Slashdot Mirror
Linux is Window Manager's Product of the Year
brokeninside writes "Infoworld's 'Windows Manager' Columnist Bob Livingston named Linux his 1999 product of the year in his most recent column. I especially enjoyed his assertion that Microsoft was 'playing catchup' with Windows 2000. He said, '...Microsoft is catching up with Linux, not setting a higher standard.'"
Microsoft IS playing catchup with Win2k. Why?
;p
First of all, you wouldn't believe the number of interns where I work that get their hands on a Linux workstation for the first time, and then, upon managing to screw up something, reboot. Microsoft products have been so dependant on the reboot, it's been ingrained in the minds of people without enough luck to have gotten some experience with something better.
Not only that, but Win2k is Microsoft's attempt to make NT a usefull OS - meaning you can play games on it. =) And now it seems like they're chickening out on being able to offer a product that can do both by promising Windows Millenium, which I betaed, much to my own sorrow. It seems to me that the only way they can keep the OS stable is to prevent it from doing things - using easily written video card drivers for instance.
But... but... you'll be hearing MORE about it? Perhaps Livingston's been reading his own publication too much. Last time I checked, Linux was gaining buzzword status - it's almost up there with 'intranet' now... =)
Plus, Microsoft is now REALLY playing catchup, because, after all, once the DOJ gets through with them, they might be open source.
There is no sig.
"Linux isn't perfect. Support is still an issue. And fixes add up to patches, although you can use automated installation utilities."
..."
:-)
At this point, the list of people not supporting Linux is likely shorter than the list of people who are. I think he's confusing support with "double click to add SP9 to your system" ease-of-fixing.
"You will like our integration. Microsoft's decision to make Internet Explorer a hard-to-remove feature of Windows 98 -- in direct defiance of an earlier order by Judge Jackson -- has
I don't think there were earlier rulings by Mr. Jackson about not integrating Explorer in Win98. Perhaps he means another judge.
However, there are many interesting bits:
"icrosoft got away with this because its legal counsel convinced two out of three judges on an appeals court that Windows 98 "isn't an upgrade of Windows 95" and therefore was in compliance with the previous order. You know a company's in trouble when legal hairsplitting replaces common sense."
Can you sense the bitterness here? I can understand why the man doesn't like Microsoft: how can they sleep at night knowing they were selling IE 4 + the upgrade equivalence of a service pack to the public, for the same price as a full operating system?
It sounds like he's really cluefull about how Linux is starting to make MS sit up and take notice. Since Linux has passed the "embrace and extend," and FUD litmus tests, MS is starting to realise that they have to compete on merits. They obviously thought they could set up Linux as a nice straw men for their DoJ hearing, and later take the community down a few pegs.. But now the result is an actual form of competition, if not full out market share battles
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Does anyone here, even for a second, believe that Windows 2000 will not be a major software release and developers will scramble to support it? Ignore the technical issues: The "windows phenomenon" has nothing to do with technology, it has to do with marketing, the perception of reality, and human nature.
This article is paying lip-service to the community. Given ZD Net's track record I wouldn't be suprised if it was written specifically to get posted to slashdot (like many other articles like this which seem to make it to the front page). Don't buy it.
Linux is a versatile OS but it has many shortcomings which the pundits and many linux enthusiasts want to ignore - the hardware drivers are not on par with their NT counterparts, nor is the support infrastructure there. There are some drivers which are rock solid under linux, but the majority of them have quirks, bugs, and I'd say upwards of 50% are in "perma-beta". Further, the tcp/ip lock-spin problem as surfaced in the mindcraft testing seems to prove that linux does what it was designed to do: run well on *well supported* commodity hardware, do so with good stability, and makes an excellent server for home / small business use. However, for mega corporations and so-called "e-commerce" - it's lacking. This is called Solaris Country - big iron and massively redundant servers. the BSD's also do better in this arena (although, like Wendy's, they make superior burgers but everybody thinks McDonalds is better). The above paragraph is mainly here as a reality-check: linux is not perfect. It has shortcomings. The sooner we accept them (and then work to shore them up), the sooner we stop worrying about "beating microsoft" and start building superior code, that's the same day we win the war. If you want historical proof: japanese samauri(sp?) - they held the belief that by not concerning themselves with the outcome of battle they would win. And they did. Atleast until we dropped the bomb on them.
But, I digress. Mistrust articles like these: these little "opinion" columns are just paying lip service to whatever hype happens to the popular one at the moment. Go back and search for "push technology", or even earlier to the Macintosh and the windows 3.0 days... it's all the same: the pundits say what their readers want them to say. Just like slashdot likes to moderate and post people who agree with it's values and beliefs. Boil it all away and you're left with one thing - and it isn't the truth.
When I read the article, I was surprised how direct and to the point the writer was. He comes across as neither a linux zealot nor a MS fanatic, which is what many articles that sing the praises of either product do. Here, we have a clear analysis of the good things and the flaws in both products (and of microsoft's business strategy), which is a refreshing change from many "propaganda" pieces.
... we'll see its products make big strides in usability and stability". Competition is a good thing for consumers :)
But what I liked most was the last paragraph: "When microsoft is forced to compete on equal footing
De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum
I use Windows and Linux (and OpenBSD for that matter) because I find that they both address different needs for me.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
One of which is his statement that "support is still an issue." This is simply not true. With newsgroups, IRC, and the myriad "Linux help" sites that have been popping up all over the place, Linux has, at least in my experience, much more support than Windows. I think that Linux can more more supported and better supported because of it's open nature. When someone is giving tech support for Linux, they can know exactly what's going on with the inner workings. Every problem that users experience can be explained satisfactorily. This is certainly not the case for Windows.
One way which I believe would help people (and the press, who influence the average user greatly) would see how much support Linux has is if makers of distributions would place more prominently the many tech support sites or accesses which people can use as well as exactly how to get there and make good use of the resources. Alas, many of the distros get their money from support and would almost certainly be reluctant to do this.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
My first reaction, as a happy linux user who thinks open source will eventually conquer all inferior methods, was to think "No there's not! Linux is perfect! Bow before the kernel!"
Of course, Linux isn't perfect. Nothing's perfect, after all. But the difference is that, once we admit we have faults, it doesn't take long for open source to fix them. As a result, my second reaction was to think "Well, what are these criticisms, so I can fix them?"
I think it's that kind of attitude (the second) which will make the reporter's vision of a linux-on-even-footing(financially, not innovationwise)-with-Microsoft come true.
-Denor
Ok, here I go...
Some would say that the major development in Windows2000 was the Active Directory, and that remainder of the issues he cites (security, stability, horsepower) were only fulfillments of a longstanding promise.
Now, if Win2k came out only with those improvements in implementation and no changes in underlying architecture, then he would be justified in saying that M$ was playing catchup to Linux. But again, there is the AD, which is the major marketing point and really quite a massive overhaul of the way many organizations currently function. For that feature alone (there are others but I don't understand them very well) it seems unjustified to call M$ a bunch of copycats when it comes to Win2k.
Just a viewpoint to consider.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I was beginning to think InfoWorld was a lost cause. This is the same magazine that employs that visionary Bob Metcalfe. You'll remember him as the knucklehead who knocked Linux because it's based on "30 year old technology". I tried to call Bob to complain but I guess he doesn't use phones for similar reasons.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
Windows 2K is important for Microsoft for a few reasons.
First, Linux has the reputation for being very stable. The fact that a Linux box can stay up without crashing, and that you can change settings without rebooting the whole system has made people look at it as a server solution. Microsoft does need to catch up in this respect.
Second, they are no longer the definite big boy on the block. This AOL/Time Warner thing probably has them very worried. If this new mega-conglomerate decides to support another OS for a net-application type box, it could actually hurt them badly.
Third, they'll need a good product if the DOJ punishes them badly. If Microsoft continues to have a clearly inferior product, if they lose their position where they can still force it upon consumers, they'll need to compete fairly on the desktop front as well.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Those banner ad things? The ones people view. They're what pays. And indirectly, us.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Active Directory is a cleverly disguised marketing ploy from Microsoft, where we haven't met a standard we didn't think we could improve.
Of course, you can note Active Directory ONLY works if Microsoft is your name server. No one in their right mind is currently using Microsoft products for name serving.
So, to summarize the Active Directory stance.
1) Make some great new client technology, push it HUGELY in marketing
2) Oh yeah. You see that FreeBSD box in the closet running named that hasn't been rebooted in years and never drops a request. It has to go. Otherwise this great new thing, Active Directory, is no more than the Windows Explorer all over again.
Microsoft is trying to change client technology in ways that will force Microsoft's server technology down your throat. That is your innovation.
The plain truth is that monopolists have no incentive to innovate. Microsoft changes things only to extend its dominance. I don't think I will recommend changing domain name services to Microsoft ANYTIME soon.
Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
A tale of a Linux trip
That started from this Slashdot site
Aboard this Livingston ship.
The mate was a mighty Inforworld guy,
The product brave and sure.
Most votes made for Linux that day
For a free sourcin' tour, a free sourcin' tour.
The product race started getting rough,
The Win2K was tossed,
If not for the zelots of the slashdot site
The honor would be lost, the honor would be lost.
The code won praise from the home of this honest journalist
With Openness
The Kernel too,
The best OS and superior,
The Red Hat guys
The Taco and Roblimo,
Here on open source Isle.
So this is the thread of the product race,
We've beat Redmond one more time,
We'll have to make the best of things,
It's an uphill climb.
The Livingston and the public too,
Have recognized the very best,
To help Linux get some press,
With the product of the year.
No cost, no Bill and open sorece,
Not a single blue screen,
Like Robinson Crusoe,
As primative as can be.
So join us here each release my freinds,
You're sure to get a smile,
Linux got product of the year
Here on open source' Isle."
Are you trying to tell me that you wouldn't mind having a point-and-click kernel recompile with a snazzy interface that autodetects the optimal configuration for your system and then installs it automatically and asks you "would you like to reboot?" when it's done?
"Linux has detected a newer version of the kernel exists. Please wait while a convienent program download unknown files from a remote server to install on your machine without asking, which later may or may not work and may require several reboost and maybe even a reinstall."
"Linux has not been shut down properly. Please wait while Linux scans all of your data and may attempt to fix data it interpretes as corrupt which may or may not make it work or contain essential files."
"Linux has detected a new monitor. Please wait while Linux scans your entire harddrive, updates random files, creates directories in weird places, calls the CIA, and assasinates Jimmy Hoffa."
Uh... nothanks.
I agree. The point of the article seems to be that Linux will be good for Windows because given the way M!crosoft now focus on litigation and marketing, their software standards are slipping. He thinks that the existence of Linux will provide the kind of competition that will turn M!crosoft into a company that produces reliable, stable, user-friendly, high-powered, value-adding software (enough with the buzzwords, I know) that actually lives up to it's marketing hype.
He's right. The more successful Linux is, the more likely it is to provoke it's competitors into raising their standard and evolving their software into something far better than 3.1, 95 or 98. Win2000 (although I know very little about it) seems to be the first step in that direction. Linux will have to become more user friendly, and will have to support more hardware etc etc etc, because the better it gets, the more it's competitors will try to compete with it.
Every strength that Linux has, from stability to the versatility of it's X-Windows GUI, is probably already the focus of a Windows project team deciding how to best surpass that particular feature in Windows 2001. No matter what you think of M!crosoft, they're a powerful company that's used to competing on a difficult playing field. Their tactics aren't always totally above the belt, but don't let that lull you into believing that they can't produce some very good products when provoked into proper competition. They're not nice, but they're not incompetent either.
Salocin.com
HP has a clone that emulates _all_ the functionallity of echange server. The location of the site is here.
And there is even an offer of 50 free licenses! And the web based mail interface looks awesome.
I liked the article. Brian Livingstone was fair to both Microsoft and Linux. He basically pointed out that consumers want stability and security, two features that Microsoft fails to deliver and that Linux does deliver.
He wants Microsoft to improve their products and sees Linux as pointing the way to a better computer platform, one that has stability, security, and ease of use.
But Mr. Livingstone is still missing the big picture. The reason that Linux is gaining such a big share is that Linux uses open standards. Linux works and plays well with others. Linux doesn't want to be the only choice. Linux wants to be one of many choices.
And Linux runs on just about every computer platform right now that will support a multitasking OS. Everything from palmtops, to routers, to the desktop, to servers, all the way up to the most powerful supercomputers in the world.
Most of the software that runs on Linux also runs on a dozen other OSes. If your samba server under Linux doesn't have enough power, put in a Sun Enterprise server in its place, also running samba.
In contrast, Microsoft makes proprietary every standard that they touch. They can't seem to help themself. Everyone uses sendmail, they use exchange. Everyone uses java, they use j++. They are even trying to pervert perl right now by adding windows only extentions to the language. Microsoft does want to be your only choice.
Microsoft runs only on one platform. The x86. Given that there is a wide range of power in this venerable processor and the IA64 is coming, but even then you don't have much choice of vendors.
Microsoft only writes applications for one platform. Yes, they have done a little work with the macs, but only as an after thought.
I think that Linux is the tip of a new way of doing things that gives the consumer maximum choice.
I think that Bill is just now realizing that. Microsoft will need to change and change radically to keep any of their marketshare. You may not even recognize MS in a few years.
-- Never make a general statement.
However, if I were to talk about "big iron", I might think of IRIX as well. But IRIX is being dropped, in favor of? Linux, I believe. If SGI puts resources into extending Linux at the higher levels, I'll be pretty happy.
Heck, if I were to talk about "big iron", I would think of the Crays' mighty-ass UNICOS, not the comparatively flimsy IRIX, which is optimized for - of all things - graphics work! Ever been around a T90? The damn thing screams big iron.
Just a random thought.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
This article is rather misleading, He doesn't actually say that Windows 2000 is playing catchup with Linux as a whole. He says that in certain areas (specifically security and BSOD) Windows is trying to catch up. I'm sure there are areas in which each is trying to catch up with the other.
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
The man is a gimp. I've never read a factual article by him. The only other "columnist" I've read thats worse is Jon Katz.
This guy wrote this article to get hits. Thats basically what he does. He once wrote an article about Windows 98 titled "Windows98 disables competitors software" on CNN. In the article he made his pathetic argument, when in fact the only result was that Win98 fubars a couple drivers made by manufacturers because they bundled regressed versions instead of up to date ones. I wrote an email to CNN about it, and I haven't seen his articles on their site since then.
This guy has probably never used Linux for more than 20 minutes in his whole life. In fact, naming Linux as the best "Window Manager" is just wrong. Linux is the kernel. Maybe he could get away with naming XFree86 or AccelX or some other server.
I vouch for the "catching up" theory also.
Microsoft are indeed engineering the Active Directory, but NetWare has had NDS (Novell Directory Services) in its server software since 1996.
Microsoft delivers a directory service four years later. I can call that catch-up. Microsoft has never innovated. They have always taken ideas from the competition and have rendered them user-friendly, at the cost of major security. But when user-friendliness VS. security is the point, most people choose user-friendliness.
Because we are lazy. We don't want to learn. Learning is way too much work!
Maybe in other places, but, here in Middle America, I've yet to find a SINGLE person who isn't a computer programmer/sysadmin, or makes a living in the computer industry somehow who knows what Linux is. I've yet to have a single client ask about it, etc. Even among people I know who are fairly into computers and stuff (I mean not programmers, but people who at least use a computer at home and aren't on AOL) don't know what it is.
This is not meant as a slam or flamebait, just a valid point to counter the "linux is hip and wow" buzz I see posted over and over and over on Slashdot. I've posted this here before, no one's bothered to respond.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
(Most companies know, only too well, that different versions of Office are incompatiable. Replacing EACH AND EVERY FILE on their corporate fileserver, to ensure everything is up-to-date is a pain, expensive, and takes people away from Real Work. You know, the stuff that earns the company money. An offer of an alternative that would take them off this financially ruinous roundabout would appeal to the execs and accountants alike, not to mention the poor plebs who do the typing.)
Ok, so we've dealt with 100% Word compatiability. The answer is YES. We've also dealt with Office compatibility - it's irrelevent, as Office 2000 won't be compatiable with any other version anyway, and the corps know that. What does that leave? Marketing and human nature.
Ok, marketing. Yes, true, Microsoft has TV ads and billboards. So did IBM, when they released OS/2. That really doesn't capture the degree of mindshare that advertising agencies would have you believe. Otherwise, there'd be a whole different meaning to Blue Screen of Death.
So, what does count? Mindshare. Plain and simple. Linux is getting column inches in the technical, educational and financial columns, sometimes even in the main sections, with such stories as European Governments switching to Linux, and rumours of China doing the same. The financial press has been in a feeding frenzy, with such stories as Red Hat going from $14/share to over $250/share, in only a few months, and VA Linux rocketing from $22/share to nearly $300/share in half a week. Sorry, but that grabs attention in a way very little else does.
Then, there's the educational sector to consider. Mexico and Britain will be churning out Linux coders, not Visual Basic wannabes. Do you -think- financial departments -like- paying more than they have to for software licences, tech support that isn't, etc? And here's a ready supply of willing Linux nerds, who won't need multi-billion support contracts or software that costs more to keep running than the entire Apollo program!
Ok, now let's look at drivers. Linux vs NT, The Battle Of The Giant. Sorry, no plural, NT has far fewer drivers: no PnP support, no USB support, no Firewire support, fewer networking protocols, fewer graphics modes, earlier ActiveX (it's possible to get ActiveX 6 for Linux, but why you'd want to is beyond me - either way, NT's still on version 3), fewer printers, fewer Ethernet cards, fewer sound cards, fewer graphics cards, incomplete multicasting support, no routing support, no QoS support, poorer RAID support, no software watchdog support and poorer driver handling.
Before critisizing Linux for being "worse" than NT over drivers, I'd say "take a step back", because I honestly can't see a single way in which NT can claim superiority over Linux, with regards to drivers. And even if one or two cases were found, that's all they'd be. The overall picture would still be that Linux was superior. To convince me otherwise, you'd have to answer EACH AND EVERY point above, OR for those points you can't disagree on, find AT LEAST ONE way in which NT was superior to Linux. And even then, you'd only have gotten to the point of showing they were equal. You would have to exceed even this very ambitious goal with a significant number of additional points to show NT's overall superiority.
Let's take the supposed beta-ness of Linux' drivers. Have you -used- 50% of Linux' drivers? Has anyone? If not, then you are relying on heresay, not personal observation. How do -you- know that the person was using the latest drivers?
(eg: Ethernet cards - many make use of the Tulip code, but the "standard" kernel used a very old version of this for some time, due to a disagreement over patch philosophy.)
Then, how do you know what options or compiler the person was using? eg: Linux was rather sensitive to pgcc for a while, and only fools like me use -O6 in the Makefile.
Do you know that the hardware used was reliable, and non-defective? If a chip is flaky at the upper end of it's specs, or if the computer's fan is broken, then you -can- actually get more faults with GOOD drivers than badly-written ones. The badly-written ones might, potentially, keep the hardware slow enough to operate, whilst bug-free, well-written drivers might push things a bit too hard.
If you don't know the quality of hardware, don't assume the fault -has- to be in software. It could just as easily be in hardware, or in the interaction between the two, even when a line-by-line check of the driver shows it to be 100% absolutely perfect and utterly bug-free.
A good example of what I mean is in the docs for CPUBurn, where it states that this will push the CPU and the rest of the motherboard to the limits, for Linux, but that a Windows version is proving a problem because Windows is too inefficient for the program to push the system.
Does that mean Linux is defective, because it works better? Nope! It means that you need more work-arounds for bad hardware than Windows does, certainly, but it's still ultimately a hardware bug not a software one.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Just the other day, I was at Borders (the brick and mortar version) looking at nothing in particular. Mostly Java books. I had been trying the get NT at home to do something useful, and had gotten pretty frustrated with it. (Not unusual)
:) )
:)
My girlfriend walked up with a RedHat Linux (6.5 I think) box, and said that she thought I might be interested in this Linux. (I think she initially picked it up because of the cute penguin on the box.
I told her I wouldn't be buying it, since it's free and I can get it, and a slew of applications for it, without spending a dime. The confused look I got in response to the 'free operating system' phrase prompted me to skip the 'free beer vs free speach' diatribe.
Instead, we went out for Tacos.
There's a huge amount of confusion among the 'general public' regarding 'free software'. People just can't seem to get their head around the idea of getting something for nothing. Or the benefits of freely contributing to a community. I think this is mostly an American phenomenon, since here 'there is no free lunch'.
It's like Larry Wall said: (paraphrase) It's like we're doing Windows users a favor by charging them for something they can get for free. It keeps them from getting confused.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
It's not a file system.
"Directory" in this case has a different meaning than what Unix-heads are used to. Think "Telephone Directory", not "Present Working Directory".
A more accurate term would be "Lookup Service", but someone decided to go with "Directory". It amounts to a database optimized for fast read access. It is usually accessed with a (more or less) standardized protocol such as LDAP or X.500.
What's it good for? It pretty much started as a cool computerized way to look up the phone number of someone in your Big-Ass Company, Inc. Nowadays, it has been expanded to look up information on users (hence the "single logon" buzzword), program components, and anything else that someone wants to make "findable" in an organization.
DNS is a simple directory service. Imagine being able to do a DNS-style lookup for every person, printer, program, "object" in a company. That's what people are excited about.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
The claim will be made when the US vs. MS trial reopens that the judge's "finding of fact" is already out of date and that Linux is now a serious competitor to Windows. This column is one of the things that MS will point to in making that point.
Mr. Livingston is still firmly in MS' pocket. That he has conformed nicely to the party line is just further evidence of that.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Where Livinston says, "...Microsoft is catching up with Linux..." he is referring to one specific aspect of the operating system: stability. From what I've read here on /. it appears that everyone is interpreting it as an across-the-board condemnation of W2K. For ghod's sake, people, please go out and read the article in its entirety.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
Jesse Berst goes all over the map on every subject you can imagine, not just Linux. One week he's anti-Linux, next week he's pro-Linux. So what? I've seen him flip-flop on nearly every subject in the industry: Java, network computers, cheap PC's, operating systems, Microsoft/DOJ, etc. Either Jesse Berst has Multiple Personality disorder, or "Jesse Berst" is a pen name used by a different writer every day.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
very strength that Linux has, from stability to the versatility of it's X-Windows GUI, is probably already the focus of a Windows project team deciding how to best surpass that particular feature in Windows 2001. No matter what you think of M!crosoft, they're a powerful company that's used to competing on a difficult playing field. Their tactics aren't always totally above the belt, but don't let that lull you into believing that they can't produce some very good products when provoked into proper competition. They're not nice, but they're not incompetent either.
I agree--we'll all do well to keep that in mind. I have a couple days worth of Win2k experience to back up your point. A quick run-through:
GOOD: It's noticably faster than NT or 98. It generally has a lot less of that bloated feeling. In fact, most basic operations from the desktop are FASTER than what I experience with Enlightenment/Gnome. Definately has a nice feel to it.
GOOD: Win2k doesn't seem to waste memory as badly as NT 4 did. I don't seem to want to use all available memory until it needs it--though Linux still seems to be a little better at this.
GOOD: Unreal TE loads and runs MUCH faster for my in 2k than it did in Win98.
BAD: Win2k installation would not complete normally for me without forcing it to boot into VGA only mode. As far as I can tell the TNT2 drivers that come with it were completely unusable. I was able to download some beta drivers for it to get it working (somewhat.)
BAD: Win2k would knock my SCSI CD-RW offline on bootup (only powering off would make it usuable again at all.) I had to download new drivers from Tekram for my scsi card to get it to work properly.
BAD: Win2k is locking up constantly. I'm sure that some of it has to do with the beta video drivers. However it's been getting noticibly worse after only being installed 4 or 5 days.
SUMMARY: From my experience so far it seems that Microsoft has put a lot of effort into making the end-user-on-a-preinstalled-system experience much nicer. It's prettier. It's faster. Installation was no less of a hassle than RedHat 6.1. But let me put it this way: If I knew nothing about computers and walked into a computer store and compared a Linux/E/Gnome box to the Win2k box, I'd probably be going home with the Win2k machine. (I haven't used WM or KDE enough to know how they'd stack up.)
BTW, it's the Win2k Professional OEM multi-proc version.
numb
Geeks generally are bad at marketing and usability. This is why Linux started as a server system, not a desktop. Companies however, are generally good at this point. This is why Linux (and possibly other OSS) will end to be usable and marketed, once it has reached some point of maturity.
;-)
Meanwhile, we can try to add these features ourselves, as we always did. Good thing.
Anyway, Linux is a buzz-word, and generally it is used for more than just the kernel. Best example: mkLinux doesn't even use the kernel, but is still called Linux.
We have got loads of perfect open source software: for the developer, for server use, as well as for the end user. Still, we do lack a complete desktop-oriented piece of software that even Granny can use.
Didn't read anything new here? OK.
Just wanted to state that OSS WILL be recognized one day for its benefits and that it WILL be adopted by companies. Meanwhile, every commercial product has to face the comparision with Linux, which provides us of two things, already now: choice and quality.
Quality: it is already explained here that Linux is (perpetual) competition for commercial products, and competition will lead to product quality.
Choice: Very often Linux is compared with Windows. Very often Windows is chosen best. Very often people feel the need to defend themselves when they step back from Linux to Windows. Don't defend yourself! It is the choice that matters, and Linux is also not God! Instead, it is freedom of religion we talk about
(Just note for sure that MY choice of the moment is Linux, though...)
Meanwhile, OSS has inspired Apple (though yet only server software), Amiga (although you might know that at the moment all they can make is beautiful plans for the future, and open source is not yet fully considered), and many others. Many of these people, individuals as well as companies, also see the need of usability.
So my conclusion: we might not have the best OSS user-friendly system, but Linux did win many souls for OSS, and it is only a matter of time. While waiting (or working on it), there are plenty of (non-)free choices that you can make for your computer use.
It's... It's...
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
I'm the one who injected the "point-and-click" phrase, because it's quite appropriate.
.config, recompiling, and (the hardest part for newbies) updating lilo, would go a long way towards fixing some of the "ease-of-use" things that newbies think exist.
.exe -- fwoom. The fix is installed, and you are asked to reboot. One step, vs 4 steps. Heck, if you're using the IE integration in MS, it'll even point out & suggest upgrades for you. The PHBs love that kind of thing.
;).
In Linux, when I upgrade the kernel to deal with some erratum, it's a simple process to me. However, it's not simple to other people. To design a script to automate backing up the old kernel source and untar the new, copying the
Compare to how it is on OS/2 or NT (or even 9x): to fix a problem fairly easily, you just double click on the
What I'm not talking about here are the mindless auto-detect or plug & play routines of the various MS OSes. What I am talking about is a way for a user to fix a known problem easily, ie: without having to become an almost kernel developer. A big, shiny, red button "upgrade to Kernel 2.2.14" would be nifty for people new to Linux. They'd feel they were in control, instead of being just confused by a different interface. If they're in control, they like it, and are more likely to experiment and learn.
Debian's apt and the *BSDs ports tree is closest to what could be used to easily fix general userland problems, and with a nice program to deal with keeping the kernel and lilo up to date, you'd have a lot of what the general populace needs. After that, you'd want to look at something like Win2k's Add/Remove program panel, which monitors what's used and what's not, as well as simplifies installing and removing in the eyes of PHBs everywhere (I love Slackwares installpkg/removepkg myself
Just a thought.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Well I'm in Norman, OK. And I repeat. Linux has NOT penetrated the mass here.
You "converting" people isn't the same.
I'll be sure to point out when I run into the first person who actually uses linux who hasn't assembled there own computer.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
"You will like our integration. Microsoft's decision to make Internet Explorer a hard-to-remove feature of Windows 98 -- in direct defiance of an earlier order by Judge Jackson -- has ..."
"I don't think there were earlier rulings by Mr. Jackson about not integrating Explorer in Win98. Perhaps he means another judge."
It seems what is referred to here is the 1995 consent decree between MS and the Department of Justice. The DOJ says that MS bundled their web browser with Windows, thereby leveraging their OS dominance to control the browser market. MS said that browsers are the future of the OS, and including them is just that natural evolution of the OS.
The dispute over whether or not the browser is an integral part of the OS is what started the whole anti-trust suit.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
Hey, I bet even less people can compile something on Windows.
I realize that Linux has more software that has to be compiled, for whatever reason, but more and more software is becoming available as rpms for the people who don't care about optimization.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota