Microsoft is trying to change its strategy for pricing overseas, where the competition with Linux is fiercer. This comes as many countries consider jumping off the Microsoft Windows express and exploring Linux as a lower-cost alternative for government.
Windows Delay May Pave Way for Linux Expansion
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Don’t tell anyone.
“Longhorn, the code name for the new version of Windows, has been delayed until 2006. But rumblings last week from Microsoft suggest it may need even longer to deliver a new operating system.”
Where ar MS are these rumblings coming from? Guess what 2006 is only about year and half away. Be here before you know it.
I know that MS has alot to learn about treating their customer base, and Linux has alot to learn about teaching people of the features and performance ratings on Linux. I don’t consider myself an expert in no sense. But If the linux community wants to get more “Sales” they will have to learn that having too much bundled software, is dumb. Why do I need PICO, EMACS, VI, VIM, and other console based apps to edit one file?
Thats right I don’t … I also like to see that Windows has market share, in the PC market. If linux ever wants to take over any market, either HOME or Corporate, Linux will have to mature into an OS, that is capable of offering the same offers of Software that MS has, and do what Xandros did with Deluxe ver 2, and make it dumb simple. After all the world is made up of 89% Users 10% Power Users .5 Who think they are Admins and 0.001% Who are True Admins. and 0.499 Unaccounted for.
All statistics are made up, so please don’t flame based on the percents.
– My pennies .. 2 of them if you count
“having too much bundled software, is dumb. Why do I need PICO, EMACS, VI, VIM, and other console based apps to edit one file?
Thats right I don’t … ”
OK then – do you want to offend the VI crowd or the Emacs crowd?
“having too much bundled software, is dumb. Why do I need PICO, EMACS, VI, VIM, and other console based apps to edit one file?
Thats right I don’t … ”
Because CHOICE is the whole point of this, and if want somebody to decide for you, then stick with Windows.
“Guess what 2006 is only about year and half away. Be here before you know it.”
Yeah, if it’s released on schedule which was never one of Microsoft’s strong points. 2008 is probably a better guess. Can’t afford to be the laughingstock on this project.
Hi
“Guess what 2006 is only about year and half away. Be here before you know it. ”
buddy. its 2003 now. MS *may* release it in late 2006 or first quarter of 2007. Thats a long time in the industry. MS realises it and is trying to build a intermediate release called XP reloaded. Not everyone will upgrade. Linux is an actively considered choice and thats what the article states. why do you get annoyed over it?
Jess
OK then – do you want to offend the VI crowd or the Emacs crowd?
Neither, install KWrite or Gedit!
It is true that many distros install too much by default, unfortunately on Linux there are many cross-dependencies that must be satisfied for a system to work…
I hope that was just a typo. 2003????
Because CHOICE is the whole point of this, and if want somebody to decide for you, then stick with Windows.
People have had CHOICE for a long time. MS doesn’t stop you from switching to a different OS. Shut it.
this is one reason I like Redhat. They do try to include only one of each. I remember bakc when I used Mandrake, I would get Gnumeric, Kspread, oocalc from just choosing to nstall the Office computer packages. Don’t know if its changed now.
But then, you don’t want the negative publicity Redhat is getting of late do you. But I say all publicity is good publicity.
Hopefully Longhorn can make it in 2006 or early 2007. Should Linux take some market share away from Microsoft, hopefully Longhorn will beable gain back any customers lost over the next year.
“People have had CHOICE for a long time. MS doesn’t stop you from switching to a different OS.”
Are you stupid? The guy wanted to know why there was so much variety of apps and the answer was so people can pick what they like. What part of that don’t you understand?
“The guy wanted to know why there was so much variety of apps and the answer was so people can pick what they like.”
Like there is a lack of choice in applications for Windows.
Quote:
“If linux ever wants to take over any market, either HOME or Corporate, Linux will have to mature into an OS, that is capable of offering the same offers of Software that MS has”
An operating system is an operating system.
A program that does a specific thing is just that.
Both are not the same.
I mean, you can’t say one operating system is bad because it lacks Photoshop for example.
And there’s a lot of software on linux too, even for free.
You just have to look.
And Windows is more “user friendly” for most people because most people are confronted each day with Windows, and not with an alternative operating system.
You see, when you use something a lot, it gets easy.
Hi
”
Dude….have you been up your ass for the past 3 months or something…..time to take your head out of your butt…..its already 2004. ”
it was a typo and i am not a dude. dont assume stuff. its still not 1 and 1/2 years diff. so you are wrong anyway
regards
Jess
I know that Linux has alot to learn about teaching people of it’s features and performance ratings, and MS has alot to learn about treating their customer base. I don’t consider myself an expert in no sense. But If the Windows community wants to get more “Sales” they will have to learn that having too much bundled software, is dumb. Why do I need Notepad, Internet Explorer, Office, Windows Media Player, and other bundled apps?
Thats right I don’t …
I could keep trolling but, I really don’t feel like it.
To be on topic. I don’t think that `Longhorn’s’ delay will allow GNU/Linux to grab extra market shares. Instead GNU/Linux needs to play on it’s strengths (IE: gratis, open, no vendor lock-in, etc…), and build on them.
-Just my two pesetas.
In the grand scheme of things, I think one should consider an operating system based on the applications he/she uses.
For example, I use Windows as a desktop system because I like the apps better. Therefore, whether Longhorn comes out in 2004 or 2008 doesn’t affect me one way or the other. In fact, I think the longer it takes, the better off I’ll be because once it does come out, there may (or may not) be some compatability issues with the apps I’m using. Some people will say ‘Yeah, Linux is going to surpass Windows by the time Longhorn comes out’, acting like apps aren’t going to continue to be developed.
On the other hand, if I were more of a fan of Linux apps, then I would make the jump now and woudln’t give Windows a second thought, regardless of when Longhorn were to be released.
For those “choice” people, the reason for having a *default install* is to give the user a sensible set of applications to start out with if they don’t want to pick everything themselves. Not to install everything possible and then let them deal with uninstalling trash as they go.
Btw, Jess welcome to 2004.
Hopefully Longhorn can make it in 2006 or early 2007. Should Linux take some market share away from Microsoft, hopefully Longhorn will beable gain back any customers lost over the next year.”
Do you honestly think that people are going to take the effort to switch to Linux THEN switch back to Longhorn? That’s really doubtful. Migrating to a different platform for anything takes an effort. There’s no way they’re going to move and then have to PAY to move back. They will probably be happy right where they are. Most business users (or home users) don’t need or desire a 3D animated super-clippy. Know what I’m sayin?
Hi
“Btw, Jess welcome to 2004. ”
thanks and it was too delayed. you need to stop jumping at typos and claim and calculate better
Jess
>>I know that MS has alot to learn about treating their >>customer base,
Well they figured out how to stuff us all out of Billions to test there software for them.
>>and Linux has alot to learn about teaching people of the >>features and performance ratings on Linux. I don’t
Linux itself can be anything the vendor wants to make it. Vendors that have to compete for our business. What an idea…
>>consider myself an expert in no sense.
Good. By this statement your sure no expert, or very fimilar with the open source ways in general, but you will learn. And it will be a good thing!
>>But If the linux community wants to get more “Sales” they >>will have to learn that having too much bundled software, >>is dumb. Why do I need PICO, EMACS, VI, VIM, and other >>console based apps to edit one file?
Giving you a choice is new I know. However you will grow to like it. I know your used to only the Microsoft way but… I swear having a couple of ways to do everthing is good. Try them all and use the one you like from then on and chill!
I just love Linux Newbees!!! <laugh>
MS doesn’t stop you from switching to a different OS
No, but they significantly increase the cost of switching for their customers by locking them in with their file formats and closed protocols. Nobody is holding a gun to anyones head making them choose windows, but the cost of switching for customers and ISVs is very high considering the format lock in, and time and money invested in windows training/software/windows only back-end solutions.
No, but they significantly increase the cost of switching for their customers by locking them in with their file formats and closed protocols.
You know, you’re absolutely right. I mean, why don’t they open up those damn file formats (esp, Word and Excel)? That way, the file formats can be implemented in Openoffice.org, and then everybody can switch to the free alternative. That certainly makes a lot of business sense for MS to do that, doesn’t it? Those damn criminals!!
Linux, as it stands now is a fairly complete and usable OS. The desktop environments, while not as refined and feature rich as windows or OSX, function and are familiar for most users. The system is stable, and there is a software update mechanism for most distros. Thats isn’t the problem.
The problem is, it is very difficult for ISVs in the desktop space to effectively target Linux based systems. Its just too confusing and political to do it now. For example, should you decide to develop software for a linux desktop, you must choose between umpteen different desktop environments, toolkits, and software libraries; all which have different license requirements, all that have different amounts of support (commercial or volunteer); and you are never guaranteed any of these things will be constant on your end users desktop.
The second problem is, there is a lack of professional authoritative documentation and support for developing desktop software for linux. Say what you will, but things like MSDN go a long way. Want to know how to do something on windows? Look it up on MSDN. Still have a problem? Call Microsoft. There is literally tons of docs on MS’s site. They know part of their staying power is their breadth of applications, and they will bend over backwards to make it easy for you to develop for windows. Saying, “look at the source” is not enough. People need real easy to understand examples and articles showing them how to leverage the platform to create value.
So how to fix all this? The Linux “community” needs to agree on “which” open standard they want to make “standard”. Be it QT, GTK, whatever… when an ISV goes to develop software for linux, they need to be 100% confident that the APIs, software libraries, and toolkits will be constant across the average linux desktop. Second, in building up that standard, there needs to be a concerted effort to make it easy to develop software for linux. Consistent APIs will help, but excellent documentation, tools, and support go a long way. Finally, there needs to be some mature “non-religious” dialog about license interoperability. To have a competitive platform for the users and ISVs sake there needs to be an understanding that closed source, and open source, free software and non free software (as in beer and freedom) are able to coexist and leverage and re-use the same code/libraries. I shouldn’t be forced to re-invent the wheel just because linking to a piece of GPL code will require me to GPL my whole application.
On Marketing… what are the qualitative attributes that will make me as an end user want to buy a linux based desktop over a windows or mac one? For example, iPhoto can make it simple for me to quickly touch up and publish photos of my vacations and make me happy. iMovie makes it easy to make DVDs so I can watch my home videos on my TV. Its great that Linux has all these technical benefits, but 99% of the world can’t understand that. Figure out how you are going to make my life easier, happier, more productive, and _tell me about it_!
n/t
Longhorn SP2 probably won’t arrive until around 2010. By then we will probably have linux kernal 3.2, KDE 4.x, a new windowing system etc.
A 2010 PC may cost as little as US$100. Many people will be reluctant to spend considerably more on their software than their hardware.
MSmay face real problems within 5 years or so.
Sorry, I don’t see the point in having 40 text editors bundled in a distro. Thats just dumb IMHO. Why can’t you have just one great app versus 10 half assed ones? 10 half az apps don’t make one great app but one great app is worth more than 100 half az apps.
Look at Photoshop Elements as an example versus Gimp. Sure Gimp is free but which is better?
In order for Linux to really hit the mainstream it will need a GUI thats mainstream, not one that is a half breed of Windows and X. Then the issue of the apps and not offending the “pico crowd” is another issue.
Say what you will, but things like MSDN go a long way. Want to know how to do something on windows? Look it up on MSDN. Still have a problem? Call Microsoft.
No offence, but ever tried calling Microsoft? I’d rather deal with the folks at Red Hat. MSDN is nice, but not significantly better than what is available with MAN, and MAN covers products that aren’t from the single source vendor.
I agree that Linux documentation needs to be improved and centralized in a more obvious fashion, but Microsoft’s support is highly overrated.
Sorry, I don’t see the point in having 40 text editors bundled in a distro. Thats just dumb IMHO. Why can’t you have just one great app versus 10 half assed ones? 10 half az apps don’t make one great app but one great app is worth more than 100 half az apps.
I don’t think the presence of the extra apps is the real problem here. I like the fact that, unlike the Winows install disk, there are apps that I can use straight away.
The only problen I see is that there is not enough fine grained control on which apps can be chosen for installation. Also which editor is the best for my purposes? That answer will be different for each and every user. But let them have the choice.
Look at Photoshop Elements as an example versus Gimp. Sure Gimp is free but which is better?
Regarding the quality of the app: you’re right there, Photshop is better. Now. Which will be better in the future? Better still, when (not if) will Photoshop be ported to linux? Will the lads and lasses at Gimp be sitting still in the meantime?
In order for Linux to really hit the mainstream it will need a GUI thats mainstream, not one that is a half breed of Windows and X. Then the issue of the apps and not offending the “pico crowd” is another issue.
Again you are right. The Linux gui must be standardized. I don’t aggree that the Linux gui is a half breed of Windows and X. It just uses themes and widgets designed to give a similar look and feel to Windows, and that is good. There could be nothing worse than some way out gui that is so totally different that no one understands how to use it at first glance. That would kill Linux off very fast!
Thanks,
Yohn
” and i am not a dude.” dudette? :p
anyhow..
I agree that it’s dumb to have a gazilion different apps that do the exact same thing as default.
Choose ONE app for each kind of purpose as default (for example, if the user choose KDE as desktopUI, choose the KDE apps as default, if the user choose GNOME, choose the GNOME apps as default, if the user choose none of them, choose something else as default.. etc..) and then skip the rest of them, as default.
The Pico crowd, vi crowd, emacs crowd, etc, are all more or less “experienced” users and can all customize their own installation, which I’m sure they already do. Or choose “Full install” and get everything.
But the n00b and average joe should only get ONE of each type of app, when choosing a standard installation.
This makes things so much easier for new users and it makes installing less of a hassle, if you don’t want a full installation with every app out there included, plus the kitchen sink.
Having both QT and GTK is ok, but more than two main UI alternatives makes it too messy for beeing a good desktop OS.
A good desktop OS is not about having every single option in there that you could possibly think of, and then some.
Some “restrictions”, if you could call it that, is actually neccesary for a good desktop OS.
This is simply because a desktop OS should not require the user to be a 1337 h4xx0r to feel comfortable with, it should be as comfortable to use for an average joe aswell.
Ofcourse, this does not mean it has to be dumbed down to the point of beeing ridiculous, like Windows has been.
There are special distro’s for those kind of users.
theese were just my…
*checks pocket*
…2 bottlecaps :p
You people who complain about too many applications are not realizing three things:
1) An open-source project is like a commercial ISV. No one ever complains about too many of those in the windows scene.
2) You complain that this is Linux’s fault when Linux is just a kernel. Really it is the distro makers who should field that complaint. And many do. Lindows, and Lycoris for example. Others want to give their users choice. So YOU have a choice between many choices or no choices. Take your pick.
3) The same people who often complain about too many apps also complain that *nix doesn’t have enough apps. That is a logical contradiction.
if you’re referring to me as one of those complainers..
I’m not..
I like having a choice, however, there’s a difference between having a choice, and having everything available installed as default.. It just doesn’t make any sense..
Windows doesn’t do this, Mac OSX doesn’t do this (afaik), but most Linux distros do.
My suggestion of having a semi-intelligent installer that detects what desktopUI the user chooses and from that select the most logical apps as default and nothing else, has no downsides that I can think of..
-Plague
-Plague
I think Windows has about as many software choices as Linux when it comes to text editors, browsers, etc. The difference is that Windows only ships with one of each, where too many Linux distros try to cram in everything but the kitchen sink, so that half of the stuff is out of date by the time the distro actually ships.
I’d personally rather go with the ‘bare minimum’ approach and just download what I need as I go – that’s what I’m used to. The problem is that the most updated versions of those apps aren’t always immediately available to me in Linux, unless I want to compile my own.
“”A 2010 PC may cost as little as US$100. Many people will be reluctant to spend considerably more on their software than their hardware. “”
How much did you pay for your last printer cartridge? :>
“So how to fix all this? The Linux “community” needs to agree on “which” open standard they want to make “standard”. Be it QT, GTK, whatever… when an ISV goes to develop software for linux, they need to be 100% confident that the APIs, software libraries, and toolkits will be constant across the average linux desktop.”
Hate to break it to ya, but this will most likely only happen when manage to figure if they want to install either Emacs or Vi by default and not both.
LinuxInsider is a bullshit publication. Just take a look through a few of their articles. They put out FUD like nobody else does. This article offered nothing, absolutely nothing.
Windows is late, thus Linux may get a chance to get a foot in the door. Gee, thanks. So enlightening.
What makes it worse is that a publication with Linux in its name spends half its time rubbishing Linux. Do yourself a favor and skip it right over. Also skip right ahead all of the bullshit comments in here when you know that it’s just going to be another mud-fest for the usual crowd.
The same issues have been debated endlessly. I explained to Darious over two years ago that the reason why file formats should be open is because it is good for the customers. No person should have his information locked up in a single vendor’s format. Additionally, if Microsoft is truly about innovation, then surely they would not mind competing on the quality of its wordprocessor and not on whether people’s data is jailed in its proprietary file formats.
Darius, your post is a quiet and understated acknowledgment that the only thing holding or rather binding people to MS Office is the file format. Quite sad, really.
asus: No, but they significantly increase the cost of switching for their customers by locking them in with their file formats and closed protocols. Nobody is holding a gun to anyones head making them choose windows, but the cost of switching for customers and ISVs is very high considering the format lock in, and time and money invested in windows training/software/windows only back-end solutions.
Most of the cost of switching from Windows to Linux has nothing to do with closed file formats or protocols. So even if Windows is GPLed, it wouldn’t really change things. To switch to Linux, the biggest cost is retraining your staff to use Linux. In addition to that, there’s the period of relative drop in productivity.
Plus, of course, there would be implementation hurdles too, which would drive up costs a lot. I could go on and on with the different things that would drive up the cost – closed file formats isn’t one of them. OpenOffice.org/StarOffice already have very good support for MS Office’s formats (unless you’re using macros, and except for PPT, it is perfect for everything I throw on it).
Most offices I have seen that have plans to move to Linux in the long term normally move from Office and StarOffice prior to changing platforms anyway. And if you’re using macros, perhaps it is wise to continue to stick with Windows.
Oh, BTW, for ISVs, I don’t see how porting from Windows to Linux would be too difficult. Let’s examine Corel’s then Linu division – they managed to make a good port of WordPerfect (which IMHO is still the best office suite on Linux) in a relatively short time using a combination of QT and Wine. Never complained about “closed protocols”. Most, if not all, of Windows’ ISVs can port to Linux – there’s no technical or legal barrier.
There is however the financial barrier – Photoshop for eample, at least in the forseable future, doesn’t have any market potential in Linux. Maybe a little, but potential profits isn’t enough to justify such a port. The same would apply to most professional apps, like AutoCAD, QuarkXpress, etc.
With products like VMware and Crossover Office around, there’s really no excuse for not trying Linux. Yes, VMware is more expensive than it should be, but then so is all Windows software.
Right now, I have InDesign running in a VMware window, cranking out some very large PDF documents. Last month, I was doing this under Windows 2K, and it was such a system-intensive process that it rendered my computer unusable for anything else for hours. Doing a few of these took all day.
Now, as I’m running Mandrake, InDesign busily does its stuff on one virtual desktop while I surf the Internet and work on some high-res graphics in Photoshop – running under Wine – in another virtual desktop. No discernible processor lag, no intensive disk caching.
What’s my point? Linux’s memory and resource management is so superior to Window’s, that everything I do is two to ten times faster (no exaggeration) than it was before, even though these aren’t native Linux applications. And just wait until I can do this with native apps.
Windows Foghorn Leghorn can come out tomorrow or in 2010, I’ve already got an upgraded OS that works great. Like someone said, try out your options, be honest with yourself, and then choose whatever works best for you.
Paul,
Out of curiosity, why are you using InDesign to create PDFs, when that is one of Linux’s strength? You can create PDFs by printing from any app. You can also transform ps2pdf, text2pdf, html2pdf.
You may have some very specialized needs that are not covered. If so, I’d like to hear it.
“”A 2010 PC may cost as little as US$100. Many people will be reluctant to spend considerably more on their software than their hardware. “”
A) who says a copy of windows will cost the same as it does today then?
B) most people probably allready do have more money in software then they do hardware. Take switching to a mac, one of the huge factors for people is re-buying or trading in their software or buying alternitives, not the cost of the mac.
C) why should hardware cost more then software? my hardware would be rather worthless without software. And in the day the software that works best for me is what I go with. Price isn’t much of an issue.
D) say dell is selling a 100 buck pc in 2010, i’d say there is a fair chance of that, but at the same time it probably won’t happen simply because no matter how dated or slow peices of hardware cost there is still a min cost to produce them. At any rate, that computer is coming with the OS installed, and people will just go with it. Yet another reason free OS’s just don’t matter to most. And then for the smaller group of people who build their own, well I doubt they would build a 100 dollar PC.
E) Though I no way support it, Warez will always make the argument of cost for linux and others weak. Since many/most people would rather have a ilegal copy of windows then mess with linux just to be legal.
F) 2010 isn’t here yet, the future never ends up like you think it will be or people predict. Odds are everything you think about the state of computers for 2010 today will be complete wrong come then. Best to wait and see.
I could go on and on with the different things that would drive up the cost – closed file formats isn’t one of them. OpenOffice.org/StarOffice already have very good support for MS Office’s formats (unless you’re using macros, and except for PPT, it is perfect for everything I throw on it).
Yeah except as long as MS actively changes their formats, non-MS programs will remain a step behind. Try opening MS Office System 2003 DRM docs in OOo. Sure you could argue that you are not going to move to Office 2003 on your remaining PCs cause Office XP works fine, but when the support is up on XP and MS removes the ability to open your old file format in future revs of their software, you have a problem. Thus the lock-in.
I suppose if you switched entirely to Linux, this wouldn’t be an issue. A 2001 .doc would always be a 2001 .doc as long as OOo supports it. However, in a heterogeneous environment where some people may want to interoperate with current versions of Office, this is a problem. Unless of course office ceases from being relevant.
“”A 2010 PC may cost as little as US$100. Many people will be reluctant to spend considerably more on their software than their hardware. “”
“A) who says a copy of windows will cost the same as it does today then?”
A copy of windows in 2010 may be much cheaper – say $5. However that means MS has vastly smaller margins.
“B) most people probably allready do have more money in software then they do hardware. Take switching to a mac, one of the huge factors for people is re-buying or trading in their software or buying alternitives, not the cost of the mac.”
True.
“C) why should hardware cost more then software? my hardware would be rather worthless without software. And in the day the software that works best for me is what I go with. Price isn’t much of an issue.”
To the 95% of non-US people in the world price is a huge issue. A copy of Office XP can easily cost a yaers average income in many countries. I doubt whether MS would sell many copies of Office in the USA for $25,000 a head.
“D) say dell is selling a 100 buck pc in 2010, i’d say there is a fair chance of that, but at the same time it probably won’t happen simply because no matter how dated or slow peices of hardware cost there is still a min cost to produce them. At any rate, that computer is coming with the OS installed, and people will just go with it. Yet another reason free OS’s just don’t matter to most. And then for the smaller group of people who build their own, well I doubt they would build a 100 dollar PC.”
An alternative scenario is a bundled broadband service with a ‘free’ PC for say $40 per month. AOL could provide a standard PC preloaded with a huge amount of OSS and a customised linux distro.
“E) Though I no way support it, Warez will always make the argument of cost for linux and others weak. Since many/most people would rather have a ilegal copy of windows then mess with linux just to be legal.”
MS will may require a hardware dongle to use their software in future.
“F) 2010 isn’t here yet, the future never ends up like you think it will be or people predict. Odds are everything you think about the state of computers for 2010 today will be complete wrong come then. Best to wait and see.”
I agree totally.
“Look at Photoshop Elements as an example versus Gimp. Sure Gimp is free but which is better?”
Regarding features, no, i think Photoshop has more. Consider the following:
1) As the version bump implies (so does the feature list and the screenshots), GIMP 2.0 will be a huge improvement over the 1.2 version.
2) GIMP isn’t the only free alternative. Try Cinepaint for example. There’s no 1:1 compare.
3) Some people want what they see as “the real thing”. Wether their reasons are valid for us or not, they have that possibility: Photoshop for Windows/x86 runs very well in WINE / CrossOver. IMO, it runs good enough.
4) This isn’t a standard, general purpose application. It’s a niche market; makes mee agree with the warez point which has been made. For some people it ain’t worth the money because they can’t use it to generate money.
5) For some people, the question is rather: “is the GIMP, or another FLOSS, good enough” or “can it do what i want“, while for other, the question is “is it better” or “is it from Adobe“?
Similair points can be made regarding CAD applications.
It seems to me a small number of those who are argumenting in this OSnews.com discussion want 1 killer app that totally blows away their favorite application on Windows. Fine for you, but that’s not the point for everyone. Not all people think like that, some are smart enough to research various possibilities, and come to a more pragmatic, less black vs. white conclusion.
I know that on high school for communication (http://www.hvu.nl this is something one studies after high school, like university, but it is slightly less complex/hard than university) here , people are trained to research and make a pragmatic conclusion and it uses exactly this example (GIMP, Photoshop, and a few other examples). It was a workshop which was published as PDF on their site, later i read that being published was a mistake so i’m not sure wether it’s on the site. It wasn’t in English either.
Licence 6.0 is one reason that the delay of Longhorn may really help Linux and the other alternative OS’s. When 6.0 came in, against a lot of resistance, one of the unspoken assumptions would be that it would include the upgrade to Longhorn.
With Longhorn’s ever slipping release date the large corporate customers may well to take a look at the alternatives before signing up for another 3 years. This could be good for Linux as it can do everything they need for a basic desktop for less money cheaper.
//I’d personally rather go with the ‘bare minimum’ approach and just download what I need as I go – that’s what I’m used to.//
Try Lindows.
Seriously, printing to PDF from Linux apps is only suitable for home use, at least when using the methods you mentioned. How for instance would you create PDFs including embedded fonts, links, bookmarks, forms etc.? Certainly, you can do advanced PDFing in Linux as well but that’s far beyond most users’ capacity, including mine.
I norder for Linux to become viable to the vast ‘WTF?’ audience out there, it must:
a. start to look less like Windows ’95
Look at XP or Panther – both have done well chiefly because people looked at them and thought “that would look nice next to the cat”
b. become dead easy. Less of the confusion over distros and themes – more ‘one blatant click to eMail’.
c. large market backing. Microsoft has tonnes, Apple has the designer faction. Linux NEEDS to be heard.
It could do well.
You people keep moaning about too many apps being bunlded up with some GNU/Linux distros, yet you seem to forget that MS Windows is bundled with some uninstallable applications. Which given the option I’d rather do with out. For example IE, Notepad, Games. I mean come on would IE have the same market share if it where not deeply embedded into windows, how about note pad does anyone really do any serious work on note pad, and what about those lame games? Don’t get me wrong I’ve used Notepad and IE but if given the choice they sure as hell would not be on the top of my list.
At least in linux defense the applications bunlded in are uninstallable, with minimum hassle. That and alot of them can be used for serious work. For instance gcc which is a great compiler, not to mention free. Vi great editor, trust me once you learn all the key combinations any other editor will just slow you down. Bash great shell, puts most other shells to shame.
I could go on but I think my point has all ready been made.
That should be deinstallable not uninstallable, sorry for the typo.
whats the problem with 40 editors? its not like you are morally bound to use all of them. just pick one and stick to it. i really don’t see what the problem is here?
//That should be deinstallable not uninstallable, sorry for the typo.//
Actually, I think you were right the first time … I’ve never been presented with an option to “deinstall” an application.
But, I’ve seen “Are you sure you want to uninstall XYZ program?” hundreds of times. For good reason 🙂
Eu, the point isn’t that 500 Linux programs can make PDF files. So what if Kedit or Gnumeric can make PDFs? They can’t make them with multi-column, ligature-inserted Opentype-compliant outline-converted text layouts, cmyk and pantone spot colours, imported and resampled TIF and EPS files, imported clipping paths, custom page bleeds, and all the other stuff I need in DESKTOP PUBLISHING. That’s why I use InDesign.
It freezes my K-meleon browser every time i visit.
Well, I like Lyx and Latex for desktop publishing and Scribus is coming along very nicely, but I am glad to hear that InDesign meets your needs.
You also must admit that most people don’t have your needs. When most people think of putting out a nice looking PDF, they can just use Kword to do the layout and print it and it looks fantastic.
It’s not just the tools, but the ability of folks to use them well. I wager that most people would do very well with the existing tools, even if this doesn’t include you Paul.
Rich (IP: —.soton.ac.uk) – Posted on 2004-03-10 15:21:52 wrote:
I norder for Linux to become viable to the vast ‘WTF?’ audience out there, it must:
a. start to look less like Windows ’95
Look at XP or Panther – both have done well chiefly because people looked at them and thought “that would look nice next to the cat”
What are you on about ? windows 95 ? , imho kde 3.2 looks way better than windows xp. Stop trolling read here:
read this article : http://dot.kde.org/1078946275/
before you troll, and thats from a non-techie.
heres screenshots of my desktop for you to drool over
http://www.vamegh.co.uk/desktop1.png
http://www.vamegh.co.uk/desktop2.png
ive got dual monitors acting independantly hence the 2 screenshots.
my setup http://www.vamegh.co.uk/setup/
b. become dead easy. Less of the confusion over distros and themes – more ‘one blatant click to eMail’.
yes i click the email button and low and behold kmail opens up.
Where have you been living for the past five years. Im amazed you even come up with this stuff.
c. large market backing. Microsoft has tonnes, Apple has the designer faction. Linux NEEDS to be heard.
It could do well.
I guess IBM, SUN, Novell are small companies i guess HP is small, they all are backing linux.
look at suns java desktop System (which just happens to be linux). IBM has been advertising linux within their adverts, sometimes the comments released by people on this forum just surprise me.