| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Abraxas
l33t
Joined: 25 May 2003
Posts: 814
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:38 pm Post subject: The non-problem with drivers and other gripes |
 |
|
First of all Windows drivers are not all good. I've had plenty of problems with them too. The driver for my soundcard would magically disappear every other day in Win2000. No such problem with Linux. That's besides the point though. You can put together a computer with excellent Linux support if you really wanted to. I know not everyone can go out and buy a new computer but the fact is there is a lot of hardware support, not as much as Windows but if you are going to support one OS then it's probably going to be Windows. As people have said, the reason is because of marketshare. The fact that Microsoft gained that marketshare because of illegal practices is enough to put me off. I'd rather buy a couple of new parts for my computer than support a company like Microsoft personally.
What I don't understand is the people who say that Linux must adopt to Microsoft's non-standard, non-open formats. It is futile. By the time Linux masters one of those Microsoft formats, Microsoft goes ahead and changes it. This is for no other reason than to lock people in. To think that Linux must persue a less than ideal, ever changing format just to compete is sad. It may take longer to get a foothold in the market but why submit to crappy formats when there are better alternatives. To keep using the .doc format for example, locks people into that format even when not using Office. People will save in that format for interoperability and the cycle continues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chaos
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 103
Location: NJ
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
After watching Revolution OS, I have a new found dislike of Microsoft. According to it, he basically created the notion of proprietary software, which thusfar has lead to lower quality software (windows, office, etc) and proprietary standards.
Consider this: if windows were open source, then every driver in it could most likely be reproduced on every other operating system. And if linux had the same hardware support as windows, I think there would be quite a significant exodus from windows to it. Even office; if it supported standards and allowed interoperability with its products (think outlook and exchange) then would they be in business?
Not as big a factor considering the open source community comes together to produce some amazing software that manages to get around their irritating proprietary crap, but still who would use windows if linux had the same hardware support and could interact with existing microsoft programs? I think if that happened tomorrow then there would never be another windows anything deployed in a business environment and the retail environment would suddenly become much colder for them.
Getting to the root of your question, why the hate for microsoft? Because they reap huge profits from terrible business practices, and ridiculously overpriced, underfeatured, substandard software. Can you think of one new useful feature from Windows XP that wasn't in Windows 2000 (truly the height of the windows operating system)? All I can think of are things that get in my way (ie wizards I never want to see with no easily accessible way to get rid of them) and tacky hackish themes that look absolutely horrible. And windows 2003 server is even worse offering no feature I can think of off the top of my head over 2000, yet it took 3 years to develop and costs tons of money. In fact I've heard it has even worse performance.
And if paying for software isn't enough (it's not with Microsoft, which is really at the heart of the hatred of most people I think) is that you never really own it. The only significant new features that have been offered since Win2k are their annoying 'features' that require you to tie it to one computer. And god forbid you change anything or else you have to call them again to ask for permission to use your own software.
Just recently I was on vacation with my mom and my extended family and she was having a problem sending email (ISP problem) and she made some change in outlook so that it required the CD to fix. Now who the hell brings all their windows/office CDs wherever they go? Yet without your email/contact app it's hard to get work done and apparently you need the cd to 'fix' it. She showed it to me and there was nothing I could do. She finally called Microsoft (not what I'd ever do under any circumstances...I don't even think they offer free support for their trash software) who ended up directing her to support that Cornell has for free (she's a professor there) who told me some obscure registry entry to change to fix it. It worked, but why did it require all the trouble?
I think once you start using linux you look back and just become angry at what they're doing and how everyone goes along with it. So...yeah...end rant.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kihaji
Apprentice
Joined: 12 Sep 2002
Posts: 230
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaos wrote: | After watching Revolution OS, I have a new found dislike of Microsoft. According to it, he basically created the notion of proprietary software, which thusfar has lead to lower quality software (windows, office, etc) and proprietary standards.
|
Proprietary software was around long before Microsoft.
| Quote: |
Consider this: if windows were open source, then every driver in it could most likely be reproduced on every other operating system. And if linux had the same hardware support as windows, I think there would be quite a significant exodus from windows to it.
|
Doubtful. There is a lot more to software than being able to look at the code. TCO between Linux and Windows goes in favor of Windows in most situations. Support channels definately go in favor of an established business that has control over their software. Open Source is not the magic cure for all of softwares ills, and the driver support would still be the same. Windows not being open source has nothing to do with drivers in Linux, market share, OS models, and OS features do.
| Quote: |
Even office; if it supported standards and allowed interoperability with its products (think outlook and exchange) then would they be in business?
|
And what standards would those be? Point to a standard that existed before Exchange that provided for groupware like Exchange that wasn't closed source. I'll give you a hint, there wasn't one. There was a hole in the market that needed to be filled, and they filled it. And damn right they should profit out of it, they are after all a business.
| Quote: |
Not as big a factor considering the open source community comes together to produce some amazing software that manages to get around their irritating proprietary crap, but still who would use windows if linux had the same hardware support and could interact with existing microsoft programs? I think if that happened tomorrow then there would never be another windows anything deployed in a business environment and the retail environment would suddenly become much colder for them.
|
Again, along with the software channels you need to have a support infrastucture that Linux doesn't have and never will. And no, message boards where if a user has a basic question and either gets berated and called a N00b or "use google(search) you n00b" is not an established support channel.
| Quote: |
Getting to the root of your question, why the hate for microsoft? Because they reap huge profits from terrible business practices, and ridiculously overpriced, underfeatured, substandard software. Can you think of one new useful feature from Windows XP that wasn't in Windows 2000 (truly the height of the windows operating system)? |
Stability, compatibility with software, ClearType, user friendliness.
| Quote: |
All I can think of are things that get in my way (ie wizards I never want to see with no easily accessible way to get rid of them) and tacky hackish themes that look absolutely horrible.
|
I have yet to see a wizard, I find a way to disable them all.
| Quote: |
And windows 2003 server is even worse offering no feature I can think of off the top of my head over 2000, yet it took 3 years to develop and costs tons of money. In fact I've heard it has even worse performance. |
Its actually better performance. They basically did what I think every software company/project should do eventually. Stop and rewrite the base code and clean up everything. 2k3 is smaller, more efficient, and more stable than any MS server OS. IIS6 is incredible, and in fact there are a number of Linux converts going back to 2k3.
| Quote: |
And if paying for software isn't enough (it's not with Microsoft, which is really at the heart of the hatred of most people I think) is that you never really own it. |
And how do you suppose all these developers of OSS earn a living? Free software has limits, paying for software is and will always be necessary.
| Quote: |
The only significant new features that have been offered since Win2k are their annoying 'features' that require you to tie it to one computer. And god forbid you change anything or else you have to call them again to ask for permission to use your own software.
|
While I don't agree with their solution, I do realize thier problems. Piracy, especially in countries other than the US, is rampant. Billions of dollars lost each year to piracy. Remember all those software developers currenlty looking for jobs right now? Partly due to piracy(and of course the fact that a lot of software houses had no clue how to manage money)
| Quote: |
Just recently I was on vacation with my mom and my extended family and she was having a problem sending email (ISP problem) and she made some change in outlook so that it required the CD to fix. Now who the hell brings all their windows/office CDs wherever they go? Yet without your email/contact app it's hard to get work done and apparently you need the cd to 'fix' it. She showed it to me and there was nothing I could do. She finally called Microsoft (not what I'd ever do under any circumstances...I don't even think they offer free support for their trash software) who ended up directing her to support that Cornell has for free (she's a professor there) who told me some obscure registry entry to change to fix it. It worked, but why did it require all the trouble?
I think once you start using linux you look back and just become angry at what they're doing and how everyone goes along with it. So...yeah...end rant. |
And where would you go for linux support? Where would your mom go if something broke in linux and you werent around? Do you really think your mother, being an average user, could find a support channel for her variable flavor of linux, know what information and how to ask a question to appease the n00b-sniffers, and then effect the required fix? Whether it be an arcane patch or searching through a source file and then recompiling? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
someguy
Guru
Joined: 10 Jul 2003
Posts: 433
Location: (-_-) .::OH_WELL::. (-_-)
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 7:50 am Post subject: wow |
|
|
i think the guy that started this post is a windows zealot im sorry no offense or anything but hes seem to have given more dislike to linux on this forum than he has to windows and dont get me wrong hes entitled to his opion and all but geez ive been running linux soley (i just finally got my gaming machine backup and its dual booted between gentoo and xp and i hardly ever use windows ) for nearly 7-8 months now and i love it just as much as the day i started using it and ive been using it for nearly 5 years now i grew up on windows and have always had a dislike for it i find it to be boring ahh sorry just my lil rant
_________________
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`
while [ 1 ] ; do echo "*" | telnet ip.of.print.er 9100 ; done |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koon
Retired Dev
Joined: 10 Dec 2002
Posts: 518
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kihaji wrote: | | TCO between Linux and Windows goes in favor of Windows in most situations. |
Real experience shows otherwise. Only highly-debated M$-sponsored research partially goes your way.
| Kihaji wrote: | | Quote: |
Getting to the root of your question, why the hate for microsoft? Because they reap huge profits from terrible business practices, and ridiculously overpriced, underfeatured, substandard software. Can you think of one new useful feature from Windows XP that wasn't in Windows 2000 (truly the height of the windows operating system)? |
Stability, compatibility with software, ClearType, user friendliness.
|
XP more stable than Win2K ? Did you ever use the two ? Compatibility with software ? I can remember when CD-burn software that used to work in Win2K was broken in XP. That's not what I call more compatibility. ClearType ? Is that useful ? User friendliness... yes, at the expense of more experienced users who have to suffer from the trimmed-down interface.
| Kihaji wrote: | | Quote: |
And windows 2003 server is even worse offering no feature I can think of off the top of my head over 2000, yet it took 3 years to develop and costs tons of money. In fact I've heard it has even worse performance. |
Its actually better performance. They basically did what I think every software company/project should do eventually. Stop and rewrite the base code and clean up everything. 2k3 is smaller, more efficient, and more stable than any MS server OS. IIS6 is incredible, and in fact there are a number of Linux converts going back to 2k3. |
OK, now it's either a troll, or someone that just reads M$ press releases in Windows Magazine and never actually used the software he's talking about. I decide for the troll, and I stop feeding it.
-K |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zhenlin
Veteran
Joined: 09 Nov 2002
Posts: 1361
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lock?
That would be nice.
Microsoft spawned proprietary software for the PC, starting with Altair BASIC. Immortalised in the letter Bill Gates wrote.
| Quote: |
February 3, 1976
An Open Letter to Hobbyists
To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?
Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.
The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.
Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?
Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.
What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.
I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.
Bill Gates
General Partner, Micro-Soft
|
http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaos
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 103
Location: NJ
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Proprietary software was around long before Microsoft. |
Yes you're right, but they were the ones who brought it to mass market. And no other organization works so actively against open source as they do.
| Quote: | | Doubtful. There is a lot more to software than being able to look at the code. TCO between Linux and Windows goes in favor of Windows in most situations. Support channels definately go in favor of an established business that has control over their software. Open Source is not the magic cure for all of softwares ills, and the driver support would still be the same. Windows not being open source has nothing to do with drivers in Linux, market share, OS models, and OS features do. |
I've heard conflicting reports about TCO with Windows and Linux, so I don't really think it's safe to say that the TCO goes in favor of windows in most situations. And, while I am not a developer myself, I would venture to guess that it would be easier to write a driver with existing source than nothing (even better with technical documents). I find it difficult to believe that if Windows had started out open source that the driver support would still be the same.
| Quote: | | And what standards would those be? Point to a standard that existed before Exchange that provided for groupware like Exchange that wasn't closed source. I'll give you a hint, there wasn't one. There was a hole in the market that needed to be filled, and they filled it. And damn right they should profit out of it, they are after all a business. |
True, but their execution with Exchange/Outlook is less than flawless. It will be interesting to see how the open source relacement (Chandler??) does. And regarding their profit, can you honestly say to yourself that Microsoft is a company who prices their products reasonably and delivers what they promise for that price, that their business tactics are honorable and that they profit because of their amazing software ingenuity, originality, development, and support? If you can that seems like denial to me or else you see something I don't. I see that they have done some things that aren't terrible and some that might even be called original and well made, but many of their features are just rehashes of someone elses ideas.
| Quote: | | Again, along with the software channels you need to have a support infrastucture that Linux doesn't have and never will. And no, message boards where if a user has a basic question and either gets berated and called a N00b or "use google(search) you n00b" is not an established support channel. |
If you go with a commercial linux distro they have support. Assuming you're using their distro (logically you would be if you were using their support) then you have a support infrastructure. I think for the average user such support channels would be perfectly adequate. And for above average users I definitely believe that linux has a better support infrastructure. Have you ever tried searching the MS knowledge base? Maybe it's just me, but I could never find anything I wanted on it. I could put in the damn title of the entry and it'd turn up some useless crap. And typically one usually gets one's windows support from their OEM which often includes their always supportive tip to 'reinstall windows'. I don't want to reinstall windows, I want this installation to work. Almost every problem I've had on linux has either been a mistake in my configuration or a documented bug (or something I assumed was a bug because I live in the unstable branch or off of breakmygentoo) that I have easily and quickly found a fix to. Google helps with that, but so does this forum. I could be completely off here, but you sound either like one of those people who would post complaining about how someone was a noob or not post anything. I don't hang around the forums all the time, but if I see someone with a question I know the answer to and I have a minute, I post. I see other people doing that here too; I don't think I've ever seen a 'RTFM, noob' response here. That's the beauty of the gentoo forums; they have the answers to almost every question I've ever had. I rarely post because I rarely have to. I find my problem within minutes after looking through a few threads (although what's the story with searches on the forums and numbers? Maybe I want to know about mozilla 1.5, not mozilla 1.4). Thus this represents a fundamental difference between the windows mentality and the linux mentality (I believe): the windows mentality is that there should be someone there whos job it is to fix your problem, the linux mentality is that it is everyones job to help everyone else.
| Quote: | | Stability, compatibility with software, ClearType, user friendliness. |
I think that's just a load of shit. Nothing I've ever seen (numerous random college people's problems) has ever lead me to believe that Windows XP is more stable than Windows 2000. And how can you say compatibility when it breaks compatibility with so many programs?? ClearType. I knew someone would bring that up. That's been pushed so much. It's just a font setting. The difference is not that big. I think modern linux fonts look at least as good, if not better and if I'm not mistaken linux has basically the same feature in 'subpixel smoothing' at least in gnome. The only thing I like in WinXP over Win2k is the simultaneous multiuser feature. But god the login screen is ugly. And I'm not quite sure how user friendliness has progressed in XP except with regard to the amazing abundance of wizards, which you say you don't use.
| Quote: | | I have yet to see a wizard, I find a way to disable them all. |
Do you preemptively disable them? Amazing. All I ever see when someone has a problem with XP is wizards. Especially with networking. Sharing a drive, changing file permissions, etc. All hidden behind a crappy wizard that generates an insecure configuration.
| Quote: | | Its actually better performance. They basically did what I think every software company/project should do eventually. Stop and rewrite the base code and clean up everything. 2k3 is smaller, more efficient, and more stable than any MS server OS. IIS6 is incredible, and in fact there are a number of Linux converts going back to 2k3. |
Really? I heard the opposite, but that was a while ago and I don't remember where from. If I recall correctly, there was some new feature they added that slowed the machine way down in server performance, but when disabled it performed about the same. I don't particularly trust IIS, but I don't trust apache either. What I trust is that I can chroot apache and make it run as a non-root user and that it becomes very unlikely for it to be compromised. And I'm going to have to trust you regarding 'a number of Linux converts going back to 2k3' because I don't know of anyone that has or would go back to it.
| Quote: | | And how do you suppose all these developers of OSS earn a living? Free software has limits, paying for software is and will always be necessary. |
I phrased this part poorly. I recognize that nothing is truly without cost, but most deliver a product that is worthy of a reasonable cost. OSS developers make their money by making products that are useful for businesses, who then recognize that their piece of software would increase productivity and thus put them on payroll to increase the robustness of the product so that they can have increased productivity and higher profits. There are other ways as well, of course.
| Quote: | | While I don't agree with their solution, I do realize thier problems. Piracy, especially in countries other than the US, is rampant. Billions of dollars lost each year to piracy. Remember all those software developers currenlty looking for jobs right now? Partly due to piracy(and of course the fact that a lot of software houses had no clue how to manage money) |
Piracy is rampant in other countries because the people there don't have $200 to lay down for an operating system. That's why China is beginning to work with linux as opposed to windows. And I know everyone always claims that billions are being lost due to piracy, but to me it's more like billions are not being paid for the use of software. This is slightly different. Pirates only take information, rather than physical product (typically, if they take physical product then that's theft and that's something different). And the reality with piracy is that most people who pirate a piece of software, wouldn't (or couldn't, as above) have paid for it to begin with. When some kid downloads a copy of adobe photoshop, it's because he wants to play with it or seem cool to his/her friends (he/she now possesses a $600 piece of software). Would that kid ever buy it? No. Now business on the other hand are a different story. When a business pirates a piece of software and makes money directly or indirectly from that software then that's definitely morally objectable. So if that same kid were working for a graphics design studio and used his/her pirated copy of photoshop to make something from it which is then sold, then that person it part of that billion dollars and should definitely pay for the software.
| Quote: | | And where would you go for linux support? Where would your mom go if something broke in linux and you werent around? Do you really think your mother, being an average user, could find a support channel for her variable flavor of linux, know what information and how to ask a question to appease the n00b-sniffers, and then effect the required fix? Whether it be an arcane patch or searching through a source file and then recompiling? |
Well if I set her up with a commercial distro she could call them. The other thing about linux is the tools it provides. There are many utilities that I could use to connect to her machine, see the problem and fix it, even though I weren't around. And you make it sound like repairing a problem is an impossible endeavor in linux; it's really not that hard. Especially with gentoo. Installing almost any program is easier than installing it in windows. And the difference is linux hardly ever just stops working. I can't think of a time I had linux just stop working; there was always and upgrade or a config change or something involved (that almost always required being root to occur, by the way). My mom's pretty tech-capable, I think she could handle a machine I setup for her. Which, before you say anything, is basically the same as getting a machine that was setup at a factory; let's not bring up installing linux because most people don't install windows. And some distros actually seem to be easier to install than windows (Mandrake and redhat maybe...I haven't used them in a looong time...definitely not gentoo ).
I must say though I wonder about your motives. You seem to be such a big windows supporter. Why, then, are you in a gentoo forum? Perhaps you just like taking apart other people's arguments which is fine, mine wasn't flawless at all, but neither was yours  . Well, we'll see where this goes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaos
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 103
Location: NJ
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow it took me an hour and a half to write that response. After reading the three others before that friggin huge one: yeah, I love this forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrF
n00b
Joined: 28 Aug 2002
Posts: 73
Location: Auckland, NZ
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reading alot of gaming forums I find the hate for anything other than windows xp fairly overwhelming, mac users are all 'gay', linux users are either communists or geeks, I think the anti ms sentiment here is pretty mild tbh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
screwjack
n00b
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 16
Location: san diego, ca
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Halanegri wrote: | | Camoes wrote: |
Later MS copied the Windows-GUI idea from Apple, who were the first to have such an user-interface. |
Yeah, they did steal it from Apple, but Apple didn't come up with it, they stole it from Xerox. |
Actually no, Apple did not steal anything from Xerox PARC, they paid them. Xerox negotiated for and was paid a large block of Apple stock (worth millions at the time) for a one-day tour of PARC to see a prototype of the Smalltalk development system as a way to inspire Apple programmers in the concepts of a GUI. Smalltalk was hardly what the Mac became. There wasn't even direct manipulation of windows, you had to select an option from a menu for a particular window, then key in coordinates to change it's size or location. No trash, no icons for files. This tour certainly did not include seeing either a working ALTO or Star, both of which were developed years later. No code was seen or re-implimented. It couldn't have been as the Star and Mac were completely different systems.
Hardly the same situation as Gates, after seeing some of the early Mac prototypes (remember that MS got into the application development business as one of the first application developers for the Macintosh), using the threat of MS pulling the plug on the early Mac applications unless Apple licenced some of the MacUI for MS apps on the PC and ceased development of the MacBasic project (many concepts from which, along with Hypercard, MS took to create VB). Gates then hired the lead programmer from the Mac applications group at Apple and made him the lead programmer for the Windows project, instructing him to make it look and work "Just like a Mac". Never mind the similarities in the desktop metaphor between Macs and PCs, whole data structures and routines in the APIs for Macs and PCs are identical. And not just for the OS, anyone else remember the Quicktime code, including comments, discovered in the first versions of Windows Media player? Hell, every move they've made towards object-oriented programming dating back to the failed Cairo project is exactly what NeXT was doing years before.
To get back to the point of this thread, this is part of why there is hatred for MS in the industry, and I assume in this community. They are not now, nor have they ever been innovators. Worse than that, they are parasites determined to make money off the work of others rather than create great products. They have the money and market position to be real leaders in technology, regardless of how they got there and yet they choose to use their position to try and hold others back (corrupting open standards, witholding information that would enhance interoperability, etc) or outright kill them, as they would love to do with the linux movement, for their own gain. This hurts EVERYONE. How much innovative software has died on the vine because VCs refuse to finance anyone just starting out because their market would put them in MS' path? How many potentially great companies haven't had a chance to grow and prosper because MS was too afraid to compete on technical merit and instead chose to leverage contracts with OEMs (BeOS anyone?)
And as if shoddy, insecure products weren't enough, they continue to make decisions based on business and marketing rather than technology. Is it really a good idea to integrate a web browser into the OS? Why is there a media player on my server OS and why can't I remove it? Isn't it a security risk? How many users do you know that really wanted product activation or phone-home spyware or a EULA that says MS can dictate to you what files it's ok to have on the computer YOU paid for? Who wants locked down hardware? Why should I have to purchase a copy of windows with the PC I intend to load nothing but linux on? Where are the end-users crying out that the next generation of hardware must use DRM or digitally signed software? Do these things make life better for you or do they protect the microsoft business model?
_________________
"Without deviation from the norm, 'progress' is not possible." - Frank Zappa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
volsung
n00b
Joined: 22 Apr 2003
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2003 11:53 am Post subject: my view |
|
|
Yes, I am a Microsoft hater. What follows is one of my major reasons why.
In regard to the original post that started this thread off, windows xp doesn't really grind on my nerves either -- but I also see that you've used win98. Perhaps you've forgotten what a horror the win9x series truly was, but that fiasco has sealed my heart against Microsoft for all time. Even if the 9x debacle was the only sin that MS has committed (and it certainly isn't) it is bad enough to justify mounds of hatred for the company and ensure a special place in hell for Bill Gates. Years after escaping from the windows 95/98/Me prison it still gives me nightmares.
I'm impressed that MS managed to make win2k/xp their first decent operating systems ever, but it doesn't make up for the massive OS failures that MS has had in the past. Windows 95 was mostly a devolution from Win 3.11, and it was rushed to market just to make MS a few extra dollars. Then we had to buy Win98, a glorified bug fix for win95. And then came WinME, which made users wish they had win95 back. The purpose of the win9x series was to put off the day that Microsoft's server and desktop operating systems would merge (which happened in winxp) and keep users on the upgrade treadmill for a little longer. Bill Gates raped all of us windows users. You should feel mad as hell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
semiSfear
Guru
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 302
Location: Adelaide, SA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As these sort of threads intend to be very long I didn't read none of the previous posts. So someone has probably already said what I am about to say. I just wan't to say my word since I recently converted totally to linux ( since I found Gentoo to be exact  ).
Things that made me really mad in Windows were cryptic non-understandable error messages. So it was really hard to correct or solve bugs. And there really isn't any "Windows community" to turn to for help, and the MS support is a joke (I'v been talking to them a few times yes). They practicly shit me in the face and blamed some other non MS software (!) Linux or should I say the Gentoo community is wonderful. Everyone is helping out, expanding and evolving unexplored terretories. In linux I can easily trace what might be the problem, and can I do it without any programming skills, then so can you. Since everything is open source it's more fun and easy to make own tweaks, both cosmethic and performance wise. U never really know what is going on under the "hood" of a Windows system.
Another thing I hate with Windows is MS way of forcing you to use their software. I call it a rape on the pc market. For example there is no way in Windows XP to uninstall Messenger, unless you tweak a .ini file (!) And the list goes on and on.
Their filosophy to literally dominate the pc market sickens me (remember what they did to Netscape?).
In linux everything is free! Lets say I don't wan't to use their IExplorer then I have to buy a new web browser software. I don't know bout the rest of you guys but I am a poor student. Sure there is always access to pirated software. But still at a company you will not find many people their that are for pirated software.
Now I don't wan't to make this post too long since I can go on for hours on this matter. I just wan't to say a few words that I _do_ like in Windows and _don't_ in linux (hopefully some linux developer will see this and take this into mind  ). Linux can be sometimes a bit hard to work with, especially with things you wan't to do in a hurry. I will use 1 example to see what I mean. I use xcdroast (since it's the best X cdr application, and I like to work in a GUI environment). To burn a audio cd from .mp3's I have to first decode the mp3's with i.e. lame, then I have to move them to my specefied "image directory" and first then I can start to burn. In Windows, well actually Nero, I just do a drag and drop and presto! I can start burning. I know this was just 1 example, but hopefully you will see my point. By the way, if anyone knows a better way please let me know.
I just would like to quote a thing Alan Cox said which has a big part in what we linux users do and what MS is doing.
| Quote: | | When we cook food or bake we use recepies. Sometimes you share your recepies with your friends. Lets say that you get a recepie from a friend. You try it and later on you make some changes to it. The result becomes better, so you share it with the people you know. Now let us pretend that the recepie is a piece of code, and suddenly you are called a pirate. |
Thats about it, thanks for reading this (the few that did/will )
P.S. I still dual boot to a über tweaked XP system just for the games, the ones that I can not run in winex. So I guess I lied in the beginning... just a litle... a white lie... maybe.
_________________
DnB is my religion, Jungle is my church. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kihaji
Apprentice
Joined: 12 Sep 2002
Posts: 230
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| semiSfear wrote: | ...Since everything is open source it's more fun and easy to make own tweaks, both cosmethic and performance wise. U never really know what is going on under the "hood" of a Windows system.
|
95% of the worlds computers users don't have the skill to effectively implement the "tweaks" in Linux. Of the 5% who do, 50% probably don't care. With the speed of todays processors, the minimal gains you get on a desktop system between Linux and Windows is moot. On a desktop OS usability, mainatinabilty, and compatibility are paramount. Windows achieves that leaps and bounds above Linux at present. If you don't believe me take this process for example; From a base install with a SB Audigy card and assuming you never intended to use the firewire port, install the required software to interface and use an Apple Ipod. Windows is install ephpod, the Ipod is recognized by the OS and mounted the moment it is plugged in with no other drivers. Linux I need to research on the kernel options, recompile my kernel, reboot which Windows didn't need, hope my modules loaded, download gnupod, install gnupod hoping I have all the dependencies, and then I might be able to use it. The difference between a succesful desktop OS and a non-successful one, 2 steps no reboots and 5 minutes vs 7 steps a reboot and about 1-2 hours if you are lucky.
| Quote: |
Another thing I hate with Windows is MS way of forcing you to use their software. I call it a rape on the pc market. For example there is no way in Windows XP to uninstall Messenger, unless you tweak a .ini file (!) And the list goes on and on.
|
Service pack 1 for XP, I bet if you did 1/3 the research and reading on Windows as you do Linux you would have found that out.
| Quote: |
Their filosophy to literally dominate the pc market sickens me (remember what they did to Netscape?).
|
And remember what Netscape did to Mosaic, or Lynx, or any of the other browsers out at the moment? You want irony? Irony is all the linux advocates stating that linux is superior because you can get a base install that includes all the software anyone would want, including a browser, but when MS tries to do the same its a monopolistic tendency. Users always have had a choice to use IE or not, pre-installed does not remove that choice. If you believe it does then you need to start coming down on Suse, Redhat, Debian and all the other big distro's out there, they do the same thing.
| Quote: |
In linux everything is free! Lets say I don't wan't to use their IExplorer then I have to buy a new web browser software. I don't know bout the rest of you guys but I am a poor student. Sure there is always access to pirated software. But still at a company you will not find many people their that are for pirated software.
|
Funny, I've never had to buy a web browser, ever. As for any other piece of software out there, there are always alternatives. Hell, my windows box has free software on it that has MS counterparts.
The fact is 99% of the "reasons" why linux advocates hate MS are unfounded. The only 2 I can believe are that linux works for them and they prefer to support an opensource OS. Other than those two, all the other excuses are merely a coverup for the real reason, it's cool to hate MS. In the culture of OSS it is the norm to hate MS, even if you have no reason to. And since people like to belong they do.
Speed, stability are all crap. A well tuned XP/2k install requires little to no maintanence and crashes very very rarely.
Cryptic errors are crap, copy and paste any error message you get into google and you will come up with loads of explanations, and linux has its fair share of crypitc messages too, yet people seem eager to spend days to look for answers to those.
Business tactics are crap. Corp. America screws people over every day. 99% of the tech industry has outsourced thier labor to developing far-eastern countries screwing the US. All but 1 that is, give you one guess which company that is. If you truely believed in your ethics you would rip out your cable modems, dsl, and dialup lines. All those industries fight hard to keep outside businesses from invading into their market and keep a hold on their legalized monopoly. You would stop using the internet, or at least the UUNet backbone, as they were mostly owned by Enron. The list goes on.
It comes down to 3 reasons, Linux works for you, You prefer open source, or you want to fit in. You choose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kesereti
Guru
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 520
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kihaji wrote: | | With the speed of todays processors, the minimal gains you get on a desktop system between Linux and Windows is moot. On a desktop OS usability, mainatinabilty, and compatibility are paramount. |
Not everyone can afford to run the latest, snazziest hardware, and here operating systems other than Windows have an advantage. "Just run Windows 98 / NT4 instead, then"? Sorry, but when you are making decisions for a company, and you're given a choice between free (as in beer), open, supported software, and software that, even though it's no longer supported by the vendor, you still have to pay for and cannot get support for anymore...well, I know which I recommend. I do give you, however, that usability, maintainability, and compatibility are paramount in computer systems -- I just don't come to the same conclusion that you do. Which platform is built around open standards, standards that are easy for any software developer to write compatible software for? Which platform allows you to customize the user interface to whatever degree you desire, stripping out and adding in components wherever needed, even to the point of the window manager itself? Which platform has bug fixes released sometimes before the bugs are even public knowledge, with the fixes only resulting in ~2-3seconds of downtime for the app in question?
| Quote: | | Windows achieves that leaps and bounds above Linux at present. If you don't believe me take this process for example; From a base install with a SB Audigy card and assuming you never intended to use the firewire port, install the required software to interface and use an Apple Ipod. Windows is install ephpod, the Ipod is recognized by the OS and mounted the moment it is plugged in with no other drivers. Linux I need to research on the kernel options, recompile my kernel, reboot which Windows didn't need, hope my modules loaded, download gnupod, install gnupod hoping I have all the dependencies, and then I might be able to use it. The difference between a succesful desktop OS and a non-successful one, 2 steps no reboots and 5 minutes vs 7 steps a reboot and about 1-2 hours if you are lucky. |
You're comparing apples and oranges here. If you're concerned about being able to support additional hardware without having to do kernel recompiles, just compile most common hardware support as a module. Redhat and Mandrake, among others, do this by default. Your "install the required software to interface" step is analogous to getting a pre-compiled binary module in Linux, and if that was available, then all the other steps you mention would be unneccessary -- all that would be needed is:
A) Copy module into /lib/modules/...
B) depmod -ae && modprobe (module)
2 steps, no reboots, under 5 minutes. See how much better things are when you compare like instances? On the other hand, I like customizing my system, so I have the choice of stripping everything out and slimming down my install -- with Windows, you get everything whether you want it or not.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Another thing I hate with Windows is MS way of forcing you to use their software. I call it a rape on the pc market. For example there is no way in Windows XP to uninstall Messenger, unless you tweak a .ini file (!) And the list goes on and on.
|
Service pack 1 for XP, I bet if you did 1/3 the research and reading on Windows as you do Linux you would have found that out. |
Why, pray tell, does it take a download that is nigh-infeasible for non-broadband customers due to its size just to uninstall a chat program? And let's not get started with IE integration into the shell; you and I both know IE can be removed from the system (don't believe me? I'll send you the diff files from a standard 2000pro cd and the altered image I made that installs 2000SP3 totally without IE...)
| Quote: | | And remember what Netscape did to Mosaic, or Lynx, or any of the other browsers out at the moment? You want irony? Irony is all the linux advocates stating that linux is superior because you can get a base install that includes all the software anyone would want, including a browser, but when MS tries to do the same its a monopolistic tendency. Users always have had a choice to use IE or not, pre-installed does not remove that choice. If you believe it does then you need to start coming down on Suse, Redhat, Debian and all the other big distro's out there, they do the same thing. |
The difference here is this: Redhat, Mandrake, etc. don't make all the software they bundle. You're not dependent on a single vendor, a single point of failure, for all your software. You have a choice whether to use IE or not? Ever tried to run Windows Update in Mozilla? It's not pretty. =)
| Quote: | | Speed, stability are all crap. A well tuned XP/2k install requires little to no maintanence and crashes very very rarely. |
...even a well-tuned Win2kSP3 install will run slower than my current server OS, I guarantee it. Why? Because there is only so far you can go in ripipng out the cruft in a Windows install before things begin to break; for example, the GUI. Whereas with my FreeBSD server (yes, not Linux, but this isn't solely about Linux), every single file on that thing is there to be useful, and IS used. Every single thing loaded into memory is critical to the system, and if it's not critical (and no, a pretty window manager is not critical to a server system), it doesn't even make it onto the hard drive, much less into memory.
| Quote: | | Cryptic errors are crap, copy and paste any error message you get into google and you will come up with loads of explanations, and linux has its fair share of crypitc messages too, yet people seem eager to spend days to look for answers to those. |
The error messages might not be so bad if the Microsoft knowledge base wasn't horribly disorganized. I forget the exact error message, but a few days back a Win2k box I was working on kept giving an extraordinarily cryptic error about encryption and server credentials when trying to log on to a domain. Every Knowledge Base article related to it had no effect. Know what the problem was? Apparently, if a machine has an existing connection to a server (that happens to be a domain controller), you can't actually log on to the domain. Note that this had NOTHING to do with encryption, unlike what the error message said. At least when route gives me the message "SIOCADDRT: file exists", it actually has something to do with the error, cryptic as it may be at first glance.
| Quote: | | which company that is. If you truely believed in your ethics you would rip out your cable modems, dsl, and dialup lines. All those industries fight hard to keep outside businesses from invading into their market and keep a hold on their legalized monopoly. You would stop using the internet, or at least the UUNet backbone, as they were mostly owned by Enron. The list goes on. |
The infrastructure exists, it's stupid to not use it. As for ripping out our cable modems, dsl, etc., there ARE providers that are actually not total scumbags, they're just not the national corporate providers. I, on the other hand, am the administrator of a community bandwidth co-op; we lease a T3 line, and resell the bandwidth to everyone in the community who wants to pay a monthly fee for it. We provide uncapped, unfirewalled, unrestricted 10Mb connections for $30/month, no strings attached, no contracts, just a simple TOS that states that you are liable for anything that happens due to your own lack of diligence in securing your systems. We don't make a giant profit from it, but that's not the point -- all the money we make over the cost of the T3 goes towards hardware maintenance and upgrades, and all of our customers are quite pleased with our service. Corporate slavery is NOT unavoidable in modern America, you just have to break away from the media-driven feeding trough to see it.
To be fair, Windows isn't all bad. I may not like Microsoft as a company, but they have done some good things for the science of computing. Do remember, though, that they ARE a convicted monopolist; to say that they don't abuse their market position is silly, because the courts have already proven that they do. Sometimes, Windows is just the right product for the job -- other times, though, the alternatives are just better. For example: I just finished a contract for a company, beat the next closest competitor by a landslide in total costs. The contract was for new systems for an office of approximately 50 employees, all of whom needed word processing, time management, email, and sundry other applications. Their current hardware is aging somewhat, but (to me) is still quite usable; the next closest contractor price-wise wanted to have them purchase all-new top-of-the-line Dell systems, each with a Windows XP and Office XP license, a brand-new server with a Win2k license, Exchange Server, etc...whereas I simply took their older hardware, installed Gentoo on one of them, got it set up with the Fluxbox WM, various free and open-source applications to suit their needs, took an image of it, dumped it onto all their other systems, set up the appropriate applications on a Gentoo install on their server, and boom, instant productivity upgrade without purchasing a single cent of new hardware OR software. Now, if said people needed some of the features that only Microsoft applications can (currently) offer, then yes, I would have gone with Windows as well, but sometimes, it's a hammer when what you really need is a screwdriver. =) As for the bit about TCO and all that, most of those studies focus on the fact that Unix admins are more expensive on a per capita basis than Windows admins; this is true, but one Unix admin can do the work of several Windows admins thanks to many of the features intrinsic to all Unix-alikes, including Linux and BSD. I charge more for my services as an admin, yes, but I get more done, faster, than a similarly competent Windows admin could in a 2k/XP environment.
Anyway, I'm rambling now. In conclusion, I don't dislike Microsoft because it's cool to do so. I don't dislike Microsoft because I'm a leet Linux dork. I'm a network consultant. I use what works, and I dislike Microsoft because, well, their products just don't fit the bill most of the time, and often come with highly stifling licensing and support costs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carbon
Guru
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 455
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How do you took an image of a machine and dump it on another?
it sounds like something very cool to do!!
_________________
I do what I want, and that's what I do.
GNU World Domination
Carbon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kihaji
Apprentice
Joined: 12 Sep 2002
Posts: 230
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kesereti wrote: | | Kihaji wrote: | | With the speed of todays processors, the minimal gains you get on a desktop system between Linux and Windows is moot. On a desktop OS usability, mainatinabilty, and compatibility are paramount. |
Not everyone can afford to run the latest, snazziest hardware, and here operating systems other than Windows have an advantage.
|
www.pricewatch.com latest price for an Athlon XP 2000+, $59, add a mobo for ~$40 and 512MB RAM $68 and for ~$200 dollars, with existing infrastructure, any business/home can have a system that will run any OS and software for the next 1-3 years. I ran XP on an Athlon 1400+ T-bird for a year myself just fine. Now, move up a bit, to say a year old motherboard like KT400 and throw in a year old video card, say a Radeon 9700pro, and linux doesn't work. Linux users usually don't have top/near top of the line hardware not because they can't afford it, but because it doesn't work in linux. Lack of support is a huge red-flag in an OS, Linux has been around long enough to garner support, but they haven't. Why? Because the community sucks when it comes to dealing with corperations. Again I point to the treatment of Nvidia. And market share is bunk, Linux arguably has a greater market share than macintosh, both desktop and server markets, yet why do you see more hardware/native drivers for macintosh?
| Quote: |
"Just run Windows 98 / NT4 instead, then"? Sorry, but when you are making decisions for a company, and you're given a choice between free (as in beer), open, supported software, and software that, even though it's no longer supported by the vendor, you still have to pay for and cannot get support for anymore...well, I know which I recommend.
|
Open and supported should never be in the same sentence. A web board or mailing list is not support. Unless I can talk to a human the support doesn't exist. And yes, most of the closed software has no support also.
| Quote: |
I do give you, however, that usability, maintainability, and compatibility are paramount in computer systems -- I just don't come to the same conclusion that you do. Which platform is built around open standards, standards that are easy for any software developer to write compatible software for?
|
And which standards would those be that Windows does not support? I know MS screws with most of the protocols out there, but they still maintain some semblance of compatibility.
| Quote: |
Which platform allows you to customize the user interface to whatever degree you desire, stripping out and adding in components wherever needed, even to the point of the window manager itself?
|
I haven't run the explorer shell in over 2 years. There are alternative shells to the native windows gui out there. Difference between Windows alternatives and the plethora of linux WM? Windows alt's don't alter the behaviour of requirements of applications.
| Quote: |
Which platform has bug fixes released sometimes before the bugs are even public knowledge, with the fixes only resulting in ~2-3seconds of downtime for the app in question?
|
90% market share vs 10% market share. Numbers mean everything in disclosure. Not to mention to find any information on linux that is up to date you have to search for days. MS has a better information infrastructure in place, linux does not. Linux depends on the web for information, which is ok but has one fatal flaw. The net never forgets...
| Quote: | Windows achieves that leaps and bounds above Linux at present. If you don't believe me take this process for example; From a base install with a SB Audigy card and assuming you never intended to use the firewire port, install the required software to interface and use an Apple Ipod. Windows is install ephpod, the Ipod is recognized by the OS and mounted the moment it is plugged in with no other drivers. Linux I need to research on the kernel options, recompile my kernel, reboot which Windows didn't need, hope my modules loaded, download gnupod, install gnupod hoping I have all the dependencies, and then I might be able to use it. The difference between a succesful desktop OS and a non-successful one, 2 steps no reboots and 5 minutes vs 7 steps a reboot and about 1-2 hours if you are lucky.
You're comparing apples and oranges here. If you're concerned about being able to support additional hardware without having to do kernel recompiles, just compile most common hardware support as a module. Redhat and Mandrake, among others, do this by default. Your "install the required software to interface" step is analogous to getting a pre-compiled binary module in Linux, and if that was available, then all the other steps you mention would be unneccessary -- all that would be needed is:
A) Copy module into /lib/modules/...
B) depmod -ae && modprobe (module)
2 steps, no reboots, under 5 minutes. See how much better things are when you compare like instances? On the other hand, I like customizing my system, so I have the choice of stripping everything out and slimming down my install -- with Windows, you get everything whether you want it or not.
|
I compared base installs.
| Quote: |
Another thing I hate with Windows is MS way of forcing you to use their software. I call it a rape on the pc market. For example there is no way in Windows XP to uninstall Messenger, unless you tweak a .ini file (!) And the list goes on and on.
Service pack 1 for XP, I bet if you did 1/3 the research and reading on Windows as you do Linux you would have found that out.
Why, pray tell, does it take a download that is nigh-infeasible for non-broadband customers due to its size just to uninstall a chat program? And let's not get started with IE integration into the shell; you and I both know IE can be removed from the system (don't believe me? I'll send you the diff files from a standard 2000pro cd and the altered image I made that installs 2000SP3 totally without IE...)
|
Yeah, and linux is a much more liteweight download? MS offers the service packs on CDrom for S/H, how many linux distributions you know do that? 0.
| Quote: | And remember what Netscape did to Mosaic, or Lynx, or any of the other browsers out at the moment? You want irony? Irony is all the linux advocates stating that linux is superior because you can get a base install that includes all the software anyone would want, including a browser, but when MS tries to do the same its a monopolistic tendency. Users always have had a choice to use IE or not, pre-installed does not remove that choice. If you believe it does then you need to start coming down on Suse, Redhat, Debian and all the other big distro's out there, they do the same thing.
The difference here is this: Redhat, Mandrake, etc. don't make all the software they bundle. You're not dependent on a single vendor, a single point of failure, for all your software. You have a choice whether to use IE or not? Ever tried to run Windows Update in Mozilla? It's not pretty. =)
|
Actually, technically they do. They are Open Source software companies, they provide and modify the software they distribute to work for their distributions, often times breaking compatibility with other distributions. So you are often relying on a single point in those distro's as you are windows. As for Windows Update, it is an application not a web site, applications have requirements. You would't say Apple is evil because Itunes requires OSX now would you?
| Quote: | | Speed, stability are all crap. A well tuned XP/2k install requires little to no maintanence and crashes very very rarely. |
...even a well-tuned Win2kSP3 install will run slower than my current server OS, I guarantee it. Why? Because there is only so far you can go in ripipng out the cruft in a Windows install before things begin to break; for example, the GUI. Whereas with my FreeBSD server (yes, not Linux, but this isn't solely about Linux), every single file on that thing is there to be useful, and IS used. Every single thing loaded into memory is critical to the system, and if it's not critical (and no, a pretty window manager is not critical to a server system), it doesn't even make it onto the hard drive, much less into memory.
[/quote]
Servers are different. And 2k3 is approaching the speed of *nix based systems.
| Quote: | | Cryptic errors are crap, copy and paste any error message you get into google and you will come up with loads of explanations, and linux has its fair share of crypitc messages too, yet people seem eager to spend days to look for answers to those. |
The error messages might not be so bad if the Microsoft knowledge base wasn't horribly disorganized. I forget the exact error message, but a few days back a Win2k box I was working on kept giving an extraordinarily cryptic error about encryption and server credentials when trying to log on to a domain. Every Knowledge Base article related to it had no effect. Know what the problem was? Apparently, if a machine has an existing connection to a server (that happens to be a domain controller), you can't actually log on to the domain. Note that this had NOTHING to do with encryption, unlike what the error message said. At least when route gives me the message "SIOCADDRT: file exists", it actually has something to do with the error, cryptic as it may be at first glance.[/quote]
Google is your friend for all things, and I have no problems using the knowledge base, but thats me.
| Quote: | which company that is. If you truely believed in your ethics you would rip out your cable modems, dsl, and dialup lines. All those industries fight hard to keep outside businesses from invading into their market and keep a hold on their legalized monopoly. You would stop using the internet, or at least the UUNet backbone, as they were mostly owned by Enron. The list goes on.
The infrastructure exists, it's stupid to not use it. As for ripping out our cable modems, dsl, etc., there ARE providers that are actually not total scumbags, they're just not the national corporate providers. I, on the other hand, am the administrator of a community bandwidth co-op; we lease a T3 line, and resell the bandwidth to everyone in the community who wants to pay a monthly fee for it. We provide uncapped, unfirewalled, unrestricted 10Mb connections for $30/month, no strings attached, no contracts, just a simple TOS that states that you are liable for anything that happens due to your own lack of diligence in securing your systems. We don't make a giant profit from it, but that's not the point -- all the money we make over the cost of the T3 goes towards hardware maintenance and upgrades, and all of our customers are quite pleased with our service. Corporate slavery is NOT unavoidable in modern America, you just have to break away from the media-driven feeding trough to see it. |
And you get that T3 from who? A legal monopoly that keeps the prices and their position where they are at through lobbying(read bribes), and denial of services(read dark fiber). The argument of "MS is evil because they are a monopoly" looses power when you support multiple monopolies.
| Quote: |
To be fair, Windows isn't all bad. I may not like Microsoft as a company, but they have done some good things for the science of computing. Do remember, though, that they ARE a convicted monopolist; to say that they don't abuse their market position is silly, because the courts have already proven that they do. Sometimes, Windows is just the right product for the job -- other times, though, the alternatives are just better. For example: I just finished a contract for a company, beat the next closest competitor by a landslide in total costs. The contract was for new systems for an office of approximately 50 employees, all of whom needed word processing, time management, email, and sundry other applications. Their current hardware is aging somewhat, but (to me) is still quite usable; the next closest contractor price-wise wanted to have them purchase all-new top-of-the-line Dell systems, each with a Windows XP and Office XP license, a brand-new server with a Win2k license, Exchange Server, etc...whereas I simply took their older hardware, installed Gentoo on one of them, got it set up with the Fluxbox WM, various free and open-source applications to suit their needs, took an image of it, dumped it onto all their other systems, set up the appropriate applications on a Gentoo install on their server, and boom, instant productivity upgrade without purchasing a single cent of new hardware OR software. Now, if said people needed some of the features that only Microsoft applications can (currently) offer, then yes, I would have gone with Windows as well, but sometimes, it's a hammer when what you really need is a screwdriver. =) As for the bit about TCO and all that, most of those studies focus on the fact that Unix admins are more expensive on a per capita basis than Windows admins; this is true, but one Unix admin can do the work of several Windows admins thanks to many of the features intrinsic to all Unix-alikes, including Linux and BSD. I charge more for my services as an admin, yes, but I get more done, faster, than a similarly competent Windows admin could in a 2k/XP environment.
Anyway, I'm rambling now. In conclusion, I don't dislike Microsoft because it's cool to do so. I don't dislike Microsoft because I'm a leet Linux dork. I'm a network consultant. I use what works, and I dislike Microsoft because, well, their products just don't fit the bill most of the time, and often come with highly stifling licensing and support costs. |
IE, Linux works for you, reason 1.
I don't care if people hate MS or not, but every once in awhile someone has to take it on to defend them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ebrostig
Bodhisattva
Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Posts: 3152
Location: Orlando, Fl
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kihaji: I have given you the offer already. PM and I'll give you an address to send your hardware and I'll install gentoo on it, with hardware graphics acceleration and support for everything you want. Wanna take me up on the offer?
Erik
_________________
'Yes, Firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
semiSfear
Guru
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 302
Location: Adelaide, SA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kihaji wrote:
| Quote: | | 95% of the worlds computers users don't have the skill to effectively implement the "tweaks" in Linux. Of the 5% who do, 50% probably don't care. With the speed of todays processors, the minimal gains you get on a desktop system between Linux and Windows is moot. On a desktop OS usability, mainatinabilty, and compatibility are paramount. Windows achieves that leaps and bounds above Linux at present. If you don't believe me take this process for example; From a base install with a SB Audigy card and assuming you never intended to use the firewire port, install the required software to interface and use an Apple Ipod. Windows is install ephpod, the Ipod is recognized by the OS and mounted the moment it is plugged in with no other drivers. Linux I need to research on the kernel options, recompile my kernel, reboot which Windows didn't need, hope my modules loaded, download gnupod, install gnupod hoping I have all the dependencies, and then I might be able to use it. The difference between a succesful desktop OS and a non-successful one, 2 steps no reboots and 5 minutes vs 7 steps a reboot and about 1-2 hours if you are lucky. |
I am not talking about the 95% What I understand it's what I think. And if I think it's worth tweaking and think it's fun then it's up to me, no? A thing on the rebooting issue. Same thing that I have to reboot after installing or updating drivers in Windows. I dunno bout you but I have to reboot after installing or upgrading my nvidia drivers. Surely it takes more time to make menuconfig and enable the right option not to say compile. But hey it's worth it in my oppinion. And like Kesereti said. not everyone affords the latest hardware. New Windows versions always demand better hardware specs. Linux don't. Well unless you really incist on semi transparent windows, shadows etc etc.
Kihaji wrote:
| Quote: | | Service pack 1 for XP, I bet if you did 1/3 the research and reading on Windows as you do Linux you would have found that out. |
Ooookay. Now this is really weird if your point is really what I think it is. I actually have a Windows XP XP1 CD and no I can't uninstall Messenger without tweaking. Maybe they implemented the uninstall in a hot fix, but thats not my point. My point is that MS forces you to use their software.
Kihaji wrote:
| Quote: | | And remember what Netscape did to Mosaic, or Lynx, or any of the other browsers out at the moment? You want irony? Irony is all the linux advocates stating that linux is superior because you can get a base install that includes all the software anyone would want, including a browser, but when MS tries to do the same its a monopolistic tendency. Users always have had a choice to use IE or not, pre-installed does not remove that choice. If you believe it does then you need to start coming down on Suse, Redhat, Debian and all the other big distro's out there, they do the same thing. |
New news to me. That I didn't know. But thanks for the info by the way, although I would like to hear the whole story
Kihaji wrote:
| Quote: | | Funny, I've never had to buy a web browser, ever. As for any other piece of software out there, there are always alternatives. Hell, my windows box has free software on it that has MS counterparts. |
There are always alternatives, but frankly speaking I have rarely come across a _real_ good alternative software in Windows that don't charge any money at all. And it doesn't matter if they wan't 10$ or even 100$ for the software.
Kihaji wrote:
| Quote: | | Speed, stability are all crap. A well tuned XP/2k install requires little to no maintanence and crashes very very rarely. |
What did you think I ment when I said that I still dual boot to a über tweaked XP system. Well mainly because of games but that doesn't mean that I think that a so called well tuned XP/2k install is absolutely worthless.
Kihaji wrote:
| Quote: | | Cryptic errors are crap, copy and paste any error message you get into google and you will come up with loads of explanations, and linux has its fair share of crypitc messages too, yet people seem eager to spend days to look for answers to those. |
Not in my experience. In the linux community people are willing the help you all the way with your problem if some googling answers didn't help. And I'm willing to do the same.
Kihaji wrote:
| Quote: | | It comes down to 3 reasons, Linux works for you, You prefer open source, or you want to fit in. You choose. |
I agree to the first 2 parts but the third... Please.. I'm sorry but now you are just silly. Moderators please delete the post or that line if I wen't to far. Sorry[/b]
_________________
DnB is my religion, Jungle is my church. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kesereti
Guru
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 520
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kihaji wrote: | | Kesereti wrote: | Not everyone can afford to run the latest, snazziest hardware, and here operating systems other than Windows have an advantage.
|
www.pricewatch.com latest price for an Athlon XP 2000+, $59, add a mobo for ~$40 and 512MB RAM $68 and for ~$200 dollars, with existing infrastructure, any business/home can have a system that will run any OS and software for the next 1-3 years. |
Multiply that $200 times, say, 30 for a decent small business, plus the hours billed for assembling said upgrades, and even if you can get a bulk discount on the parts, that can get pricey. The economy isn't so great right now (in the US, anyway), and businesses have to look to cut waste everywhere they can...
| Quote: | | Now, move up a bit, to say a year old motherboard like KT400 and throw in a year old video card, say a Radeon 9700pro, and linux doesn't work. Linux users usually don't have top/near top of the line hardware not because they can't afford it, but because it doesn't work in linux. Lack of support is a huge red-flag in an OS, Linux has been around long enough to garner support, but they haven't. Why? Because the community sucks when it comes to dealing with corperations. Again I point to the treatment of Nvidia. And market share is bunk, Linux arguably has a greater market share than macintosh, both desktop and server markets, yet why do you see more hardware/native drivers for macintosh? |
Linux doesn't work on a Radeon 9700pro? Funny, tell that to the guy I helped set up a dual boot with his existing windows install so that he could get to learn about "that linux stuff". On an Nvidia NForce motherboard, no less =P Now, granted, the ATI driver support is still a bit dodgy, but that may improve with time. Companies often cannot release source for drivers, etc., because of contractual agreements, so they have to develop drivers in-house. This takes development time and money. Driver support, etc. doesn't come easily to Linux (yet) not because the community sucks with it comes to dealing with companies, it doesn't come easily because only recently is Linux starting to be taken seriously outside of the more forward-thinking hardware and software companies, and it takes companies a while to mull ideas around before acting, and then the whole development cycle has to begin, and so on and so forth. Within the next year or two, I see driver support for Linux on the level with any other operating system available, commercial or not. Hardware companies have an easier time of this, of course, due to the fact that most people wouldn't balk at the idea of buying hardware -- they just need to see that they stand to gain enough users of their products that the expense would be more than covered, and that's just now starting to happen. Yes, there is a vocal "hardcore" minority out there who protest any sort of closed-source contribution to Linux, but I daresay the vast majority of people who use, say, an Nvidia graphics card and run X don't really mind that their driver is closed-source all that much. The market's there, it's just a question of who really grabs it first.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
"Just run Windows 98 / NT4 instead, then"? Sorry, but when you are making decisions for a company, and you're given a choice between free (as in beer), open, supported software, and software that, even though it's no longer supported by the vendor, you still have to pay for and cannot get support for anymore...well, I know which I recommend.
|
Open and supported should never be in the same sentence. A web board or mailing list is not support. Unless I can talk to a human the support doesn't exist. And yes, most of the closed software has no support also.
|
I apologize, by supported I meant more along the lines of bugfixes being released, new versions perhaps, etc., as opposed to live product support.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
I do give you, however, that usability, maintainability, and compatibility are paramount in computer systems -- I just don't come to the same conclusion that you do. Which platform is built around open standards, standards that are easy for any software developer to write compatible software for?
|
And which standards would those be that Windows does not support? I know MS screws with most of the protocols out there, but they still maintain some semblance of compatibility. |
It's not so much that the support isn't there, but it's the non-interoprerable portions that are offered as defaults that's the problem. Documents for example: how many people do you know write documents in Windows and save them, in, say, RTF or, perhaps, postscript? Not too many that I know of, and MS Word writes nosntandard RTF anyway. If Microsoft turned it's attention to writing their programs around open , interoperable standards as opposed to writing them around closed, proprietary ones and including open standards support as an afterthought, my primary gripe with them vanishes, actually; they then turn from walling off a section of the computing community to contributing to it as a whole. Another example: I think Active Directory is a terrific idea, it's a great implementation of the idea of directory services. I'd love to use the technology in non-Windows environments. The likelihood of even a closed-source API to do this being developed? Virtually none. The likelihood of an open-source API to do this? Even lower. If Windows were sold on its merits as a fine operating system as opposed to "you have to have this program and no other in order to use x feature", I wonder how well it would fare?
| Quote: | | I haven't run the explorer shell in over 2 years. There are alternative shells to the native windows gui out there. Difference between Windows alternatives and the plethora of linux WM? Windows alt's don't alter the behaviour of requirements of applications. |
I'm sorry, could you be more specific? Which behaviors of requirements of applications are you talking about?
| Quote: | | 90% market share vs 10% market share. Numbers mean everything in disclosure. Not to mention to find any information on linux that is up to date you have to search for days. MS has a better information infrastructure in place, linux does not. Linux depends on the web for information, which is ok but has one fatal flaw. The net never forgets... |
I don't quite get what you mean by that last part there, so if you'd care to elucidate a bit on that point, I'd be glad to think about it =) As for searching for days for up-to-date information on Linux? Well, since technically Linux is simply the kernel itself, www.kernel.org seems to have pretty good up-to-date info...as for the suites of applications that may run on that platform? Well, there are individual vendor sites, and if you use one of the major distributions, they keep things pretty up-to-date for you (just read the changelogs to see if the update is something worth doing)...for the security update side of things, SecurityFocus and their Bugtraq newsletter are pretty on the ball...I use them for Windows as well as Unix info, actually =) And then there are communities like the Gentoo forums. They seem fairly up-to-date, if somewhat distribution-specific(well, obviously =P), most of the time...what's wrong with them? =) Someone doesn't need to be a "professional" to know what they're talking about...
| Quote: | | Quote: | You're comparing apples and oranges here. If you're concerned about being able to support additional hardware without having to do kernel recompiles, just compile most common hardware support as a module. Redhat and Mandrake, among others, do this by default. Your "install the required software to interface" step is analogous to getting a pre-compiled binary module in Linux, and if that was available, then all the other steps you mention would be unneccessary -- all that would be needed is:
A) Copy module into /lib/modules/...
B) depmod -ae && modprobe (module)
2 steps, no reboots, under 5 minutes. See how much better things are when you compare like instances? On the other hand, I like customizing my system, so I have the choice of stripping everything out and slimming down my install -- with Windows, you get everything whether you want it or not.
|
I compared base installs. |
A base install of Redhat or Mandrake, I believe, deals with such issues in rather a similar fashion, I beileve...at least it's dealt with Audigy cards gracefully with or without the Firewi--er, sorry, SB1394 (=P) port when I've messed around with 'em...I don't use either distribution all that often, however, so my info there may be somewhat out of date with regards to their hardware setup wizards and whatnot...but in this case, you don't even have to do the above steps yourself =)
| Quote: |
Yeah, and linux is a much more liteweight download? MS offers the service packs on CDrom for S/H, how many linux distributions you know do that? 0. |
www.cheapbytes.com -- I see quite a few.
| Quote: | | Quote: | The difference here is this: Redhat, Mandrake, etc. don't make all the software they bundle. You're not dependent on a single vendor, a single point of failure, for all your software. You have a choice whether to use IE or not? Ever tried to run Windows Update in Mozilla? It's not pretty. =)
|
Actually, technically they do. They are Open Source software companies, they provide and modify the software they distribute to work for their distributions, often times breaking compatibility with other distributions. So you are often relying on a single point in those distro's as you are windows. As for Windows Update, it is an application not a web site, applications have requirements. You would't say Apple is evil because Itunes requires OSX now would you? |
Call it what you like, Windows Update is a web application. The web browser's part is such a thing should be minimal -- download the app, check via whatever method that it's OK to run said app, and keep the HTTP socket open for communications. Where in there are there any bits of technology that any standards-compliant web browser would need added on? IE is not an operating system no more than OSX is a web browser. ITunes requires a certain operating system, that's fine, that's Apple's choice as a software company to develop only for their platform -- if I run Windows as my operating system, I should be able to run Windows Update. With or without IE. Period.
| Quote: | | Quote: | ...even a well-tuned Win2kSP3 install will run slower than my current server OS, I guarantee it. Why? Because there is only so far you can go in ripipng out the cruft in a Windows install before things begin to break; for example, the GUI. Whereas with my FreeBSD server (yes, not Linux, but this isn't solely about Linux), every single file on that thing is there to be useful, and IS used. Every single thing loaded into memory is critical to the system, and if it's not critical (and no, a pretty window manager is not critical to a server system), it doesn't even make it onto the hard drive, much less into memory.
|
Servers are different. And 2k3 is approaching the speed of *nix based systems. |
Why should a desktop system be any less slimmed-down and optimal than a server? If you liked to tinker, why shouldn't you be able to rip out the parts you don't like or don't need? I think that if I were able to rip out and replace certain parts of Windows, and put in some new ones, it might be a very fine OS indeed =)
| Quote: | | Quote: | | The infrastructure exists, it's stupid to not use it. As for ripping out our cable modems, dsl, etc., there ARE providers that are actually not total scumbags, they're just not the national corporate providers. I, on the other hand, am the administrator of a community bandwidth co-op; we lease a T3 line, and resell the bandwidth to everyone in the community who wants to pay a monthly fee for it. We provide uncapped, unfirewalled, unrestricted 10Mb connections for $30/month, no strings attached, no contracts, just a simple TOS that states that you are liable for anything that happens due to your own lack of diligence in securing your systems. We don't make a giant profit from it, but that's not the point -- all the money we make over the cost of the T3 goes towards hardware maintenance and upgrades, and all of our customers are quite pleased with our service. Corporate slavery is NOT unavoidable in modern America, you just have to break away from the media-driven feeding trough to see it. |
And you get that T3 from who? A legal monopoly that keeps the prices and their position where they are at through lobbying(read bribes), and denial of services(read dark fiber). The argument of "MS is evil because they are a monopoly" looses power when you support multiple monopolies. |
That's another issue entirely, and is probably best suited to perhaps another thread. Yes, we support them because we have to, but then again, we pay taxes because we have too, also, whether you want those services or not =P
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Anyway, I'm rambling now. In conclusion, I don't dislike Microsoft because it's cool to do so. I don't dislike Microsoft because I'm a leet Linux dork. I'm a network consultant. I use what works, and I dislike Microsoft because, well, their products just don't fit the bill most of the time, and often come with highly stifling licensing and support costs. |
IE, Linux works for you, reason 1. |
I use what I believe is the best choice for my clients, regardless of my personal bias. That's what one has a responsibility to do as an IT professional. *I* use Linux myself because it works for me, yes, but when I use Linux for others it's because I believe that it is the best solution for them, all things considered. I fully explain the concept of open-source and GPL-licensed software, and what it means legally to them, just as when ,for various reasons I decide to go with a MS/Windows solution, I explain the licensing issues that Microsoft requires and what that means legally to them, prior to actually implementing the plan. I never said I don't *use* Windows, I just said I don't like it, and commenting on why I rarely end up using their products in a professional as well as home setting ^_^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kihaji
Apprentice
Joined: 12 Sep 2002
Posts: 230
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Kesereti
Linux doesn't work on a Radeon 9700pro? Funny, tell that to the guy I helped set up a dual boot with his existing windows install so that he could get to learn about "that linux stuff". On an Nvidia NForce motherboard, no less =P [/quote]
AGP 3.0 does not, I say again, does not work in linux. 2.6 it is supposed to be included, but I don't but beta software on my desktop as I don't like to have to update/recompile every 10 days. The reason that it works on an Nfoce Mobo is because Nvidia's agpgart is AGP 3.0 and allows the Radeon 9700pro in 8x speed.
ebrostig: read the above. AGP 3.0 does NOT work. No amount of tinkering you do short of rewriting the agpgart module will make this work, and if you were to do that then share it with the rest of the world because I am not the only one waiting for 2.6 to finalize and hopefully fix this.
This is a prime example of what is keeping linux(OS) behind MS, lack of standardization. Each and every distribution and each and every driver has the potential to completely change the underlying OS, which leads to incompatabilities and hacks to make things work, which is no way for a OS to behave.
Linux as a kernel and an OS may give developers all the ability in the world to customize and tweak, but its that very power that hanging developers right now. Without a sthandard interface/driver model and limits as to what is and isn't permissible by software and drivers linux(OS) will always be a 2nd rate hacked up OS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ebrostig
Bodhisattva
Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Posts: 3152
Location: Orlando, Fl
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kihaji wrote: |
AGP 3.0 does not, I say again, does not work in linux. 2.6 it is supposed to be included, but I don't but beta software on my desktop as I don't like to have to update/recompile every 10 days. The reason that it works on an Nfoce Mobo is because Nvidia's agpgart is AGP 3.0 and allows the Radeon 9700pro in 8x speed.
ebrostig: read the above. AGP 3.0 does NOT work. No amount of tinkering you do short of rewriting the agpgart module will make this work, and if you were to do that then share it with the rest of the world because I am not the only one waiting for 2.6 to finalize and hopefully fix this.
|
So, your only argument is that it is not included in 2.4.x? Well, that is the most braindead argument I have heard in a long time.
Would you look at that! It doesn't work in WIndows 2k either! Strange.. It works in Win XP? woow... that's like it's not workling in 2.4.x but works in 2.6.x...
Oh, I'm sorry, it's beta software and you don't want it! Sorry, but crying in the candy store is not going to get you any freebies unless your mother caves in. Geeezzz... I really feel for you, poor boy! NOT!
Can you give me one single argument as to why you don't want to try 2.6? It's not like it is going to eat your PC! You can still keep older and working versions of the kernel around, just in case. Can you do that in XP too? No? Wow that's so advanced!
| Kihaji wrote: |
This is a prime example of what is keeping linux(OS) behind MS, lack of standardization. Each and every distribution and each and every driver has the potential to completely change the underlying OS, which leads to incompatabilities and hacks to make things work, which is no way for a OS to behave.
Linux as a kernel and an OS may give developers all the ability in the world to customize and tweak, but its that very power that hanging developers right now. Without a sthandard interface/driver model and limits as to what is and isn't permissible by software and drivers linux(OS) will always be a 2nd rate hacked up OS. |
This is an extremly bad argument against Linux (or even against Windows XP for that matter). You will always find hardware or combinations of hardware that will not work. Take a look at Windows XP hardware list and you will soon find that there are a lot of hardware that simply don't work with XP either, big deal!
To me it looks like you have put the blinds on and just want Linux to fail, no matter what you say, your actions speaks louder than your words.
Now, please excuse me, I have more important work to do than to discuss this with a troll.
Erik
_________________
'Yes, Firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kihaji
Apprentice
Joined: 12 Sep 2002
Posts: 230
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ebrostig wrote: | | Kihaji wrote: |
AGP 3.0 does not, I say again, does not work in linux. 2.6 it is supposed to be included, but I don't but beta software on my desktop as I don't like to have to update/recompile every 10 days. The reason that it works on an Nfoce Mobo is because Nvidia's agpgart is AGP 3.0 and allows the Radeon 9700pro in 8x speed.
ebrostig: read the above. AGP 3.0 does NOT work. No amount of tinkering you do short of rewriting the agpgart module will make this work, and if you were to do that then share it with the rest of the world because I am not the only one waiting for 2.6 to finalize and hopefully fix this.
|
So, your only argument is that it is not included in 2.4.x? Well, that is the most braindead argument I have heard in a long time.
Would you look at that! It doesn't work in WIndows 2k either! Strange.. It works in Win XP? woow... that's like it's not workling in 2.4.x but works in 2.6.x...
|
Um, AGP 3.0 does work in 2k, I don't know why you think it doesn't. And 2.4.x is the latest stable release build, with the last release put out after AGP 3.0, so yes I expect it to have support for AGP 3.0. And it doesn't work in 2.6 well either yet, it is still hit and miss. Hit and miss are not terms you want to hear when you think of an OS.
| Quote: |
Oh, I'm sorry, it's beta software and you don't want it! Sorry, but crying in the candy store is not going to get you any freebies unless your mother caves in. Geeezzz... I really feel for you, poor boy! NOT!
|
I don't run beta software on my Windows machines, and I wont run beta software on my Linux machines. I prefer not too.
| Quote: |
Can you give me one single argument as to why you don't want to try 2.6? It's not like it is going to eat your PC! You can still keep older and working versions of the kernel around, just in case. Can you do that in XP too? No? Wow that's so advanced!
|
As I said, I don't run beta software on my machines, period. That is all the reason I need. And now that you bring it up, yes I can keep older working copies of XP on the same machine, Automated recovery and backup with the ability to rollback drivers to the last known working configuration are present on XP.
| Quote: |
| Kihaji wrote: |
This is a prime example of what is keeping linux(OS) behind MS, lack of standardization. Each and every distribution and each and every driver has the potential to completely change the underlying OS, which leads to incompatabilities and hacks to make things work, which is no way for a OS to behave.
Linux as a kernel and an OS may give developers all the ability in the world to customize and tweak, but its that very power that hanging developers right now. Without a sthandard interface/driver model and limits as to what is and isn't permissible by software and drivers linux(OS) will always be a 2nd rate hacked up OS. |
This is an extremly bad argument against Linux (or even against Windows XP for that matter). You will always find hardware or combinations of hardware that will not work. Take a look at Windows XP hardware list and you will soon find that there are a lot of hardware that simply don't work with XP either, big deal!
To me it looks like you have put the blinds on and just want Linux to fail, no matter what you say, your actions speaks louder than your words.
Now, please excuse me, I have more important work to do than to discuss this with a troll.
Erik |
It's not about the ability to use all the hardware, thats not feasable, but linux is at, I would say, 30-35% hardware support right now. One day, when I am not so tired, I will give you my explanation as to where Linus failed in his design, and how Linux as an OS can rectify it to truely unleash the full potential. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ebrostig
Bodhisattva
Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Posts: 3152
Location: Orlando, Fl
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh my
Well, it's not Linux fault that you don't want to get your equipment working since there are working solutions. It is just your own ideas that keeps your from having a weorking system and that is your prerogative, but don't complain about how bad Linux is.
As far as I know, there is no way you can boot an older XP kernel at startuptime unless you have prepared the OS for it.
Your arguments are moot at this point since you refuse to use a solution that would have your system working.
Not putting on a beta? Well, you can't put on a Windows beta unless you are part of the beta-testing team or have bought a beta version, so you really can't compare.
If you have nothing else to argue against Linux with thatn your own lack of interest in finding a solution, go and troll a Windows forum rather, because this thread is dead.
We have proved that your hardware can work with Linux, but you refuse to get it working.
Locking the thread since this leads nowhere.
Erik
_________________
'Yes, Firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
