OSNews

You keep on comparing the base Windows with the fully fledged Linux or w/e.

* No you can boot ext3 and stuff, there's some trick dding the first 512o of the root FS, but I had linux installed on ext3 with the MS bootloader numerous times.

* Install OpenOffice if you think the MS Office price is prohibitive, and you'll get EXACTLY the same word processing and spreadsheet capabilities than Linux.

* The base Linux doesn't even have an X server. Hell, the base Linux isn't even an OS. Your bias is enormous on this. These are all third parties. You can get third parties on Windows too.

* Install any free compiler? Same as you'd do in Linux?

* I don't know about that, but isn't the problem resolved by disabling auto updates? And while you have to confirm installation, I doubt every Ubuntu user out there parse through kernel.org changelogs before installing a new kernel, even though you could put "any code" into it. There's a question of trust. You trust (and I do too) Linus and the gang, okay. Some people out there trust MS.

You prefer Linux, good for you, it IS a very good OS (I do half my work on it), and you're entitled to your opinion, but spreading misinformation is not the way to go for FOSS advocacy.

Edited 2009-09-28 10:07 UTC

I could have bet my house that Windows fans would not believe most of this.

I gave the start of a list of what any new desktop computer owner would actually get (and what deficiencies they would endure) if he/she bought a computer with "Windows" pre-installed versus what they would get if they bought one with a Linux distribution pre-installed.

There is no disinformation in my list at all.

Have a look here at what you get if you get a Linux distribution pre-installed:

http://system76.com/articles.php?tPath=2_8
http://www.zareason.com/shop/pages.php?pageid=4

That fact that you can remedy (at a later time, and at additional expense and/or trouble) some of the deficiencies of a bare Windows install does not negate this point.

The fact that one can add many of the same FOSS software to a Windows computer as one can get pre-installed on Linux is not a good reason to get Windows and put up with its deficiencies.



No. An "update to Windows update" sent from Microsoft can install silently on your machine (i.e. without asking your permission) even if you have "disabled" Windows update.

Given that, and given the fact that Microsoft clearly don't trust you (e.g. EULAs, no-dissasembly rules, WGA, OGA, registration keys, the anti-copying provision brought about by the registry, and DRM in general) ... why would anyone sane trust MS?

Edited 2009-09-28 10:57 UTC

This is a very common misconception that Windows fans seem to have about FOSS code, and trust.

The trust that one can have in FOSS code does not come about because "Linus and the gang" seem like good people. It does not come about because you personally can read the code (or changelogs) if you like.

No. That is not it.

The trust comes about for several reasons, some of which in order of importance are:

(1) EVERYONE can read the code. Not just you, or me, but everyone on the planet. They can all read the code. It can be shown by ANYBODY that the public source code that can be read does (or does not) make the downloadable executable. People who DID NOT WRITE THE CODE THEMSELVES but who nevertheless can read and understand code, they too can read the FOSS code ... and they can know what is in it, and they use it themselves ...

(2) FOSS code distributed via repositories has an impeccable record. IMPECCABLE. Over many years, for many millions of users, not one piece of malware installed on any users system via repositories.

(3) The FOSS community writes its own code, for its own use, in full public view. In what possible way, under such conditions, does it make any sense for someone to include functions that are NOT in the best interests of users of the system (considering that the FOSS authors themselves are users of the systems they write).

I could list a lot more ... but the point is that the trust comes as a direct result of the FOSS open process. It is an inevitable consequence of it.

Your knowledge does not go very far. It's perfectly possible to boot Linux, BeOS etc from the NT bootloader. I have done so myself.



No, there would be an outcry about how they are abusing their monopoly position to get everyone to use MS Office.



No, the base install support multiple desktops.



The majority of users don't give a shit but yes, you can do fast user switching. You know, the thing the Linux/X is only now getting.
Edit: I know that's not what you mean but really, no one cares if more than one interactive user can log in at the same time. Heck if it bothers you just install a telnet or ssh server and you can have many users logged in at the same time.



There's no limit to how many user accounts you can have.



Imagine the complaining from 3rd party development tool vendors. What can MS include or not? If they include a browser, people complain. If they nclude a media player, there are complaints. Now you're saying they SHOULD include dev tools and an office suite?
Damned if do, damned if you dont.

Edited 2009-09-28 13:22 UTC

Your knowledge does not go very far. It's perfectly possible to boot Linux, BeOS etc from the NT bootloader. I have done so myself. "

Sigh! There is no way to do it with the software as supplied by Microsoft when one buys a Windows machine.

No, there would be an outcry about how they are abusing their monopoly position to get everyone to use MS Office. "

Only if one could not buy a machine without it installed. That is to say ... only if it were not optional, it was part of the "Windows tax".

No, the base install support multiple desktops. "

Sorry, but no, it doesn't. Buy a Windows machine, any version. Turn it on and run the OS. Only one desktop, no multiple desktops.

The majority of users don't give a shit but yes, you can do fast user switching. You know, the thing the Linux/X is only now getting. Edit: I know that's not what you mean but really, no one cares if more than one interactive user can log in at the same time. Heck if it bothers you just install a telnet or ssh server and you can have many users logged in at the same time. "

Regardless, it is still a limitation of Windows that one simply does not have to endure with a better OS.

There's no limit to how many user accounts you can have. "

Buy a Windows machine. Turn it on, and go through the initial setup. One can add no more than five users.

Imagine the complaining from 3rd party development tool vendors. What can MS include or not? If they include a browser, people complain. "

Only because one can't remove it, or choose a better one, and it is years behind the competition, and it has very weak support of current web standards.



Only because one can't remove it, and it has very weak support of current media formats.



You missed the point. The point is not what Microsoft include or don't include ... the point here is what you get as a customer when you buy a machine. On a machine with a Linux distribution pre-installed, you get far more than a machine with Windows pre-installed. That is the current market reality.

The other point is that if Microsoft did pre-install (politics aside) the equivalent functionality to make the machine at all useful, the price Microsoft would have to charge would be prohibitive.

I don't know how Windows users put up with this. I imagine it is a bit like the story of a frog not jumping out of the boiling water if one brings it to the boil slowly.

What is even more surprising is Windows fans trying to defend it. The facts are plain ... getting an alternative OS other than Windows is an immensely better deal.