Username or EmailPassword
As a consequence, Microsoft can offer dump prices; with Windows 7, which, as many reports indicate, runs fine on netbooks, Microsoft can do nothing but charge the full price, increasing the price difference between Windows and Linux. This should give Linux a more even chance at successfully competing with Windows in the netbook space.
Or they could just stick with bundling XP?
64 bit will be the big switch.
Just as IE wasn't upgraded for years because Microsoft saw no need or competition, we wouldn't see its frantic efforts to get 7 to market in order to (1) kill off XP, which drains revenue from Vista, and (2) to desperately get as far away from the whole Vista disaster as soon as possible.
But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security (on any machine you choose), there won't be a single Linux user switching to Win7, I guarantee that.
Well .. it all depends on your definition of security.
Not regarding updates there are more infected Vista desktops with virii and malware than there are Mac or Linux desktops ( even in % ).
That is real world security. IMNSHO that is only one that counts. Edited 2009-01-22 10:49 UTC
According to your logic Linux is unbreakable because with the right SELinux rules/policies you can defend yourself against every attack.
IMNSHO that is a stupid theoretical world view not founded in reality.
> This is a problem on ALL platforms. Updates can always break existing functionality on all operating systems. You can't claim, with a straight face, that Linux and OS X systems never receive security updates that break other things or introduce regressions.
Actually I can, with Debian I can see the 3 line patch and I can actually understand what it's trying to fix and how it's doing this. That combined with the knowledge of what other software is installed pretty much means security updates don't break anything in Linux.
Google before you post Thom :p
If you read that article, it is clear that the worm changes daily, so updates are impossible currently.
At the bottom there is a link to a Microsoft update, but, like it says it will only mitigate it, not eradicate it. Edited 2009-01-22 14:14 UTC
Saying that it "doesn't count" just because there's a patch issued for one of the attack vectors is a bit silly.
The worm has other attack vectors, such as infecting removable storage devices (USB flash drives, cameras, MP3 players), and tricking the user into clicking the wrong option in the autorun dialog box.
I'd class that as an unpatched security vulnerability - untrusted applications on removable media should not be able to spoof OS dialogs so easily. Similar issues in web browsers are treated as security vulnerabilities, and I see no reason the OS should be treated any differently. Same goes for hiding file extensions.
It also tries to infect other machines on the local network, by installing itself to network shares, and then scheduling a task remotely (and I have no idea why Windows allows this by default on home machines).
There's probably little the OS could do about this, short of taking steps to prevent password guessing. Other OSes would be similarly vulnerable if they had SSH or similar installed (although, crucially, neither Mac OS X nor most Linux distributions include SSH by default).
It's not really that Windows is insecure - security is just really hard to get right, especially if you want the machine to still be useful.
For example, I think some old versions of KDE used to allow you to create a .desktop file that contained an embedded shellscript, which was automatically run when you open the .desktop file, and could be made to look exactly like an innocuous file, like a PDF or an MP3. Same problem applies there.
Thom, HAH, you are funny man. Does anyone else thinks he is funny?
Is "very very secure"? can you try to not sound so n00bish?
Yeah, it is more secure than XP, but that doesn't make it "very very secure".
What people don't get here is the main point, Mark Shuttleworth doesn't feel the need to bash Windows 7 for him to gain any benefit, Ubuntu is doing well, with less than half the advertisement, Microsoft invest in every year. Linux is going strong in the servers, and will be expected that it continues to do so, as many IT people are dusting off old machines and turning them into Linux servers, given the economic recession we are in. I myself think Windows 7 is looking good, I will keep using Linux though.
Anyways, thanks for the laughs.
A whole lot of bullshit there. I've been running Vista for a long time now. Of course it's not perfect but nevertheless the best operating system we have available at the moment. Why else would I use it daily?
Unfortunately for you I have also been using Linux for about ten years. I keep using it for a lot of reasons but desktop performance is certainly not one of them. "Stomps Win7" is quite a false claim. I'm no security expert but I'm sure that neither Win7 or Linux stomps on the other in that area.
But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security
I use Linux on my desktop full time, after years with Windows. I switched for security reasons. I don't know if Windows 7 is measurably less secure than my Linux distro now, but for me Linux still has an aura of security and peace of mind that Windows does not provide.
As for performance, well, let's just say that I did not switch to Linux for performance reasons. Boot time is about twice as long with Linux. Login to the desktop takes longer on Linux. The Nautilus file manager, which is comfortable for me to use, is inexcusably slow on directories containing more than about 25 files. I could go on. I'm fairly content with my Linux distro at the moment, but if you're looking for a "snappy" but familiar desktop, keep on looking. Edited 2009-01-22 13:28 UTC
Not to mention your *desktop* Linux apps suck royal ass.
Linux is for servers.
"Linux is for servers."
Having some experience here, I can tell you this: Linux *sucks* on servers. Unix is for servers.
I don't agree and many ISP's run Debian on there webservers which proves my point exactly.
Rockwell, what's with the obvious trolling?
Anyway, Linux isn't "for" any specific purpose; it exists still as a project for students and enthusiasts to learn from. You would have been more correct to say that Linux is meant for multiple users, which is very true. It just so happens to also be pretty damn good at nearly any task it's thrown at, whether serving web pages and databases, or powering a home desktop, or making possible a powerful, open cellphone platform. It's the swiss army knife of the OS world, malleable into nearly any conceivable use, and ported to almost as many platforms as NetBSD (maybe more by now, I haven't kept up).
Some would say the only better UNIX than Linux is BSD, and even that is debatable on several different fronts. Myself, I prefer OS X for its speed, power and simplicity -- and the fact that it doesn't use X11 as the UI server.
My Linux install boots in less than half a minute on my desktop... not too bad, I think.
...and Vista cheats with the boot process.
I only consider it fully booted up after it finishes it's thrashing of the hard drive after the desktop appears.... it's unusable before that. Edited 2009-01-22 16:34 UTC
atari05 pointed out...
Really? 32bit WinXP runs like lightning on my AMD64+2Gb+GeForce 6600GT while Ubuntu runs like a dog. huge difference in performance. Your claim is ridiculous.
And in my case 32bit WinXP runs like a dog on my AMD64X2+2Gb+GeForce 5700GT while Ubuntu runs like lightning with a huge difference in performance.
He may be rediculous, but evidently from my experiences you are wrong. Flat out. Just like I am to someone else with different experiences.
Weeeeee! Isn't software fun???!! Edited 2009-01-22 20:58 UTC
"But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security (on any machine you choose), there won't be a single Linux user switching to Win7, I guarantee that."
When it comes to performance and security a lot of users are happy if it is "good enough", and often don't understand either.
They do however care *alot* about ease of use, and maybe even more importantly: familiarity. Linux is scary to a lot of people. I remember we had Linux at school. Everybody hated it, the only thing they hated more was OpenOffice.
But of course, people who have what they need on Linux *and* are familiar with it probably won't switch.
As ive probably said before, a quote from the talk with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had was Steve Jobs saying that for either company to succeed the other doesn't have to lose. I think this can be applied to the whole of the computing industry. Im platform agonistic and i find uses for all three major OS's MacOSX, Windows and Linux.
Strong compeition is a win win for the market, Windows 7 is being engineered well due to compeition from both MacOSX and Linux, which in turn compete with each other.
After years of medicore the computing OS market is becoming interesting again.
A lot of good different OS's going on right now.
From the article:
"While Microsoft isn't exactly be subsidizing Windows on netbooks, the existence of Windows XP is undercutting the flag-ship product."
WTF? not true
Why are netbooks so important? It's a market tipped to grow, recent economic woes aside, and it's a market not yet dominated by Windows to the exclusion of all other operation systems.
WTF: maybe it won't ever be dominated...
etc. full of shit not worth your time. Edited 2009-01-22 10:42 UTC
""Why are netbooks so important? It's a market tipped to grow, recent economic woes aside, and it's a market not yet dominated by Windows to the exclusion of all other operation systems. ""
Try buying a Linux netbook in Australia that ISN'T the 7 inch EeePC. I managed to get an Acer Aspire One with Linux, but I hear that the new Aspire One revision doesn't have a Linux option. They all come with Windows now, and I'm sure this probably isn't too far from the truth in other countries too.
I don't think your appraisal is true. Even if Windows is viewed as the "real OS," getting strong (even just 10%) Linux adoption in the mainstream netbook market will do great things for overall Linux acceptability. It's good to focus on one thing at a time when you're still trying to hit the big time in the consumer market. The Linux movement can then try growing from a strong position in one market once they are established.
No, I'd say the risk is real. It would be crazy for the world's most flexible and adaptable OS to settle for second best by becoming tarred in Joe Public's mind with "It's OK if you like netbooks". And of course it's not what, say, SuSE or Red Hat are about, nor Ubuntu if they aim to generate revenues from server and full-PC or laptop OEM stuff.
I think Linux must make it clear that Linux is about an awful lot more. Microsoft's aim is never to eradicate competition completely - they'd get whacked with another investigation. It's to confine the competition to small areas where it can be kept under control and thrown a pathetic tidbit every now and then.
I'm not sure you can go that far. Who said that I'm willing to play with others?
The bigger the smile.
The larger the knife.
*prepares the popcorn* I love those quiet moments before the storm.
See I be the type to always beat you to the punch faster
I keep a smile on my face but carry the Bushmaster.
With apologies to Busta, this seems to be the way Microsoft operates nowadays.
If the only chance you have to stay in the game is to hope that the price of your competitor becomes really high then to me it looks as if you really need to improve the quality and attractiveness of your own offering.
A fair price for the OS on a netbook is probably around 30 dollars. Now Microsoft cannot really separate the netbook market from the notebook/pc market so perhaps this will force them to lower their prices.
On the other hand, perhaps Microsoft has an unwritten understanding with vendors like Dell. It goes something like this.
Dell pushes Microsoft products.
Microsoft prices Windows upgrades high enough that most users would rather just buy a new system (including OEM windows) when the time comes.
There will be a Windows 7 netbook edition:
And I bet the OEMs will pay very little for it.
... of his true opinion - he only uses this as a pre-text to make those hackers work on Linux 24/7
Pretty mean, pretty smart !
It really is kinda fun in the OS world right now.
Kind of a big free for all in that from my personal opinion everyone is putting out a great product for once.
BSD, Linux, Solaris, OSX, Windows 7 beta, I like them all!
Now all we have to do is wait for someone at Microsoft or Apple to come up with some useless proprietary media idea to screw it all up for all those people who insist on iPods and Windows Media Player.
I myself am an iRiver and VLC person.
But above everything, have fun with whatever you use!
Amen to that with VLC and IRiver. As for OS's, I'm happy with Win 7 Beta ATM. Runs everything I've thrown at it so far and is nicer than Vista x64 as well as snappier.
Still waiting for an beta of Haiki OS but only due to nostalgia for once of the most pleasurable OS's user experiences I had with BeOS in the day.
Windows 7 comes with pretty much the same DRM as Vista if I understand it correctly. That's a very good reason not to let people buy Windows Vista or 7.
I hate to say it but Windows 7 is shaping up to be a truly exceptional operating system. It runs blazingly fast on my old p4 with 1gb of ram and an old nvidia card. I'm pretty damn impressed with the beta so far. I usually don't have anything good to say about Microsoft but they might just redeem them selves with Windows 7. As much as I love open source and linux in general there isn't any real competition to Windows when it comes to the desktop. Windows is a product and a brand that sticks in peoples minds for good or bad. You can't really say the same for Linux. You've either heard of it or use it or have no clue what it is. On top of that those that use Linux are split up between different distributions and different desktop environments. I'm all for choice but alot of people outside the tech world care less about what kernel they are running and what window manager to use. They care more about things other than computers. To them a computer is more of an appliance like a tv or cell phone. To most the computer is a Windows computer and the only other choice is a Mac computer. I wish Shuttleworth the best of luck but he has a long road ahead if he wants to compete with Windows on any consumer platform. I know he's working hard and pushing pc vendors to ship linux preinstalled but that brand image just isn't there yet. On to of that Microsoft will always undercut, undermine, and outright strong arm vendors to keep it's product on top and in the public eye.
Perhaps the people who want pots of money will be more likely to give the majority of users something desirable.
As Adam Smith wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
I've been there done it. I to used to be a fanboy both MS and Linux. I got everyone to run Windows 95 back in the day. The older I got, the more I realised the OS is just a tool. Tools either work or they don't. Right now, Linux is working for me, better that XP. So I run a Linux desktop with Vm's and dual boot when I need to. My wife runs the same way - and she not a tech person. I couldn't switch her back to Windows, she's kill me. That me - not you. So for the Windows fanboys, grow up. Quit living in a fantasy world. While you have some cool technology, you are not Gods gift. And for the Linux fanboy/elitist, you might want to go to whylinuxsucks.org once in a while. My 2c.
I'm not a Linux elitist, but I'm just nog a fan of Microsoft and their practises. *cough* Monopoly Abuse *cough* *cough* DRM *cough*