to more-of-the-same from a company that only cares about the customer's wallet. Then they can do it again in a few years.

Is it possible that you aren't aware that hardware wears out, corporations depreciate that hardware over several years, and then they buy new hardware, with brand new operating systems installed? Corporations don't buy naked hardware and install Linux on it. They buy hardware with operating systems pre-installed. That's a fact. So, either way, corporations are going to open their wallets every few years to purchase operating systems. Cost is a red herring. It exists regardless. If you work in IT, you should KNOW this.

Or they can invest that money into switching to something that works.

Rrrrrright. I suppose that the hundreds of millions of people that use Windows to do their work every day are delusional, eh? Nobody can browse the Web, read their email, do their taxes, play games, watch movies, write documents, do spreadsheets, etc, right? Perhaps you should consider that the distinction between what you consider "working" and what "actually works" is not worth, as Bogey said, a hill of beans.

An investment that they don't have to repeat every few years. An investment in systems that actually get better incrementally. In systems and software that continue to meet the ACTUAL business needs of the the company spending the money

Wrong. You're going to do this, anyway. The difference is that I'll admit it. You won't.

...not the business needs of the company selling you the software.

MSFT has an obligation to its shareholders, just as any other public company. WTF? Do you think they're a charity?

Systems and software that doesn't tie your business to a convicted monopolist who, any time now, could decide to compete with you.

First,MS wasn't "convicted" of anything. "Conviction" only applies to criminal cases, and I'll point out that the DOJ filed its case in civil court -- not criminal court. So, in fact, MS lost a civil case; therefore, talk about "convicted monopolists" is just hyperbole and nonsense. I'm sure that you would have liked to see Gates and Ballmer led away in orange jumpsuits, but that's not the outcome of a civil case. What happens is that dollars change hands, the court conveys orders on commercial behaviors. Nothing more. Second, nearly every major computer software or hardware company has been involved in civil cases. Google "patent infringement cases", "copyright infringement cases", "price-fixing DRAM", etc. It's a Who's Who list of technology companies. IBM. Sun. Yahoo. Microsoft. Google. Etc, etc. And, if you were forbidden from dealing with any company that has ever been involved in a civil lawsuit, you wouldn't be in business.

The upgrade treadmill is the bane of all IT, corporate and consumerist alike. You can use 5 or 10-year old computers as workstations without a problem. Not with Microsoft products, but with Linux. That's an advantage. Some people use it. Tough luck on those that don't.

I've been in IT for quite a while and most often than not, upgrades of the desktop hardware in a corporation have one or two reasons: the love of shiny new things, and Microsoft (and other software vendors) pushing it on you. Most of the time there's no actual need.

"The upgrade treadmill is the bane of all IT, corporate and consumerist alike. You can use 5 or 10-year old computers as workstations without a problem. Not with Microsoft products, but with Linux. That's an advantage. Some people use it. Tough luck on those that don't. "

Given that XP was released in 2001, and Microsoft is supporting it until 2014, doesn't that mean that one could use XP on a computer for 5 or 10 years, by definition?

BTW, how long does Red Hat, et al support their OSes? 4 years? 5? I doubt it's longer than Microsoft is supporting XP. (I know Apple only supports the last two .1 upgrades of OSX at any point in time, which amounts to an average of 2.5 years, which is pathetic.)


BTW, are you sure one could run today's Linux distros adequately on a 1998 computer? I find that hard to believe, but I don't run Linux so maybe you can.

BTW, are you sure one could run today's Linux distros adequately on a 1998 computer? I find that hard to believe, but I don't run Linux so maybe you can.

I don't really know what a PC from '98 is like but unless it has 256mb RAM then it won't run modern desktop distros. But well, this machine where I am typing this from is a 1.4ghz Athlon XP with 384mb RAM and Linux just flies Though, XP works quite fine too, I've just noticed that I run out of memory and start swapping sooner under Windows than Linux. And I get all those fancy eye-candy things under Linux But well, to give some answer to your question: I guess if a machine is capable of running a modern Linux distro then it's probably also capable of running XP too.

If by "modern desktop distro" you mean fully loaded KDE or Gnome with all the bells and whistles then you'd probably need at least 256 MB of RAM. But there are many alternative desktops out there that will work fine with as little as 32 MB or lower. And you can also trim down a Gnome or KDE desktop.

You mean FreeDOS or Linux in text-mode ? ;-)

Sure there are those alternative distros like f.ex. Puppy Linux, but those are special cases. A Joe User probably wouldn't wanna use those. That's why I said "modern desktop distro". Ubuntu, SLED et al need atleast 256mb RAM to be usable. Though, sure, Puppy is very much suitable even for ancient P166 machines with only 64mb RAM

I said alternative desktops, not alternative OS or distro. By that I mean XFCE, Fluxbox, RoX and so on. They make very nice desktop environments even on old hardware and are easy on the requirements.

As said before, there aren't many low-end Linux distros that are still supported. (And Puppy 3.01 is at 128 MB minimum these days.) Yes, DSL will probably (barely) run pretty well w/ 32 MB. But other than that, you're stuck with BlueFlops, (old) tomsrtbt, or Slackware w/ a big swap partition. (I'm no Linux pro, so there's probably more I missed.)

And yes, FreeDOS rocks. ;-)

Oh, they'd love to cut XP short as well. Except the demand is still too great and they can't force people to move to Vista. But they'd sure like to.

But I believe you are confused when you compare "support" in Linux and Windows worlds.

If you mean payed technical support, it continues as long as you pay for it.

If you mean updates, there's a fundamental difference between Linux and Windows.

For Windows, different versions are very different products. You get some service packs and at some point updates end, that's it. There's no straightforward update path from 98 to XP or XP to Vista. Yeah, technically you can upgrade using the install kit, but I wouldn't wish the resulting system on my enemies.

For Linux, once you install it, it updates forever. Well, at least as long as the distribution stays alive. To give you and example, I installed Red Hat Linux 6.2 in 2000 when it came out (that's when I made my definitive switch to Linux on my home desktop). Until 2003 when Red Hat discontinued the end-user version I never installed another version. And yet constant upgrades took my system to the equivalent of a freshly installed Red Hat 9, but with all my settings and files in place.

In 2003 I decided to switch to Debian instead of Fedora. I installed Debian from under the running Red Hat installation, in a chroot, from the latest Debian packages from the net. I copied all my settings and files over and after some minor quirks that were different in Debian and a bootloader tweak later, I was running Debian. Next spring it will be 5 years since I've last installed a new Linux distro. My Debian kept updating and is the equivalent of the latest out there.

The difference is that Linux versions are just landmarks, to keep the n00bs and the public informed and not let the impression that the distro is dead or something. For instance, Debian sparse releases are a running joke, but the joke's on the people that don't realise that Debian evolves constantly and announcing a new official release and offering ISO's for it is just a formality.

I loved this, it fails to point out the obvious, for a start you count from the *end* of a products life cycle not the start. XP due to the very nature of the product, needed major fixes in SP1 and SP2 to get working, you also seem to omit that Vista its successor was delayed years...but remember XP as a whole has been a static platform.

Well, if you count XP from the start of the products life should you do the same for Linux..? Linux was quite unusable in the beginning.. IMHO as XP stands now it's quite well usable for the foreseeable future. The only things I see as possible problems are that software will probably start moving towards requiring Vista (atleast Microsofts own software will) and that XP will not evolve at all whereas Linux will continue to move forward all the time.

A few notes:

- Cost is a "red herring"??? What, you work the government or something? Costs are critical to most businesses that I deal with, and costs can be contained by using non-Microsoft solutions.

Costs include the hardware, the software, and the support - the latter being the majority cost. Microsoft costs more on all fronts than other options. It requires more hardware just to run it. The software costs more. The support always costs more, in both staff training and turnover. This is my personal experience in 21 years of costing out and managing a variety of installations for a variety of clients.

- Hardware seems to last longer when it doesn't run Microsoft software. Many of my clients have found it beneficial for their companies to keep using fully-depreciated assets - which they can often do with non-Microsoft systems. Especially beneficial to small business, those that form the backbone of most capitalist economies.

- Far from being "hyperbole and nonesense", Microsoft has been "convicted" in the E.U. and Korea. I realize that as an American you aren't often aware or perhaps don't care what happens outside your own borders, but there are those of us who know otherwise.

- There's "pandering to the shareholders" and there is "screwing your customers". Many companies do both. The advantage of FOSS is that the customer can, if necessary, tell the company they got it from to f--k off. When they get Microsoft software, they're stuck with Microsoft.

My fiduciary responsibility is to my clients for whom I am an agent. That responsibility has led me to the conclusion that Microsoft (especially Microsoft) is bad for business for most of those clients.

You, however, seem to have the best interests of Microsoft at heart. You also seem to think that all companies want or need to keep buying new systems as soon as their accountant tells them the asset is depreciated. You also seem to think that it's normal for a system to include the Microsoft tax. Well, that last is true in a country that doesn't actually have any consumer protection laws.

It boils down to my professional opinion that Microsoft screws its customers, and it has a lot of customers who don't seem to care. Great - there are always fools willing to part with their money. Personally, I have been fortunate to find a number of customers who do care - and they are now reaping the benefits of much lower I.T. costs than some of their competitors.

Not it is not.

Excluding costs of running a Windows shop, such as downtime due to viruses & "malware cleaning" operations is the red herring.



http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18910&comment_id=284342

There you go.



tomcat: "Why do you suppose the Linux Standard Base (LSB) exists? Answer: Because app compatibility between various Linux distros SUCKS. Files are located in different places. Config files have different options. Different binaries are present. Installers don't work on different distros. "

I call BS. Just stick with one name distribution. Ubuntu, Debian, RedHat, SuSe ... your call which one, but stick with it. Install the same software for that distribution ... don't try to install a Debian package for OpenOffice on your RedHat machine, install the RedHat packages for OpenOffice instead.

Even a dolt could figure that out. Therefore, you are simply spreading FUD in trying to pretend this is a problem.

tomcat: "Red Hat charges nearly the same amount per seat as Microsoft."

1. Ubuntu doesn't. http://www.ubuntu.com/support

2. RedHat doesn't have a desktop. If you use Fedora, Ubuntu or OpenSuSe as a desktop (all at $0 per seat), a RedHat server doesn't charge per-seat CALs like Windows does.

tomcat: "Given that you derive your income from Linux-based products, your opinion is suspect; in short, you have a conflict of interests."

Hmmmm. More projection.

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

Edited 2007-11-26 10:21

I call BS. Just stick with one name distribution. Ubuntu, Debian, RedHat, SuSe ... your call which one, but stick with it. Install the same software for that distribution ... don't try to install a Debian package for OpenOffice on your RedHat machine, install the RedHat packages for OpenOffice instead.

That's not BS. He was completely correct. LSB does indeed exist to alleviate the problems of using a single pre-compiled binary on several distributions. This is just a hypothetical example: if Adobe released Photoshop for Linux too of course they would rather create a single LSB compliant installer than a dozen packages for various distributions.

Linux evangelism is all right and fine by me but stop trying to deny there are some issues and call it "FUD" when someone brings those issues out.

Sorry, but it is BS.

The LSB exists to provide a common specification for desktop interfaces, so that a program might, for example, be able to set an icon in the system tray regardless if it is running under a KDE desktop or a GNOME desktop. The LSB provides a "write it once only" specification so that one doesn't have to write different code to make a desktop application work under KDE and also GNOME.



It is not at all difficult to produce your application in a few different package formats. This is routinely done by several major applications. All it takes is a few extra runs under different make scripts ... normally not even as much effort as a re-compile of the object files is required.

There exist also separate solutions such as autopackage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopackage

You said: "stop trying to deny there are some issues and call it "FUD" when someone brings those issues out".

The reality is: "stop trying to claim there are some issues and attempt to spread stale "FUD" when someone tries to revive an already-long-solved pseudo-issue."

The LSB exists to provide a common specification for desktop interfaces, so that a program might, for example, be able to set an icon in the system tray regardless if it is running under a KDE desktop or a GNOME desktop. The LSB provides a "write it once only" specification so that one doesn't have to write different code to make a desktop application work under KDE and also GNOME.

You're confusing FreeDesktop.org standards and LSB. It's FreeDesktop.org standards which handle those things you just listed.

My experience in a few IT shops tells me that Windows machines require more day-to-day management than Unix/Linux boxes. It's not just a question of installation and setup; day-to-day adminisitration is more time-consuming with Windows (which is why you need more admin for a Windows network than a UNIX one, as studies have shown).



Care to give us some real-world examples? Because as far as I know this isn't really an issue.

Distros aren't as incompatible as you claim them to be. Distros are binary compatible, however they don't always put libraries in the same place. That said, you can compile with static libraries to have a completely portable binary.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Sigh!

So then you just ignore where the example showed those total costs for Linux to be way, way lower as well?

Read it again:

You are really drowning here.

In your totally skewed accounting don't forget to include other "costs of ownership over the lifetime of the software" that apply to Windows and which don't apply to Linux. "Compliance" costs are a biggy that can come close to killing a business:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SOFTWARE_WATCHDOG?SITE=INLAF...

This will be difficult to do. I was chatting with a guy I used to work with about the linux vs windows thing especially regarding engineering companies use.

Some of the larger ones (in our industry) flat mandate windows no matter what, regardless of the cost (ie, one company reportedly migrated their infrastructure from novell to windows and subsequently had to triple their IT staff).

Another problem is the issue of convenience. Companies that properly deploy Unix based setups heavily use the network transparency and are able to more efficiently get use of their licensed apps, which means fewer licenses need to be purchased. A typical windows shop means license per desktop == more licenses == more profit.

The inertia at all levels is pretty big with some companies not interested in changing and developers not interested in different paradigms. It's all money and will likely require some major economic events to change the current tide.

You're just a sad pathetic troll.

Only a retarded like you would want to run MS SQL server under Wine when you have better alternatives like PostgreSQL, MySQL that runs natively on Linux.

and OSX SUCKS, this "Perfect OS" doesn't even have a proper WM.

Oh and BTW, in Linux we have Freedom of Choice and X.Org/X11 rocks.

Edited 2007-11-24 21:19

I guess you've never heard of LAMP then? Only the most widely used web platform on the net.

Sure, I prefer PostgreSQL but to say that no one uses MySQL is obviously not true.

Lol! Absolutely!

It always annoys me when people make grand sweeping statements, very rarely are they correct.

Just because one person has an issue with a certain product, or thinks that product is somehow inferior to their preferred product, does not mean that the rest of the world thinks the same.

Oracle is an exceptional DB, but it's over priced and over kill for a LAMP like system. As not everyone wants all their DB operations served by one system/cluster, it only makes sense that people will shop around for a cheaper alternative.

How about exe formats

Two. a.out (really ancient now) and elf. What's your point?

not to mention the height of how difficult it is to maintain anything Linux is the whole notion of distro's. Why does there have to be more than one?

Just because different people have different needs and tastes. Sure, I do admit it can be a bit confusing but on the other hand you've got a lot more options to choose from the one you like, very much unlike with Windows where you always get just the same package no matter what. Also note that there are distros catered for desktop use and others catered for server use.

from the constantly changing ABI,

That is not a concern of regular end-users, that's something only developers would care. So your point kind of missed its mark.. Besides, which library are you talking about? Or are you referring to the kernel? Kernel ABI isn't changing all the time, you know..And for example GTK+ sees new improvements all the time yet I can still compile older GTK2+ apps against it..

X11 is the other reason why Linux has gotten NOWHERE. Between the what? 10 font subsystems, the 5,000 window managers it's as inconsistent as you could ever hope for, and then some.

Again, window managers and X.org is something a Joe User wouldn't care to bother himself with or to even wanna know about. When you install a distro, let's say f.ex. SLED, you get one window manager. Joe User would use that.

It still cannot install things like SQL server, Exchange Server, nor can it run office 2003/2007.

Haven't tried running SQL servers with Wine cos there exists native alternatives..And IMHO running a server under a VM/translator is not too smart anyway, any smart admin would rather choose a native one. But well, I just checked from Wine AppDB that Office 2003 actually _does_ run just fine nowadays with Wine Though I wanna make a point here: if you really really need to use Windows apps then you shouldn't bother moving to Linux. But if you can use the alternatives then you don't have much to lose. OpenOffice.org may not be as good as Office 2003 but it should be more than enough for most casual home users.

I know that for people here, editing 20 files, and rebuilding stuff is ‘easy’ but just use OSX. That’s a level of simplicity linux will never achieve.

When I first used OSX I thought that it sure looks quite nice and it is well integrated (a lot better than I've seen done in Linux, sad as it is), but then again there are lots of things I didn't like about it. And the one thing that annoys me the absolute most is that Finder doesn't show thumbnails of pictures, videos or other such stuff :O But as there is only one version of Finder there isn't much you can do.. (note that I haven't really searched for any replacements. Isn't OSX supposed to be perfect as-is?)

Anyway, I have converted quite a few people over to Linux but only those who have been willing to try alternatives to those apps they've used. And I haven't even bothered trying to convert any gamers, that would not work.

"I haven't even bothered trying to convert any gamers, that would not work."

They are probably too busy with their consoles, although there is free60 http://www.free60.org and of course yellow dog linux http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/ydl/ ...and many more.

Edited 2007-11-24 22:57

You know, there are two breeds of gamers that are very different. PC gamers and Console gamers. Since Consoles don't offer the games PC gamers want to play (nor the input devices), it is absolutely pointless in trying to get them to play on Consoles and use Linux on their PCs...

And it is even more pointless in trying to get Console fans to convert to Linux, because they simply aren't interested in PCs, not to mention that they lack the knowledge to get a Linux running at all anyway.

The projects you linked are only interesting to Linux freaks which are at least casual gamers, but mostly those projects are for the fun of tinkering, if tinkering is you cup of pee.

"You know, there are two breeds of gamers that are very different. PC gamers and Console gamers. Since Consoles don't offer the games PC gamers want to play (nor the input devices), it is absolutely pointless in trying to get them to play on Consoles and use Linux on their PCs...

And it is even more pointless in trying to get Console fans to convert to Linux, because they simply aren't interested in PCs, not to mention that they lack the knowledge to get a Linux running at all anyway.

The projects you linked are only interesting to Linux freaks which are at least casual gamers, but mostly those projects are for the fun of tinkering, if tinkering is you cup of pee."

PC Gaming is dead...I am overstating its demise, but if you wander into any gaming store, the PC section if there at all, is relegated to the back, is generally full of re-releases, with the occational pony petting title.

I would love to attribute this to Vista, but I suspect its more due to the fact that there was no *rise* in populartity becuase of the reletavily short time between this generations consoles and the last. Although you have seen rumblings that consoles are simply a more profitable platform for developers.

I disagree with your statement about their being any differerence between PC gamers and console gamers, although if you are going to start catagories, you might at well add retro gamer or even foss gamer. The reality is there is massive crossover between the two groups, those groups are not even remotely at odds. I personally have a problem with the term gamer...because I game...a lot...erm on linux.

Out of my freinds, who *all* have both PC's *and* consoles, who very few fun linux, its interesting most play foss games, as they would rather try "Eternal Lands" than *subscribe* to WOW, or dicuss how "Wesnoth" is very pretty but havn't the patience for turn-based stratergies and would rather the graphics be put on something like Angband.

Now I mention those projects, simply because thats where *my* manin interest in linux is and why I love GPL3 and why I use the term GNU instead of Linux. These projects are not for *freaks*, I would argue that the main benefit of such projects is to get computing skills into low income families that have to choose between a PC and a gaming machine.

The second main benefit of such project is that current firmware inposes too large a restiction, the reason I'm so interested in these projects is becuase I want to replace the PVR under my TV with something a little more useful, and this does mean GNU, currently the xbox360 can only recive files Microsofts own proprietry codecs from Vista!?, which I could replace with the much more practive MythTV.

Niow the PS3 from a hardware perspective is even more interesting to someone whose comuter on his depth prunns more then 10 times *slower* than it, thats without is coming with *console* quality gaming. The project is not ready...and the consoles are not cheap enough. I'm actually concernes that the new 40GB might really be the future, although in practicle terms I suspect the future version with a TV tuner could well be my main machine.

Now if your argument had been that the poor selection of commercial titles on the Microsoft OS Platform outweighs that of those on the GNU OS platform I would happily agree, but in todays world is nothing but a minor point.

MySQL doesn't handle NULL constraints:

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/6.0/en/constraint-invalid-data.html

None of the fortune 500 companies are running MySQL:

http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/success-stories/yahoo_finance....

You lose, jerkweed.

Oh wow they added NULL constraints after how many f--king YEARS?

Sorry "jerkweed" but you really do illistrate the complete and utter lack of professionalisim in the "Linux" world.

Look in the mirror, and you'll see why more people use Oracle, DB/2 and SQL Server then your precious crap for real production systems.

And no, IRC web pictures are *NOT* mission critical anything. Show me something major, like a stock trading system, missle control, nuclear operations.

Yeah of course there isn't any.

Show me something major, like a stock trading system, missle control, nuclear operations.

How about Yahoo? That does count as a Fortune 500 AFAIK... Besides, what do you know about missile control or nuclear operations anyway? I VERY highly doubt they use Windows there...(As a little hint: most likely they use some proprietary OS specifically built for their hardware and have all they sources available so they can modify them as fast as possible whenever the need arises)

What the heck is your problem? I thought I made it quite clear that I don't think Linux is suitable for everyone.. And for that matter, I'm not a "fanboi" (I'm a girl btw) since I only recommend Linux to people who I think would benefit from using it. Plus I use Windows too.

The constantly changing ABI's does impact users, when they find 'linux drivers', but of course they'll never run out of the box.

Drivers are not spread as pre-compiled binaries, easy to install, and I do admit that it sucks. What I would love to see is a stable driver API and a web service where there would be more or less all the available drivers downloadable, and a client which would automatically download and install any needed drivers for your hardware on boot. That would rock.

As far as your 'native' solutions Mysql & postgres frankly they blow

Hmm, I don't really know about that. I don't have personal experience with any Fortune 500 nor have I ever asked any of their admins which software they use (have you, btw? You sure act like you know all the Fortune 500 companies) But let's take an example: a finnish website, IRC-Galleria, has 460 494 users, 6 887 894 pictures, and likely some hundred times more of comments in their databases and they use MySQL..I would say that that proves MySQL is more than capable of the handling big stuff. Of course, if _you_ lack the skills..

Christ it's still stuck with X11, and the how many font subsystems? Not to mention all the BS overhead.

Hmm, why don't you enlighten us? How many font subsystems are there actually in use? And what about the "BS overhead"? Care to elaborate?

An IRC gallary?

Yeah, Im sure the NYSE will be running to that solution.

Get a grip.

Just like http://www.zimbra.com/ ? I'm surprised you didn't know about it, it's nothing new. I've migrated more than one fortune 1000 company to it so far. I suggest you research what you're talking about before making incorrect statements.

There is not just one alternative to exchange.

http://www.open-xchange.com/

Just so it is clear we are not pumping only one company's tyres, unlike some posters.

"But well, I just checked from Wine AppDB that Office 2003 actually _does_ run just fine nowadays with Wine"

Actually it doesn't... it has a "Gold" rating, which means it doesn't run "perfect" which in AppDB terms means, it starts (if you care to spend enough time tinkering, and the tinkering for Office 2003 doesn't sound like fun) but most of the "Gold" rated things are unusable if they start at all. Most testing in AppDB is done with cracked programs and if you really try them with your bought app, the copy protection prevents it from running.

That's not true. I have tested several apps and games which have "Gold" rating and they run just fine with default wine installation and without tinkering. Sure, "Platinum" is for those which run perfectly but claiming that "Gold" means they are mostly unusable is complete bull. For example WoW, the game I've been playing a lot lately, does install and run just fine with Wine and has a "Gold" rating and it works quite fine indeed even without tinkering. The only "tinkering" I do to boost performance is run "WoW.exe -opengl".

And sorry, don't own Office 2003 so can't test it. But unless you have tried it just recently then you shouldn't spread bull here.

2001 called, they want their FUD back.

I installed Ubuntu on a stock Compaq Presario the other day. I didn't have to edit a single file, nor rebuild anything.

It seems you are oblivious to the fact that Linux/UNIX is improving at a breakneck pace.

Oh, and really, who cares about changes to the ABI, or the fact that there's more than one font subsystem (clue: pretty much everyone uses freetype now)? No one. It's just another Red Herring thrown around by the pro-MS FUD machine.

I don't want any OS, I just want good apps, compatibility, etc. The whole advantage of virtualization or dual booting or liveCDs is that you can have more than one to play with.



I'm not too Linux savvy, but rebuilding anything (in general) seems to be a nightmare for me. So kudos for anybody getting that to work semi-decently.



I like different distros even if there are probably way, way too many. But what do you expect? Everybody has different needs.



It's not more flavors that people are complaining about, it's the fact that some things don't even work nearly as well as XP (!), plus Vista is being pushed/promoted/preloaded everywhere despite this fact.



Not really, just they've been doing it longer. And OEMs aren't exactly (totally?) Linux-oriented yet. So we still have closed firmware, secret specs, etc. If Windows is the only OS to work properly, that doesn't give people much choice (unless you want to live with reduced functionality ... which is indeed possible).



Most Windows stuff is distributed in pre-compiled form, and that is indeed much easier than recompiling from source. Besides, Windows has to be backwards compatible because you can't necessarily recompile everything.



I don't think so. Surely it's much better now than then.



You pick some awfully big apps to pick on WINE with. Given that there are thousands upon thousands of programs, I don't think most desktop users care about SQL and Exchange. WINE runs many common apps fine. It's better than nothing. Could it be better? Not hardly. We're lucky it runs anything! Just because it doesn't run Office 2007 isn't exactly a "deal breaker" (especially for me since I don't need all that crud). That doesn't mean it sucks. This is not utopia, you have to take what you can get (and we're so freakin' blessed!).



Definitely a worthy goal. It has to work, but it shouldn't be aggravatingly difficult either. More work for us all to do! :-)

Edited 2007-11-29 11:29

Sure you can! All you need to do is either link in the correct kernel module or recompile the kernel with a.out support. ;-)

Sure, it ain't a sine cure but 'where there's a will, there's a way'.

As for your over the top criticisms of Linux, many of them are either extremely outdated or just pure wrong. I think that maybe you should read up on what your talking about.

I already stated my opinion on MySQL so I wont repeat it here but I will say that most of the Fortune 500 companies run some form of Open Source software stack, invariably running on Linux, no matter what you think is the truth.

As for not having a stable ABI for drivers, that would hardly be a server issue. I personally don't have an issue with my drivers being properly tested and tighly integrated with the kernel but obviously, YMMV.

X11 is a nightmare, i'll grant you that, but ever since X.org has taken over it's development, we have seen massive improvements on a scale not seen in the X world since it's inception. Another area in which X shines is in being able to run a hardware accelerated desktop blindingly fast with very modest hardware, something you cannot say for Vista (I run both operating systems by the way).

You can't run any full-screen DOS apps in Vista (vs. XP which ran fine). Plus 32 MB DPMI max. limit, some minor bugs, etc. (also non-existant on XP). Oh, and was it Win2k that dropped support for OS/2 1.x text programs? And just to perfectly clear, you have to use QEMU (or other free program) to run "real" DOS because MS won't let VPC 2007 install/run on Vista Home editions.

Even some simple Windows programs that work in XP (e.g. FreeBASIC: projects/Jigsaw, saving/loading the game) don't work in Vista without manually enabling "XP w/ SP2" compatibility.

Just FYI, Vista ain't exactly perfect vs. SUSE (which I've never tried). Vista ain't really that bad, and we've all read the complaints, just saying ... it's not XP. If you want an improved XP, wait until SP3. Vista ain't necessarily a good XP replacement.

Edited 2007-11-29 12:04