Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Proclaims Death of Free Software Model
geoff313 writes "
As previously mentioned here,
Microsoft's new wave of FUD has begun to arrive. This time it is
courtesy of Bradley Tipp, Microsoft's UK national systems engineer, who
spoke at the Microsoft IT Forum in Copenhagen. In this article
from ZDNet UK, he is quoted as saying that 'Linux is great' and 'there
are a lot of things we should learn from open source' but then is quick
to point out that 'We haven't talked to a single user who has said
they're using [open source] because it's better.' Another Microsoft employee was quoted as
saying 'At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and
we won't be seen as the bad guys any more.' I for one am happy to see that they are taking their new interest in security seriously, and I'm
sure you all are too. Most interesting is the assertion that the decision by Red
Hat to end support for its free distribution and Novell's
aquisition of SUSE marks not only the death of free software,
but actually is a validation of Microsoft's business model. Does anyone
besides Microsoft see these events as the end of Free software?" I use Free software because it's better; they just didn't ask.
They're proclaiming the death of free Microsoft software, due to the new DRM and such.
Pigs just landed at JFK airport
I for one won't say that I use OSS software because it's better.
I use it because M$ software is worster
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Always question the person who proclaims a thing dead. Ask if they gain anything from the death. If so, assume they are full of shit.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
I for one am happy to see...
Ouch... i thought you were about to say "something" else...
I know a lot of people who use linux because they think it's better (along with a healthy hatred of all things MS :-))
However, I think linux has a long way to go before it can replace XP. My biggest concern is simplicity of use and lots of games available.
My sig can beat up your sig.
anyways... M$ is just holding onto their monopoly with their 'death of free software model'. Personally I don't care as I believe linux will be gaining more market share/ground in the enterprise and companies will be looking forward to switching to cheaper IT solutions instead of the *EXPENSIVE* M$ liscensing and BS. ;)
sounds like a valid bussiness model to me
It's free, always. Better, *sometimes*.
...which means: "those pronounced dead live longer", so you don't have to bother asking the fish...
Long Live the King!!!
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
...p2p. As long as p2p exists, Microsoft's own software is "free."
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Havent we been hearing "BSD IS DEAD!" from the linux/unix guys, "Linux is outdated/obfuscated!" from the Bsd guys, "Linux's inteface sucks!" from the mac guys, and "Open source is not more secure" from the corprate guys since the begining of time? Microsoft can proclaim anything they want. Me? I proclaim its just another bit of junk.
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.
1. Find the latest anti-FS/Linux FUD story that has quotes from Microsoft exec. /.
2. Submit to
3. ???
4. Accepted!!
5. Sit back and watch as the flames fly!!
C:\>
Microsoft is declaring open source dead? This is kind of like declaring Keith Richards to be alive.
This sig no verb.
Pepsi commented that it hasn't spoken to a single customer who said they drank Coca Cola because it tasted better. A senator from Maine said he hadn't spoken to a single constituent who lived in Hawaii because it was warmer. A doctor said she hadn't spoken to a single patient who had never been sick.
Or...could it be that people who use free software because it is better are not Microsoft users? Nah.
But Microsoft remains adamant that commercial reasons prevent it from simply putting the source code -- its "crown jewels" -- in the public domain.
If their source is their crown jewels, i'd hate to see what they consider their family jewels.
We need not, nor care not, about the opinions of the world regarding our existance, relevance, or lack thereof of both.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
If they would have asked any Linux users, maybe their claims would have been much different.
Why are they creating all this FUD anyway?? Are they stressed in some way?
Isn't IBM using Linux on the majority of their server lines? Of course Microsoft is going to downplay their fastest emerging
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
"We think Linux is great," he said, adding that competition from the penguin and associates keeps the Microsoft on its toes.
Anyone wanna go ice skating? Hell just froze over.
Oh wait a minute, they didn't mean it. They were hoping I'd hop onto Haydes and be burned to death. Oooo! You are a sly one, Mr. Gates!
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Microsoft surely has the better money-making model, but people interested in open source are usually more interested in the quality of software.
Two question: #1 Is the Novell acquisition of SUSE the end of SUSE being developed under the open source model? #2 Are Red Hat desktop & SUSE the only open source products on the planet?
http://threetechguys.info Come, discuss Technology. Got a technology question? Come ask!
Oh! The hidden subtleties.
If you only knew.
-the ghost of t
I use open source software because it's better, not only on a programming basis but on a broader social basis too.
I wouldn't use your lousy OS anymore even if you'd pay me to.
United States of America, good ol' backers of world peace.
I am going to sue Microsoft. They need to pay for my hernia operation, because I split my gut laughing at this.
I guess there is no need for sourceforge then....
I wouldn't be surprised in this atmosphere of fear and uncertainty for the USA to proclaim software is 'too important to be left to amateurs' and make the GPL illegal. Or you'd need a licence to write code or SOMETHING.
Since Reagan we have been seeing more and more acquiescence of the law to the bottom line of big business. Illegality of Open Source Software is not too much to imagine.
After all - TERRORISTS could get access to it, right? That's the root password to the Constitution these days, right? All it would take is one little incident...
A nation that can make booze and blow jobs illegal can do ANYTHING.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Does anyone besides Microsoft see these events as the end of FREE software?
No. Absolutely not.
I use free software because it is often developed and a more agressive pace, and the features I want are more likely to be implemented. Free software also cuts out the middleman a lot of the time as far as getting help with some software. Numerous times I have had a problems compiling x program and emailed the developer and gotten the help I needed to get it working, not to mention clued the developer into the fact that there is an issue getting their software to work on insert my platform here.
Compare, for example, the MSN Messenger, and Gaim. Gaim has more features, has an extensible architecture so that even non-geniuses can write plugins, and no advertisements.
Free software is better because it does what paid developers can't.
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
Pure high quality top management PR bull$hit. I don't see free software dying anytime soon, as long as debain, gentoo, slackware, LFS are around.
And if Microsoft's business model is indeed true and going by their word, that s/w amounts to only a fraction of total cost, then whether linux is free or not, really doesn't matter does it ?
So going by microsoft's argument, it really doesn't matter costwise (only software) whether you are using linux or Windows. But by using linux you get a much stable, scalable, SECURE, reliable , easily configurable, accountable s/w, instead of propritory, unsecure, un-scalable, s/w.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Look at RedHat's price structure (sorry, can't find a good URL) and offerings. It sure has some similarities with MSWindows, and I'm sure it's not an accidental coincidence. They seem to agree with Microsoft that dividing the OS into segments and having a tiered price model is a viable strategy. I tend to think that Fedora is just an 'appeasement' effort and that dropping the Pro line from the consumer channel (i.e. Fry's, Best Buy) is a serious mistake, but we'll see how well this all works.
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
Yeah, always trust the guys at Microsoft to make accurate predictions of the future.
"256k is enough for anyone."
Most interesting is the assertion that the decision by Red Hat to end support for its free distribution and Novell's aquisition of SUSE marks not only the death of free software...
Now we know who the AC posting all those "* is dying" trolls is: Bill Gates.
and the majority of webserver admins using apache aren't using it because it's better but because it's free?
heh, no.
People use OSS because it's free, not because it's better. It might be better or not, but it's a non-issue. It all comes down to brass tacks $$$.
I will not advocate one over the other, just explain why MS doesn't like OSS. No $$$ in this (or much, much less if not 0).
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
So does this mean that Microsoft will stop giving away IE?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
since SCO entered the scene, Microsoft's FUD about Linux doesn't seem nearly as irritating as it once did.
No data, no cry
I use free software because:
1. It's for feasible for me as a consultant/freelancer/contractor
2. Free software has been, is, and will remain on the bleeding edge of technology.
3. All of my employers, past and present, chose Open Source software as the basis of its products and services because of reasons #1 and #2.
"It was hell!" recalls former child.
Come again? Linux viruses? Do you have any examples of these beasties?
What Microsoft doesn't realize is that Novell or Red Hat asking for money doesn't have anything to do with the future of Linux.
It has everything to do with when the developers of Linux (Linus and his hard working team) decide to charge money. Since they are still working and not charging, Microsoft's points are moot.
Sunny
Be my Friend
No, no one said it was better. They said it was cheaper, more secure, faster and more diverse but no, not better.
... and you can get any answer you need. Pollsters have known this for a long long time, so have MS...
Simon
(I use OS because it's better, too)
Physicists get Hadrons!
How is that offtopic?
Personaly I think it's rather funny.
Oh wait it's not an "official Slashdot Joke" as in it's not:
In soviet Russia...
1.2.3.Profit
Insentive clod!
Beowulfcluster!
It may be gratis (i.e. Free Beer), but it won't be libre (i.e. Free Speech) until they let users modify and share the source.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
"Do we lie awake at night and worry? You know Microsoft, it's the paranoid company. If someone buys just one copy of something else, we worry,"
And if someone gets just one copy of something else for free, we shit the bed!
We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.
Microspeak for "We haven't talked to a single user who uses open source"?
I have 2 sheep to offer for a copy of Gimp. Any takers?
--- What?
What makes you think the goal of the Linux O/S is to replace Windows XP?
****** INCOMING TRANSMISSION****** From: Bill Gatius of Borg To: Earth *****MESSAGE***** I am Bill Gatius of Borg, your open source model of resistence is futile, I will buy you out and assimilate your code into the Micro$oft collective. you WILL sservice us with your monitary credits and bow to our superior marketing model. ***** E O F *****
From the last paragraph of the article:
"Do we lie awake at night and worry? You know Microsoft, it's the paranoid company. If someone buys just one copy of something else, we worry," Tipp said.
Guess they're not worried about free (as in beer) software after all..
Mozilla ... because it's a better web browser and e-mail client ... because it's a better firewall, server and router (i.e. GNU/LAMP is a better yaddayadda) ... because it's a better CLI environment ... because it's better (exchangeable data formats, no clippy)
Linux
cygwin
OpenOffice
I also think that Free software is better for humanity as a whole, but I'm not dogmatic about it.
I still use Windows on the desktop, because I didn't yet have time to move everything over to Linux (f*ck NTFS, otherwise I wouldn't have to), and because Soulseek works much better under Windows.
Wow. That article just swayed me over. I guess its time for me to drop my servers and just pay $700 plus for a MCSE (and again in 2 years beacause it expires)
I feel like such a sucker for wasting my time on Linux. Time to start saving for Longhorn cause i think i'm going to max the cards buying this new M$ office
Who, exactly, are they preaching to?
Does anyone but a geek or a girlfriend of a geek know what, exactly, free, opensource software is?
I'm really serious, who is listening to this besides us? Who is taking it seriously(shudder)?
md5sum
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
I use free software becuase I got sick of being forced to agree to onerous licensing terms.
Better? I wouldn't push it that far for every computer user, but OSS does offer me the control I desire.
Open Source and free software can't die... There is a simple, logical reasoning to this: For free software, if it was designed to make money for the programmer it would have been sold/released that way... Programmers ask for contributions as thanks for their hard work and they get them... Every time their material is distributed, it is spread another step further to someone else who will donate to a decent programmer. As for open source, you can't kill what you don't control... as long as the source is available, it can be re-created, re-designed, and re-made to keep up with the tasks which they were deisgned to do, there is no one who can decide "development of open source project X has ceased" since they do not control the code... That is what makes me love open source and America, they are both free!... Scratch the part about America, Big Brother is watching...
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
I thought Microsoft was ok...then I decided to become and MCSE... around the time of my 4th or 5th test, I became interested in Linux again...
;)
Open Source and Free software are both good, both better than closed source proprietry security through obscurity crap.
IIS? Oh come on. Every local user being Admin (root) by default? You have got to be kidding. Everything (service-wise) being turned on by default? WTF were you thinking?
Long live Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, LFS, etc. Long live the GIMP, in hollywood even! Long live the kernel.
FUD is FUD and that is all it is. SCO is as Microsoft does.
Posted Anonymousely by SnowDeath
On second thought, I think it has a few pseudopods in the mainstream media too.
The only image the comes to mind is that creature from STTOS that fed off of terrorizing people to death.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
I think if we go back to the early days of computing with the Altair and the like, all software was "open source". You couldn't buy sotware, you had to write it yourself. It wasn't till later that people began to figure out they could make a buck off the software. Unless every coder in the world works for MS, (or some other large SW house). somebody, somewhere, will be turning out open source software. Or more folks will learn to code.
... 'cause I use open source software BECAUSE it's far better than Micro$oft's.
Waves frantically!!! "Yo! Microsoft! Here, here!"
It seems that MS is concentrating on Linux as the single source of its marketing campaign. Though Linux poses a 'threat' in their minds, I firmly believe that is other non-OS opensource stuff that is 'threatening' them. Yeah, Linux is kind of perceived as the champion of OSS, but...
They should be saying "Apache is evil" instead of "Linux is evil", much greater actuality and perception of competition. However, I think they would have a harder time trying to justify that. I doubt their marketing droids see this at all, though.
dani++
We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better
Funny, I don't know anyone who uses Windows because it's better.
Well, I use Microsoft products because I have to at work. Free software products are better, and I strive to make them more and more apart of my office.
Yup, RIP Free Software.
In other news, a Nike spokesperson spoke of a poll where 10/10 people prefer using Nike than that of their competitives. More MS Fud...move along, nothing to see here.
Sig it.
Free software was common and useful in the days when Apple, Commodore, Atari, and CP/M dominates (and Microsoft was mainly a company that did a BASIC interpreter for a few of the platforms).
Free software has been common and useful during the Microsoft era (from DOS to Windows), and freeware for Windows PC's and other platforms abounds on Sourceforge and www.download.com (once you look past the crippleware falsely labelled as "Free").
There is no reason to believe that this will change, and we have Microsoft partially to thank for this: they promote Visual Basic, which is used to write a lot of programs which are given away to run on the Windows platform.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
If they don't believe we use free software because it's better, why do they think we use it? Either way, it reflects poorly on Microsoft that we don't use theirs.
> 'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
So,
1) when a a user talks to them they run around in a circle holding their hands over their ears going 'la-la-la, I can't hear you." Based on my experience, not surprised to hear confirmation of this.
2) they've talked to *many* users who say "they're using [open source] because it's better." Imagine my surprise.
'At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and we won't be seen as the bad guys any more.'
Looked at netcraft lately?
It's simply fun to have crashing servers, and a workstation with only three applications, two of them not working.
Many people think like me, the worse the software, the higher the expenses, the more fun it is!
I am happy finally someone spoke it out.
'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
How many user did they actually ask? Is there any actual data to back up their claims? Or is this assertion just another assumption/pipedream of M$? Oh, and by the way Bill, two failed implementation does not an absolute failure make. Just because certain companies are moving away from free open source (in a one of the worst tech economies ever) does not mean open source is a bad model. For all the companies you can name that are moving away from free open source (ie. free tech support included), one could probably name ten closed source companies that in the same time period went out of business. But just becuase all these closed source companies are going bust or merging in order to survive does not mean closed source is a bad model either; there are other factors that illustrate that.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
What a bunch of garbage. Open source and proprietary are not mutually exclusive. The best example of this is Mac OS X. In OS X open source apps (apache, openSSH, Gimp) and commercial apps (iTunes, Final Cut Pro, MS Office) live in harmony.
Maybe if Microsoft wasn't so interested in FUDing anything not Redmond out of existence, they wouldn't be so reviled by so many. Of course, they'd have to get over wanting to rule the world first.
I think it's MS manipulating what people said,
for example if they ask "why do you use Linux?"
users most likely answer in specifics like
"fewer viruses", "it's more stable", "popups don't
display in mozilla" or the like.
So Microsoft is technically correct to say "none
of them said they use Linux because it's better"
but in spirit that's what the users said.
Red Hat has found out that they can -make- money by selling Linux and doing service value-adds.
SuSE was worth $210 million to Novell for doing the same thing.
Both of those points -validate- the free software model, they don't prove it is dead at all.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
I work at a major well known company. We're
dumping nearly all of Solaris and MS
products, and transitioning to Linux.
It's alive and quite well here. Microsoft's
overpriced bloatware is what's dying.
I'll be honest. I don't use free software because it's "better". I use free software mostly because it's free (as in "free beer"). I appreciate that so many people donate their time and effort in order to create tools and applications that anyone can use without paying an arm and a leg.
I'm not a corporation, and I can't afford thousands of dollars in license fees to run a web server + mail server + database server for my personal use at home.
-- Erv Walter
It's now twenty years later... how many people do you know that use a Beta deck?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Microsoft reminds me of a gigantic creature that has been hit from a thousand missiles, ready to fall down and die. Something between King Kong and Godzilla, if you like.
They are scared of Open Source Software. They see that as OSS gets better, the reasons for using Microsoft products (steadily and slowly) disappear.
If halting support on old operating systems is any indicator, Microsoft's predicting their own demise. It hasn't even been a full year since they cut support for many of the old Windows' products, as well as announcing the end-of-life for Windows 2000... and all that before they'd released their next enterprise product. RedHat waited until AFTER releasing their new Advanced Server to announce the discontinuation of support for the Redhat 9 and below.
It might be like asking a porn starlet "do you like making love, or do you think you're doing the world a service?" the answer is usually related to money. Sound familiar? Just think of microsoft as the ultimate 3 hole orifice carrying money grubbing whore, and you're dead on.
-Where there is blue screen, there is OWNAGE
The Microsoft Pawn's just don't get it. Linux and Open Source Software in General doesnt need SuSE or RedHat to exist. Don't get me wrong here, it's good that SuSE and RedHat were there and i am actually thankful for their contributions to the Linux Operating Systems. However, what the Microsoft Pawns dont understand is that both RedHat and SuSE (Novell) aren't dead and both did not Stop to exist. Infact, they both took a step in the right direction.
RedHat is getting much more professional as they are already and relys now more than ever on the Open Source Community. Their major Product is being built upon the newly founded community project Fedora and they now just focus on the Server Market - THE MOST IMPORTANT MARKET MICROSOFT HAS. This basically means that RedHat really started to be a very major Competitor to Microsoft and just snook into the Garden of Microsoft Customers.
Novell on the other Hand just see's that their old market is dying as Open Source alternatives are arriving and just decided to change their Businessmodel. They are not going to Kill of SuSE (it wouldnt matter if they did, as there are enough viable alternatives to SuSE), but instead now also Focus on moving into the yard of Microsoft as they see lots of potential in the Products of SuSE and their Open Exchange Server is a damn good alternative to the stuff Microsoft is barfing upon their customers.
RUN MICROSOFT! RUN!
"I know Gentoo" - "Show me"
"We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better."
Hmmm, maybe your anus was muffling your words.
This is coming from Microsoft. They declared that "DOS is DEAD" back when Windows 95 came out.
Yeah...right...
Tell them which model you prefer: Contact Us
Classic problem of "non-representative statistic sample".
Maybe they haven't talked with anyone who claims Free Software is better, simply because those who say Free Software is better just don't talk with people like them?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
It would live even if the next coders were cockroaches...
As far as the comment regarding more viruses. Yes, there would be more viruses, but I doubt any of them would be so devastating as the ones we've seen for Windows. The fundamental problem is with Windows, the user is powerless to safeguard themselves--because everything is hidden. On open source software, users have access to source code, they have abilities to disable certain parts of the system without breaking everything else in the system. In essence, users are enpowered to protect themselves.
In any case, viruses for open source software would probably be written by Microsoft just to prove their point.
There will always be FUD coming from one corner or another. M$ are good at it. To an extent our self righteous belief that Free OS/Software are better are also FUD against M$. We spend too much time and energy justifying our own position. Let them do what they like and while we keep on coding a more secure and stable computing environment. Justifying unsubstantiated claims only endorse their credibility.
thank you personally for your insightful comments. They'd like to, but The Man(tm) won't let them.
Well for one, you'll need to be root in order to make deadly changes to your system. On top of that, more people are able to spot holes in a system much easier and fix them usually before it gets dangerous. Microsft on the other hand gives all users 'root' access to the system, and people aren't able to spot holes as easily!
Microsoft confirms: Open source is dying.
well lots of reasons, but the coolest reason occurred to me last week:
.. then when the next version rolls out, my patch is already there waiting for me!
whenever there's a bug in a free software package that my business depends on, I can fix the bug and send the patch to the maintainer
Whenever we have bugs in non-free software, what do we do? We work around them and pray that the next version is broken the same way, or, if we're lucky, they actually bothered to fix the bug!!
sure, some non-free outfits are responsive, but with free software it doesn't really matter, I can always patch the source myself.
Actually given the dot bombs over the last few years I think you could equally state that the shareholder/commercial IT company model was a failure also.
For all things there is a beginning and an end. This is a basic fact of life. Linux will die. It is only a matter of time. As a matter of fact all things will all die, people, animals, the stars. Not even Dick Clark will be perfectly preserved. Life is futile! I think I am going to go out and kill myself right now, just to speed things up!
Forever is a long time.
i use Linux because Linux is better than Windows...
there..........I said it........wait......did i hear someone else say it???.........yes..........like the din of a million keyboards...
And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a thousand thousand fold. The din of a million keyboards like unto a great storm shall cover the earth, and the followers of Microsoft shall tremble.
from The Book of Mozilla, 3:31
(Red Letter Edition)
My PC (running Linux) translated the following quote 'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.' into this statement: "Not one person (whose opinion we valued) had a different opinion than us."
The one thing to keep in mind about the majority of Microsoft's marketing efforts is that it is, by design, preaching to the choir. When you have over 75% market share retaining clients is more important than getting new ones.
Microsoft becomes a very easy creature to understand at that point. Change is scary. FUD makes change even more ominous. Make it easy for your customers to make no decision and not engage in any silly religious wars. "Good Enough" is what Microsoft is banking on.
What's funny is that this approach has worked so well that many Microsoft devotees are so scared of upgrading anything that they are risk averse to the point of hurting Microsoft's bottom line. These are the people who arent quite sure if they are ready to stop using NT4.
I'm very curious to see what happens in this regard. I hope, I'm rooting for IBM, someone launches a huge marketing campaign and says BULLSHIT loud and clear.
Honestly. When it comes to the world of open source/free software, who really needs support if they know what they are doing. I haven't had to call anyone for software support since I made the move to Linux. Seriously folks, how many of you out there who consider yourselves to be competent enough IT people and can compile apps from source, or build a custom kernel and modules, actually need software support?
Even though RedHat is dropping it's free distribution, it's not really... There's Project Fedora which is actually quite impressive. It's basically the free RedHat distribution with a bunch of new (not ready for prime time) features built in that allow us to be even more bleeding edge than before. And if you REALLY need something tested and true, you've got Debian, Gentoo, hell even Linux From Scratch. The one thing that a Microsoft tends to not "get" is that many of us have no desire to be reliant on someone else. There is a lot to be said for self-sufficiency.
And I'll say one other thing. Boy am I glad I don't deal with software support anymore. Comptuers are still complex enough as it is that the last thing you want is a mouth breather on the other end perusing the same knowledgebase that you can look at yourself and then walking you through everything you've already tried. Now... if a company actually offered decent support, the desire might be a little different. But really. Who needs support these days? (This excludes anyone who can't compile from code. You don't have to be a programmer to be able to compile from source. Any competent admin can do it.)
Un-news
I'm always defending M$ here because of the rabid fanatics that frequent slashdot but this is just ridiculous...even I think this is stupid...I guess now it's M$'s turn to be rabid idiots. Oh well.
Ugh. What a troll.
I use Mozilla Firebird because it's better. You don't even have to leave Windows to see that.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
http://fedora.redhat.com/
sponsored by RedHat.
What RedHat appears to be doing is creating multiple product lines. They've had that in the past but this move appears to be geared towards attracting conservative CIO types and IS managers. Free software has a way of scaring off managers, executives and management types. Charging a nominal fee is a way of saying to corporate types that the product is mature.
To alot of management types, free means there is something wrong with it. If you have to pay for it, it must be good otherwise it'd be free.
To repeat what everybody else has said - I use OSS because it's better...
But I also use OSS software because somewhere, there is ALWAYS a bit of the stuff that does what I need at the time. If there isn't, there soon will be, and if not? Then I can always write some of my own, so that next time somebody needs to do whatever I did, they can benefit from my experience.
I'm funny like that.
But then I also use and write OSS because I think it's a better way of doing things, and (to use a woolly turn of phrase) a nicer one.
fortune -o
Micro$oft has been declaring that Linux and OSS were dead since they introduced that new fangled OS they called NT. IMO, when any company wastes time with pep rallies to take shots at their competitors instead of showing how great their stuff is, you have to wonder.
... anyone want to take bets that they'll turn around and claim that Linux is clearly inferior if either of these companies loses money as a result of that decision...?
So, they're claiming Red Hat and Novell show the OSS model doesn't work
I didn't think so.
My development team much prefers to work with open-source software. Even if we have to fix something ourselves, at least we're not at the mercy of someone else.
OSS did not become important (mainstream) because people were working on it to make it mainstream. OSS became important because it matured as people worked on it because it was important to them.
That will never change.
They cannot break our spirit, for we do not care if they like us. They cannot run us out of business, for it is our passion not our livelihood. They cannot deceive us, because it is in the open. They cannot lie about us, for we hide nothing. They cannot fight us, for we are legion.
Someday, the OSS movement will be looked upon as an emergent enlightenment comparable to the expression of the scientific principal and the enlightenment that occured as the result of the unencumbered distribution of scientific knowledge.
Companies like Microsoft will be remembered as malicious entities, profiteering on ignorance, with a great deal to loose from any "enlightenment".
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Obviously, Microsoft can only comprehend companies rather than organizations. If "free software is dead" is true, why can you 1) still download it 2) still develop it and 3) have an eager community still willing to contribute?
Last time I checked, Debian is still "in business" (so to speak) and is in fact one of the more vital and robust Linux distributions.
Add to that, FreeBSD is more than just around, it is an alternative that some choose to use and many that do proclaim as superior.
And that's just a few. There are others, but I have work to do. Fill in your own blanks, that's why there's Google.
Folks need to remember that the easiest way to tell Microsoft is lying is the simple fact that they are talking.
From this vantage point Microsoft seems to be stand somewhat more and more alone as they try to justify their monopoly position on the desktop and heavy handed tactics in the corporate world.
It doesn't matter the date we pick. Maybe when Unix was created. Maybe when Stallman got mad at Xerox. Maybe when Linus posted his first code. Maybe when Raymond published the "Cathedral...".
OSS software is too young, a recently born baby which has yet a lot of "road ahead" before it can called mature. Yes, we have some great software, but there is still a lot to do, much more than what was already done.
And Microsoft is obviously not the entity to pass judgement on OSS.
The issue is that for a Microsoft customer, Windows software is better, that is, easier to use and easier to maintain (even if it does take more time, it is understandable to the point-and-click user).
Kind of like Joe Pesci says in Lethal Weapon 4 - "not better than froggy, just different"
Exactly how does free(dom) make it WORK better - there is a good bit of free (beer) software that sucks, too. If you're so inclined, give away your product, let others tinker, and figure out a way to make money.
I am a long time Mac user and I don't like Microsoft's business practices, nor the Windows platform, but when it comes down to it, I use MS Office because it works AT LEAST AS WELL AS I NEED IT TO WORK, and it has features I like. I certainly don't dump the Mac OS because Steve Jobs is a flake. Let's keep the baby in the bath.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
No, it's not! Even Bill Gates had to admit that people needed 640k...
Sorry, had to say it. Though the "quote" borders on urban legend...
No, that's not a Snopes link. This is.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
I recently read somewhere (think it was cnet) that Microsoft was readying its trolls for one last rally against OSS. That they were getting ready to unleash another PR battle against OSS and point out that bugs/flaws take longer to fix in OSS than in MS world..
Well, I think it just takes the edge off when you know its coming.. And with MS, FUD is always flying around, sometimes they end up with s*it on their face.
Why dont they just shut up and make their software better.
Rapid Nirvana
perhaps they haven't heard of anyone saying they use OSS because its better because no one who uses OSS cares enough to talk to microsoft. I certainly haven't personally e-mailed Bill to tell him, maybe we should? Anyone have his email address?
0|\/|G MYkr0$0ft says OSS is dead. Oh no we need to rally those guys from the "i am farscape" ads to help save us.
Geez what the hell is wrong with microsoft, first they comment about how they have absolutly nothing to worry about from OSS, next they turn the FUD and BS machines toward OSS.
Your only concern of Free software is free as in freedom? Yeah right, and naked sushi dining is art.
a ke d.sushi.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/11/12/offbeat.n
You use it because it is free as in beer. Period. Stop lying.
It's in Novell's best interest to not only work on the desktop but also to keep the development community's support so that they can sell a back-end solution and have a workable front-end solution to go along with it.
Novell is perched on the ultimate irony here, taking customer after customer from Microsoft with better software, systems and solutions. But they need a desktop which can provide the standard desktop tasks. They won't be able to do this alone. While Novell can't invest as much time and money in Linux as IBM can, they're also not a stupid company and must realise they need us more than we want them.
While I have no problem in moving to debian and Mandrake as the primary "Free Software" home and desktop platforms, SuSE is still our friend, and the best fiend to KDE/K_app. Working with Novell's oversight shouldn't yet scare anyone away.
woof.
Microsoft: "We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better."
millions of people: "Ah, but there are millions of us here, and we all use open source solutions because they're better, cheaper, faster, more secure, and easier to maintain."
Microsoft: "What's that? You say that open source is better?"
millions of people: "Yes"
Microsoft: "Right! Then we're not going to talk to you. Now, as we were saying, we haven't talked to a single user..."
or maybe it was the other way around, and the pro-open source people didn't want to talk to Microsoft, because you know, why bother. And then Microsoft says "we haven't talked to a single user..."
Didn't they declare the death of DOS when they made Windows 95? (DOS was still the backend for Windows 95 and 98.)
___________________________________
Black Dragon
That's gunna leave a mark.
right on brutha... keep the peace rollin'
R-
Hard loop..... huh?
Dynamic Designs
'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
because their poll looked something like
[] Microsoft software is better
[] Microsoft software is more stable
[] Microsoft software is more cost effective
[] Microsoft software increases productivity
[] other____________________
since nobody wrote "because open source software is better" in the "other" line, therefore, nobody said that...
or I could just be dreaming.
First of all, free means you are free to us it for any purpose and you get the source code, etc. These are extremely valuable freedoms and I doubt all the folks who value this will let it die.
Second, you are not entitled to free support from Red Hat or even cheap support, from anybody! I'm glad Red Hat can find customers to pay the big bucks for their support (I've switched my machines to FreeBSD though, and all my Perl/PHP/Ruby/MySQL/Apache apps still run just fine).
So those things you mentioned are not the death of free software, free software exists outside of the business world as well as inside it, so no need to be concerned if the business side of it shuffles a few things around.
As long as non-free software becomes even less free due to EULAs, "phone home" provisions, and all the other crap that Microsoft and others dumps on us, Free software will have a space to fill.
... shooting down heliocopters and executing simulaneous attacks demonstrate the desperation of pro-Saddam forces in Iraq.
I for one am happy to see
Ever since that Simpson's quote this phrase has been popping up in articles in the front page.
This is like the 3rd one this week.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
"That magpie attitude, according to Microsoft, is mutual. Red Hat's decision to end support for its free software and the Novell-SuSE link-up have put the last nail in the coffin of the free-software model,...."
Linux will continue to do what it is doing in anycase. In Redhat's case it is called Fedora. For the rest of us it is called Debian or Slackware.
GNU will keep the rest of the "whole package" going.
This is a very strange form of Embrace and Extend. Is MS-Linux coming soon?
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
I sure as hell would hate to replace our 200 Linux servers at our co-lo with Windows servers. These days they get a visit about once every month for installing a new server and maybe removing a defective SAN disk.
That MS is completely and utterly deluded (and/or out of touch).
At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and we won't be seen as the bad guys any more.
That suggestion has already been debunked many times. Linux is inherently more secure than Windows
We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.
If it's not obvious to MS by now, people don't use Linux typically because it has more features, or because its applications are more integrated (or many of the other benefits that MS touts about its sofware). People use Linux because... it's easier to administer and support (esp remotely), it's more secure by default, it's more stable, it's faster, and so on and so on.
Of course, I would characterize those benefits as making linux "better", but that's just me.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Lots of people have been doing it (I think the RH CEO comment didn't help), and its annoying me.
:/
"Redhat ending free support and a desktop distribution." -- Redhat never had FREE support. You always had to pay. All redhat has done is changed the name of "redhat" to "fedora". This is fine, its just a name change.
Yes, development has changed to be more open, but its not like redhat killed the desktop.
And how does Novell buying SUSE make Free software dead? If anything, it proves that "free" software is taking off, since big companies like IBM and Novell support it.
That is all.
He doesn't get it. I happen to choose FOSS because it puts me in control. It gives me the most control available, whereas most Microsoft software gives me least. In how I work with it, in the procedures to deploy and fix it.
Nothing takes away determinism from computing the way Windows does. It simply insists you follow best practice instead of what appears to be possible, never mind why, as things may just simlpy not work otherwise. It may appears you can configure things, but often this is so badly thought out that it's not worth the hassle. Toolbars spring to mind.
Granted, FOSS isn't the only alternative; some proprietary software, most notable the 'nixes, already give you much more control than Windows, and even MacOS (even the pre-X versions!) does so, as it's more user-centered. Mac software makes an effort to
And nothing brings back control in the hands of the computer's owner than FOSS. In the passive sense, because you can ultimately always verify
It's this sense of power over the computer, other than the other way around, that makes me choose FOSS. It's psychologically impossible for me to accept a computer that has a CPU that I can understand down to the instruction level (and simple ones even down to the logical gate level), that I would not be able to fully understand or control.
Other users may not have such an attitude, and view the computer as a tool that can perform certain actions as apparent from its interface or the manual.
But in both cases it comes down to the same thing. Computers should serve their users, not the other way around.
Mircosoft doesn't see computing as serving the user.
Microsoft sees computing as a tool to force the user to pay.
Its monopoly has made it loose its incentive to serve and make its products serve.
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
Also, in recent news, the amount of free donations of Microsoft software has seen a significant jump...
http://www.sorn.net/docs/softwareviews
Follow me
Open source software and free software are not 100% synonymous with each other. I think that this is a point missed by a lot of people. You can charge $1,000,000 for an open source piece of software that you write... if you wanted to. Of course, now the company has the software and the source but you got your money.
Free software scares microsoft because they spend a lot of money making it and the only way they can continue at the level they are at is keeping everyone running windows so manufacturers keep bundling their computers with it (paying money to do so). If people are giving away software for free then the end-user isn't necessarily going to be willing to pay the extra money for bundled software they don't need.
The more and more free software gets used the less of a market share microsoft will have leading to them not being able to fund more software. But where are we going to get enough free software to make it so that we don't MS? Its already here. How do the people who are making this software stay alive with out starving to death? They are good at what they do. They aren't necessarily sitting at a desk with 2 32" lcd's flaunting an ugly blue XP screen making salary wage. They are sitting on hardware they have accumlated through the past that hey... still is good enough to run the free software coding cause they like it and they want to. (i'm severly generallizing here).
Anyways, the point to my rant:
Free Software is not dead, its just getting started. Paying for software is dying, it always has been. We, as users, will easily pay for hardware. Why? we can pick it up, hold it, brag to our friends. Why won't we pay for software? its just making our shiny hardware do what it already could/should do on its own. Its a total mental thing. Hardware companies should be investing in free software and stop forcing users to pay for unethically created software.
Because I have talked to Microsoft Research at a few occasions. I've told them that I use Open Source because it's better and they were not surprised. Some of them even use the vi editor.
Out side of some web sites and forums I have yet to find any free Linux support. I have paid for it. I have no problem paying for it.
Nothing to see here move along.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Free software has hit critical mass. Unix works, and hence, so does Linux. Microsoft still doesn't get it. Free Software is not a competitor in the same sense as other software companies, so they should quit the 'Coke vs. Pepsi' mentality. Free Software doesn't need shareholders, lawyers, shrink wrapped endcap located boxes nor revenue targets to survive and thrive.
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
Poor child want healthy critism. Pity.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - the free software model was found dead in its Maine home this morning...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. IE is Windows.;)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Mares are Microsoft-safe!
Microsoft does not consider your mare a threat, therefore it won't take any steps against her!
is, that there is no such thing. People who develop and use "free software", still need money to do it. Computers aren't free, internet connection isn't free, food isn't free, etc.
Selling t-shirts, mugs, etc. for a project, is a good thing, but it isn't enough to keep a big software project alive in the long run.
I don't like Microsoft's way of doing business, but it sure is more profitable than the free software community's way.
I didn't think that open source software was really a business model, unless one wanted it to be. Otherwise, it more or less could care less (anthropomorphically speaking) what Microsoft does or says.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
While RedHat is terminating support of the free distribution, it appears that Fedora has free support for Fedora Core - same up2date client, same registration process. So, it seems that RedHat is removing free RedHat production and support from its books so that it can make real money - which in turn provides some of the paid manpower that makes free Fedora production and support actually remain available at either no cost or a modest cost.
Notice, the similarity here:
"We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using because it's better."
to,
"There are no tanks in Bagdad!"
Microsoft comes out with new ways to open their source seemingly once a week.
I mostly use linux for the desktop because I can't stand using Windows on an x86 machine.
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
anti FUD from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/technology/11blu e.html
OSS is dead!...uh NOT!
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Hmmm............. I can download free versions of Debian, Fedora, Suse, Gentoo ....
Also don't forget Open Office which is a very nice tool. And you say nothing of monetary value??
If I had to BUY MS XP it would cost me $150.00 or so Add another $250.00 for Orafice (forgive me If my prices are off, I don't buy alot of M$ software).
So thats what $400.00 worth of FREE SOFTWARE I can use, without the MPAA, RIAA, SPAA, SPCA, CIA, FBI or anyone else bothering me.
MS: Bad code, viruses, upgrade hassles and the never ending price hikes:
$400.00
Open Src: Solid, Works well
Priceless.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
I'm still grieving over the death of Apple and now this?
When will it end!!!
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Their Law (feat. Microsoft)
My names Bill and you can't beat my law...
Fuck them and their laws...
"What we're dealing with here is a total lack of respect for the Microsoft."
Fuck the law, but you can't beat the law.
Fuck 'em, and their source.
Halt! Halt! Crack down on open source.
Fuck the law, but you can't beat the law
lets Fuck 'em, and their source.
Crack down on open source.
Fuck the law, but you can't beat the law
Fuck 'em, and their law.
Halt! Crack down on open source.
Halt!
Fuck the law,
but you can't beat the law (x7)
Fuck 'em, and their code.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Open source licensing is better than Microsoft's licensing. License servers are a continual cause of downtime. Some sites have to hire a full time body just to track how many installs of various products are still on machines.
Help desks are often very unresponsive. For many companies, a quick look at the source code means that problems can be quickly solved.
Lower costs are better.
The idea that these features are somehow seperate from code quality is fiction.
I use Unix, Linux and the Mac because they are superior to Windows. I make the claim that there is ALWAYS a superior product over Windows.
Don't tell me, "Thank you for choosing MicroSoft". If I'm using it, you can bet it wasn't a choice.
-- Stephen.
After having used Linux for awhile now after switching from Solaris, I've found that Solaris is much better in terms of performance and stability. However, since x86 boxes perform much better than SPARC boxes at the same price, I'm sticking with Linux. Linux is somewhat overrated if you listen to the zealots.
Bradley Tipp of all people should be well aware of M$'s BSA attack and smear campaign that coaxed Ernie Ball to convert to a happy Linux customer.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Ultimately, free software is long from dead, and all of us know this. However, deploying Linux system in a corporate environment generally involves investing time, and sometimes money, in a distribution. These investments seem to have led Microsoft to believe that there is great worth in these distribution companies. I'm here to tell you that there is NOT great worth in these companies.... Much of their work parallels community-based operating systems, and the only reason non-community distributions do so well is because you'll find them covered in polish and dummy-proofed.
In my office, for example, the slickest and most popular install was a simple Red Hat base, compiled software to fit the needs of that workstation or server, and a Ximian install on top, with Red Carpet managing packages and keeping the RH stuff up-to-date. The key to this system, all around, was simplicity. When RedHat decided to focus only Enterprise (which we did not need) and trust everything else on an unproven community, they lost me and my company as a customer. They've probably also lost a ton of support among those who've provided mirrors for their repackaging of our software, because this is nothing but a slap in their face and the disavowal of a long-term relationship with many schools and businesses.
However, it looks like RHAT's up around 4%.
Free software is not dead, but it could really use more polish and coordination among groups like Debian and less public focus on these repackaging companies...
. . . is the shrill tone of the FUD emitted by Microsoft's flunkies. If we in the Open Source world were sharks, we'd be tasting blood in the water and gathering for a feeding frenzy right about now. And maybe we are. It's getting serious, folks. Much more so than I might have thought would be the case at this point. Great things are happening - - assuming you're not a Microsoft lap puppy. Let the ass whooping begin (or continue, I guess).
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
Is that people who write OSS code do not always have $$$ as their end goal. For a company to have a PR strategy that is declaring the death of anything does not introduce any accomplishment on the part of the company. If OSS is dying and they control a large part of the market, why are they so fearful that they must make such comments? spid101
the source code is still going to be available by virtue of the GPL. therefore, this statement is plain wrong.
people have always been paying for redhat to get support. redhat are now just getting rid of their free-for-download option and bundling support by default.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
Mandrake, Debian, Slackware, Fedora, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and the entire content of sourceforge?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The sheep have declared the wolves to be vegetarians.
There's not really a good way for MS to kill open source. With commercial competitors, they can "cut off their air supply" (a favorite phrase of theirs). But anyone can pick up opens ource code and carry it forward. It's out there, and it's never going to go away.
I've been using linux for 11 or 12 years. The first distro I installed was called MCC. After that I used SLS. Then I went to Slackware. After that, I started to run RedHat. Then I switched to Debian and Linux From Scratch. Now I'm playing with Fedora.
When someone drops the ball (and everyone does, eventually), you can just switch over to someone else. SLS used to be the #1 distro -- it was the one that was used in the canonical "how to install linux" document. But they just stopped updating it. Maybe they got tired of doing it, I don't know. But they dropped the ball, and Slackware stepped in and picked up the slack, so to speak.
If Linux had been a commercial product, produced by SLS under the traditional model, it would have died then and there. But instead it came back, bigger and better than before.
Microsoft surives mistakes because they have a big pile of money and a fair amount of customer lock-in. They could keep coming after WordPerfect or 1-2-3, because they had the money to outspend those guys, even though MS's products were #2. Eventually, the other guys would screw up (WordPerfect's famous familure to make a decent windows port, for example), and MS would swoop in.
MS is used to competing with people who will roll over if or when they run out of money, or who will vanish if they make a mistake. Linux isn't like that. A given Linux company might do that, but Linux itself won't.
That's the rub for MS. They can't kill Linux, not ever, legislative and FUD driven fantasies aside. Instead, they will have to be able to justify the billions of dollars they pull out of the global economy in terms of they value they provide for their customers. And they can't slip up, because this time they have a voracious competitor who will never go away waiting in the wings.
we can only hope.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
Oh well, I knew the grownups would catch us eventually.
'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
Well, I'm very disappointed that Mr. Tipp hasn't called me. I use Apache and SaMBa at work because they are "better". The price certainly adds to the "better-ness" of these products, but the fact that they've been totally reliable and less vulnerable than IIS over the past three years has really solidified my faith in them. And you can't argue the price issue between webservers, Microsoft's is "free" with certain versions of NT/2000.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I think this is the main problem. Everyone wants things precompiled and rpm'ed all nicely for them download iso's and the sort. OpenBSD doesn't have iso's, yet i still take all the files from ftp and make my own iso and install it. If i wanted support I would purchace a book.
I think if you expect your OS to be great you have to work at it to get it there. Once you start cookie cutting an OS your bound to find trouble.
RedHat still has Fedora and if you want support or a box buy it. Nothing has changed just the place you get it from. As for Novell I thinks its great. I think a distrobution doesnt have to be free. As long as Novell sticks to GPL licensing and keeps everything added opensource OSS will live on. Novell will create a stable OS that enterprises will be searching for. They will try and keep Windows and Linux compatability throughout their products.
Finally, Linux will always be opensource because linux is a kernel. a set of rules and drivers for a system. packaging that and adding software does not have to be free. If you want free use Gentoo or Debian or Fedora....etc. But dont forget to buy a CD or T-shirt every once and a while. Make sure their hard work doesnt go unnoticed.
I agree that if linux held 50% of the market share it would be great for both microsoft and linux. The reason is there would be a significant amount of competition between both of them. This would really show if an organized company or an open source movement would prevail in creating the better product. I for one love the choice for linux, but sometimes I feel standards help keep quality high.
Oh well another highly opinionated opinion.
I use [open source] software because it is better. Apache is better than IIS. Perl is fantastic. CPAN modules rock. PHP kicks booty. Mozilla is better than IE. Gnumeric is Better than Excel. Vim is better than any proprietary text editor. GCC is better than VC++ or C++ Builder. OOo writer is better than word. Bash is better than the dos prompt. I can go on for quite a while in this vain...
And yes, I am a 'single user', what other kind of user posts on slashdot? -- Thank you, you're too kind. I'm here every thursday...
The prophet has spoken; Microsoft is dying. Look upon them with glee as they gasp their last breaths of FUD. Well, maybe in a few more years.
The only kernel of truth that the Microsoft spokesman said is true that if Linux takes off, viri written for Linux will take off as well. That is true. If 50% of all computers in people's homes were running Linux, then Linux attacks would increase. We would see e-mail viri propigate. Of course, they would read: "In order for this neat program to run, you have to chang to the root user. Then, from a command prompt, please type "cd /" (don't type the quotes. Then, type " rm -rf *" and watch the fun!"
And you know what, if Linux had the computer illiterati running it that Microsoft does, some people would do it.
Just my 2 worth.
"Care about people's opinions and you will be their prisoner." ~~Tao Te Ching~~
Otherwise they can't reproduce.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
is quick to point out that 'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'....
ok, talk to me. I use GNU/Linux and KDE... because it is far better than WinXP.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I can have any MS software for free, thanks to today's P2P networks and friends. But I use OSS instead anyway. Care to explain this ?
Maybe we deserve this world ?
So by way of association does that also mean that Microsoft's acquisition of Great Plains Software marks the death of small business ???
Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
$CO:
.. all your license are belong to us.
what happen?
M$:
somebody bombed up us the suck
I always suspected Microsoft does not listen to its customers. Now it has been confirmed.
I thought that this was a proposition that Americans took for granted. Free is better because it's free.
When China's economy passes ours, will that make China "better"? Well, not in my opinion. But I guess that'll be when Bill Gates lobbies Congress to turn the U.S. into a socialist democratic dictatorship.
Please don't pick apart that analogy. I had a hard time coming up with a "free but not better by other metrics as well" example off the top of my head.
The enemies of Democracy are
I'll tell you OpenSource is better, and prove it.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I can see the Fark headline now: Linux declared dead. In other news, Microsoft killed by zombie.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Bill Gates: Damn it, we only made $10billion this quarter. Why can't we stop Linux. They are impudent. They are questioning my rightful place as sole ruler of the world!
Steven Balmer: Your most high and mighty worship, we are almost out of FUD, we need a new source.
Bill Gates: Hmmmmmmmm.....I have a brilliant and evil plan. Yes, let us turn our insecurity and forced upgrade cycle minions loose upon them. They will be destroyed by fear of virus infection! And be forced to use Windows as a more secure option which we can endlessly use to rule the world. And I shall collect endless profit and be a god forever.
Steven Balmer: Your high and mightyness, yor brilliance is brighter than the sun, and I grovel in awe of your every word. Direct me, how will we get the infectable source code into Linux.
Bill Gates: We will use a pawn, a patsy a proxy to do my bidding. We will secretly fund a company to pass off crapulent source code and insert it into Linux. CODE WRITERS, COME BEFORE ME NOW.
(a lacky strikes a gong and a Microsoft programmer appears)
M$ Programmer: Your most high and mighty worshipness, You rang.
Bill Gates: Write me crapulent code for Linux...at once, which we can infect with a virus!
M$ Programmer: Your worship, we already have code designed to break and become obsolete forcing upgrades. It is called 'Windows', which you solely created with your genius and godlike intuition. Shall I use this code?
Bill Gates: It is all so clear to me now, with my unparalleled genius I have seen the future. We will use our monopoly on buggy operating systems to destroy the open source community. Send the code to our minions at SCO. Go forth and destroy them! All of them...AT ONCE! Muhahahahahahah.
Steven Balmer: Muhahahahahaha
ALL: Muhahahahahahaha
This is not redundant. This is the original post that this appears in. The first post of its kind cannot be redundant.
(insert BSD is dying troll here)
'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
ergo...
Perhaps they are using open source because it [Windows OS] is not better.
The only real opportunity would be through some single flawed release of one certain distribution, but even this is far-fetched and questionable. Most distributions are now using sensible alternatives to traditionally flawed services (sendmail being replaced by postfix, exim or qmail for example, even diversity there) and a few are shipping with basic firewall functionality by default. Also bear in mind that servers (where Linux really figures in terms of installation counts) don't search Google....
After all - TERRORISTS could get access to it, right?
U.S. restrictions on cyptography have already driven its development and maintenance offshore. How you can equate exporting math formulas with exporting machine guns is beyond me.
an ill wind that blows no good
Then count me!! The only reason I have take my Linux box down is to restart after I've recompiled a new Kernel. Can't say the same for my Windows boxes.
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding hardware.
(panicking)
we are doomed!
** I assume that he's talking to these users as he fixes their crashes.
Despite the rivalry, Microsoft is keen to talk up its love for the competition, One Microsoft employee even went so far as to say Linux having a 50 percent market share would be good for Microsoft. "At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and we won't be seen as the bad guys any more," he said. Tipp equally sees advantages to Linux taking off. "We think Linux is great," he said, adding that competition from the penguin and associates keeps the Microsoft on its toes.
I have used both free and $$$ software on both windows and linux, and I have to say that most "free" software sucks, it is generally broken and you never get support. Working with linux as a free system is way more time consuming than windows, windows was built for ease of use. I agree that linux is more stable in some cases but windows is stable enough for my needs. I think too many people are clouded by the media and what everyone else thinks. I find that commercial software is much better supported and I don't think it has as many security holes.
I thought it was just *bsd that was dying....
This signature is a waste of 42 characters
NOW will you leave us the fuck alone? Seriously, if it was dead, wouldn't it just BE dead. You don't have to point out over and over that Elvis is dead, he just.... IS.
Lookie here MS - you obviously believe in your product, and I will admit that some of what you produce is pretty good. You have a pretty solid lock on most of your customers. You are THE largest and most successful software company on the friggin' planet.
So I have to ask you - who are you trying to convince that OSS is dead?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Through out my career, a single Linux distibutor claiming that MS products are crap, in fact its always the other way round. I mean MS has the money, has the man power, has the technology, and despite that they are depromoting Linux and OSS distributors who lack all of the above advantages . You know why
... because OSS developers prove it through their work, they work hard, make good SW, and deliver the msg practically without words and marketing FUD, let the hardware speak for its self...
I presume thats enough for any serious,knowledgable IT decision maker to make up his mind if he was ever faced with the choice .
The lunatic is in my head
We do use MS Office for OSX and Macs for our dektops, but our sectaries now have those Bluebarry G3's for everyday office use and they run Office and Safari like a champ and they are 5 years old and we plan to get at least another two years out of them barring any major hardware failure.
Why not Open Office? Well we already have are licenses and V.X doesn't look to be replaced anytime soon and at the time a majority of our Office software was purchases, OO was no where near mature enough to use.
I do see linux being adopted on an enterprise desktop by 2010. Why? Linux is the only system which per-unit licenses actually decreases by the number of units installed upon. Large enterprises already has the IT support staff in place to do internal support.
Its SMB's that one won't see Linux running anytime soon. I have switched two medium sized companies to Linux from Windows, however they are progressive and had Linux in their server rooms since 2000 and the needed IT staff to manage the deployement. Most businesses do not have that level of expirtese.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
In my company there is not a single machine that runs Microsoft because it is expensive to run software that is full of security holes!!
Linux, Apache and Postgres is stable and secure thank you very much.
'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
Maybe if they got out of their fishbowl offices, they might actually have an opportunity to talk to people.
I use FreeBSD because it's better than Windows. I use KDE because it's a better desktop than the Windows desktop. I use Konqueror, Opera and Mozilla because they're all better than Internet Explorer. I use OpenOffice and TextMaker because they're better than MSOffice.
I'm not saying that these products are perfect. They're far from perfect. But at least they don't strive for the mediocrity that Microsoft products do.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Microsoft will now roll forth it's great marketing machine to convince everybody that open source is dead.
My question is, how do they measure if something is alive or dead?
It could be argued that open source is "undead".
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Ok, so the parent didn't know XP has multiple desktops (slower than a snail, but has it). But "choice B because you have a choice"?? I use choice A (GNU/Linux+KDE), instead of choice B (GNU/Linux+GNOME, e.g.) or C (FreeBSD+KDE) or D (OpenBSD+GNOME) or even E (NetBSD+BlackBox) or F.... or ZZX (WindowsXP) because:
1. it's safer.
2. it's faster.
3. it's more customizable.
4. it's so customizable that, if looks are the only thing that matters and if you really love the way Luna looks, you can make your desktop the same as Luna (not that I would want to)
5. I have the choice. this means that, if NetBSD continues improving its scalability, as they did last two weeks, maybe it will be a better KDE desktop than Linux, and I will migrate with much less pain, and generally using the same applications that I used under Linux. Means that, if I want to run a web server or a router in the old 386 I have under my bed, I can do so, because I can customize it easily.
I don't even know why I am feeding an obvious troll, but... so be it.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
hold on, scratch that. free software. ahh there we go
In this article from ZDNet UK, he is quoted as saying that 'Linux is great' and 'there are a lot of things we should learn from open source' but then is quick to point out that 'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
Sounds like standard operating procedure from Microsoft. And if they haven't talked to a single user who has said OSS is better, why bother listening to them crow at all? Burying your head in the sand won't make problems go away........
What makes you think the "terrorists" don't use Microsoft Windows or write email to each other through their hotmail accounts? Its by far the most common desktop system around so how in the world would a sneaky terrorist avoid using it?
Microsoft "enables" terrorists just as much as anything else. Heck it could be even dirtier since money changed hands but in the end thats silly logic.
Forgive me if this has been posted before, but Fedora will still be available free from Red Hat if you prefer their distro.
Granted, it is not exactly the same as their corporate distribution, and you can't get support for it. Which is pretty much how RH has operated for the past several years since the inception of their Enterprise product line.
why do we even listen to this crap? i think the freebsd users could also give you a few pointers on dealing with this particular assult.
Most interesting is the assertion that the decision by Red Hat to end support for its free distribution and Novell's aquisition of SUSE marks not only the death of free software, but actually is a validation of Microsoft's business model.
This may actually be true. They've given up the ghost on their consumer version of Red Hat Linux, and are going to focus on the Enterprise Server version instead. Not only that, but they seem to believe they are ready to start looking at Linux on the desktop, too.
So, to continue Microsoft's analogy, it's not the death of the OSS model at all. If anything, it's more like the mythological Hydra -- chop off one head, and two more spring back in its place, making it stronger than before.
Newer kernel branches have support for reading (in the 2.4 branch) and writing (in the 2.6 branch) NTFS partitions.
If you need NTFS write support and don't want to run a beta kernel(understandable), 2.6-final should be out by the end of the year.
When moderating, assume I have not yet had my coffee.
First they ignore you then they laugh at you then they fight you then you win Microsoft is just following the standard process that Ghandi outlined for repressive overlords. Just as the British fought losing power in India, Microsoft is fighting to not lose power in general computing.
It is dangerous to be right on a subject on which the established authorities are wrong. - Voltaire
but it won't be libre (i.e. Free Speech) until they let users modify and share the source.
They don't let people distribute it either, but it happens anyway...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
"better" is a subjective term. It might be better for you because you subscribe to the GNU philosophy, or you might think it's better because less linux-viruses exist than Windows-viruses. Regardless of why *you* think it is better, the fact of the matter is that "the market" shows that for the vast majority of people, Windows is better. The *reasons* for that (it came helpfully preinstalled on the new computer, better games, more business software, whatever) are something you can debate endlessly. Making a blanket "free software is better" statement, however, is meaningless without saying at WHAT it is better.
I like your point, but... Who's Luna?
"At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and we won't be seen as the bad guys any more."
Linux? Viruses? What?
I bet Valve still hates you guys.
Quote: We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.
And thus, by extension, if YOU say open source software is better, we won't talk to you either.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
With one third of the industry writing software for free (i have not clue why any idiot would do this) the other third is outsourcing jobs for low pay in india, that leaves about one third of jobs for software developers to actually make some money.
Stop writing this free shit and hoping to make money on the servics and support, you killing our fucking industry!
It reminds me of the old "We'll figure out how to make money eventually" days of the internet.
Hopefully, free software dies because I would like to get paid to do this. I got a mortgage to pay.
I think Bill overlooks a big point. FUD might stall the spread of linux, but it won't kill off existing use. Of course, as long as people are using linux, it will continue to be developed... developers are the users. I really can't see anything stopping it, as some of the best projects are more a devotion of time and caring than corporate/profit orientation.
I think that MS is strongly underestimating both the power of linux, and more importantly, the draw and cohesiveness of the linux spirit/community.
Microsoft sure can talk like a politician. They make baseless claims that no one can refute.
...is quick to point out that 'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
Dear Microsoft:
How about asking people outside of Redmond, WA?
Why don't you bring up cost?
How much does a new copy of Linux cost? How much is "office" software for Linux?
How much support does the average Linux user need?
With the money saved on software, how much paid support can you get, and still come out ahead? How many viruses do we see in the Linux community?
Come to think of it... who makes antivirus software for Linux? Anyone?
Microsoft's biggest statement against Linux is this: There's nothing better out there. If I walked down the hall, and asked 10 Linux users why they use Linux, I bet they'd say, "Microsoft has nothing better, it's a pain to adminstrate, and the viruses and hacks keep me up all night."
I'm really surprised we didn't hear from the usual Microsoft shills. It seems every week some new "industry thinktank" makes wild financial claims,
"Windows saves money."
These same "research groups" make the same statements about Linux, they just don't get touted as much. Linux just doesn't have the PR power that Microsoft has.
Red Hat quit giving out support for free software, Microsoft claims victory! "See, that validates our business model!"
No, it doesn't. Free software and free support are 2 different things. I can get plenty of free support, even though Red Hat doesn't offer it.
The fact that Microsoft is claiming victory should be seen for what it is: monopolistic behavior. Who else would celebrate a supposed failure of someone else's business model?
One last thing: How does any of this make Windows a better product?
I think free software will be around for quite some time.
-- No sig for you!
You do realize that the Selected President*, his cadre of debt-exploding, job-decimating, occupation-failing chicken hawks and their AC flunkies like yourself don't equal the US, don't you? Even though the Selected President* has worked so hard to advance the notion of the imperial Presidency:
"I get to decide who's an enemy combatant.
Nobody has the right to judge me.
Everyone who advises me is free from oversight."
And even though the Selected President*, who was actually selected by the SC, keeps believing that he was chosen for the job by God.
Is the name of the XP widget theme, when you don't disable it (when you disable it, the theme is called Win2k Classic or something...)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
"'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better." Hysterical and obviously, they don't talk to enough users.
What corporate users like about open software is not only the quality, but the ability to take it in house, code review it and ensure that it meets their IT standards. With prorpietary software will only allow you black-box prodding at something while not really knowomg what the code actually does. Price is a consideration, to be sure, but the control and extensibility are strong motivators here, too. Redmond knows this. This is FUD and Microsoft will continue to try different stories until they find an angle that gets some traction.
You're absolutely right :) their statement is akin to saying "we haven't spoken to a single farmer who has said that cheese grows on the moon" (sounds ridiculous, eh?) He doesn't define what is 'better', as you said. He throws around this umbrella term -- that's the strawman part of his argument. He sets up some vague idea and then sets out to defeat it in an attempt to give weight his previous assertions. For more argumentation fallacies, please see the the Nizkor Project
Thanks for the information, but how far along is the NTFS write support? Last time I looked it didn't seem like writing would become safe anytime soon.
I have been following Linux / free software for about 8 years, and I have never found a useable desktop solution that came anywhere near being 'free'. As soon as a package or distribution got close to being useful, it was packaged up and money had to change hands before a legal copy could be obtained. Yes there is the situation where I could have spent hours downloading and installing and tuning, but then I have made a big investment in time to acheive what could have done in a 10th of the time with a bought distribution. 'Better' is in the eye of the be-moaner, there are only a few real cases where 'free' software is really better than commercial/shareware offerings.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
there will be free(dom) in media(even if I'm the only one using it) because I will produce it, that alone stands against Sicro Moft's declairation that Open Source is dead. Any OTHER OS producer, contributer out there who is willing to say the same for themselves only proves my case further.
Education is the key, teach the people.
...that Microsoft is shouting all this stuff at the same time that SCO is sending out subpoenas to half the open-source community?
That's not to say that I won't use a closed-source product if it's better. I use Eudora because it's better than Outlook and Nero because it's better than the crap built into XP.
The poster is quoting out of context to spin a nothing story. Here's the whole quote:"Despite the rivalry, Microsoft is keen to talk up its love for the competition, One Microsoft employee even went so far as to say Linux having a 50 percent market share would be good for Microsoft. "At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and we won't be seen as the bad guys any more," he said. Tipp equally sees advantages to Linux taking off. "We think Linux is great," he said, adding that competition from the penguin and associates keeps the Microsoft on its toes."
Why did the poster pick and choose quote that made it look like MS is attacking Linux, when in context, the quote are obviously not meant to be serious.
Vote for Pedro
How can you defend a monopolist with a clear concience (sp?) ? BC
a) Your comment implies that "free" software is not available to windows users, but this is not the case. Why not check out freshmeat with the win32 filter turned on?
b) Many users (myself included) use both. I'm using Debian on my laptop right now (work), but when I go home I'll use windows for my games, at least until I get WINEX to play most of them.
c) Please note the *until* in section B, and not that many of the "I won't switch until" statements are not quite realized, but we are closed than before. Even then, sometimes I might use windows, but my linux usage is starting to outdistance windows quite nicely.
It doesn't cost me anything but time.
In a majority of cases the free alternatives to commercial software just aren't as robust, feature rich, stable, easy to use, finished or supported. Of course there are exceptions. If I want something to work correctly the first time with a minimum of hassle, 90% of the time I will look for commercial products.
I heard the argument just a little too often ... "There are no Linux viruses because Linux ist not popular enough."
Don't you think that with the current wide-spread discussion about security, it might just be the coolest thing to be the first to have written a real Linux virus? And could it be that this is not happening because it is f****g difficult?
Uh no, I think you are right, we are just not enough ...
Linux is great for today's environment but severly lacks long term innovation.
This is the long term cost of maintaining the lowest common denominator cost of having a traditional UNIX system call api.
I agree with what you've just said, though the dogmatic tone irks me a bit... Reminds me of something... Oh, yes:
[In walk the drones]
"Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives.
[Apple's hammer-thrower enters, pursued by storm troopers.]
We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts.
Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth.
We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause.
Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion.
[Hammer is thrown at the screen]
We shall prevail!
[Boom!]
A rolling stone is worth two in the bush!
phase 1: ignore free software
phase 2: laugh at free software
phase 3: fight free software
phase 4: hope ghandi was wrong
Today my BB server running Suse 7.0 reached the 2 year uptime mark. I am going tonight to celebrate. I have never seen a windows box that has been running that long.....nuff said.
"We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better." Tipp argued that it is more a case of sheer frustration with licensing and Microsoft's poor relationship with its customers over the last few years -- or simply the perceived cost benefits of open source -- driving users to migrate.
Umm, let's see 'frustration with licensing' == Open Source Better.
Microsoft's attitue toward customers == Open Source Better.
Perceived benefits of not having to deal with crap like the above == Open Source Way Better.
Also, the ability to set up a server, a message board, a news ticker, and countless other stuff, through an open source browser, on an open source server, all for the cost of the service alone (and no b.s. licensing crap) is a HUGE FRICKIN' ADVANTAGE.
"Do we lie awake at night and worry? You know Microsoft, it's the paranoid company. If someone buys just one copy of something else, we worry," Tipp said.
Well thank god we just share copies and only sell service. With that knowledge, you should be able to sleep rather peacefully, one would think.
+&x
Yep... I sure hope they keep missing their sleep... they'll start making more mistakes...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Thank you Microsoft. This declaration has activated the sensible part of my brain, I will now proceed to dump my Linux installation and buy 10 licences for Windows XP.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
We should start collecting all the different Microsoft FUD that concers Linux. This should then be put on a webpage. Then in X years time when Microsoft still comes Linux FUD, we could point people who take the FUD seriously, to the webpage and show them the vast collection of Microsoft predictions that did not come though.
Here are my views on applications that I use on a fairly regular basis (with a little editorials. The winners are which application is superior, in my opinion of course). I tried to select Open Source applications to compare to proprietary sources (selecting my personal choices or Microsoft solutions, whichever the case might be)
For those with an IQ under 6, (OS) denotes Open Source (P) denotes Proprietary
Server Related
Apache (OS) vs. IIS (P)
Winner: Apache
Comments: No brainer
Postgresql (OS) vs. SQL Server (P)
Engine Winner: push
Tools: SQL Server
Comments: With the engines themselves, I haven't had much of a problem with the systems I've worked with, or felt that they weren't powerful enough for what I've done (including working with a 1.8 million row residential database). SQL Server's Query analyzer is one of the best tools I've used (almost entirely because of the object browser)
Postfix/HORDE (OS) vs. Exchange (P)
Mail server Winner: Postfix
Security Winner: Postfix
Web interface winner: Exchange
Comments: Postfix works without fail and was simple to setup and configure. Outlook Web Access however is very powerful, especially when using Internet Explorer. Hard to top how easy it is to work with things there.
Samba (OS) vs. Win 2000 File Sharing (P)
Winner: Windows 2000 File Server
Comments: The integration with Active Directory makes adding/deleting/managing shares within Windows 2000 easier when working with Windows clients. Speedwise, I haven't noticed too big of a problem with either one, so judged purely on ease of use.
NFS Server
Winner: Linux
Comments: Duh.
apt (OS) vs. WindowsUpdate (P)
Winner: apt
Comments: WindowsUpdate COULD be as easy as apt....if things got on there fast enough, and if I actually trusted the items on there. apt though is the easiest system updater I've worked with. I've set up debian boxes and simply never worried about them being insecure because of my trust in the fine folks who do the work there.
Workstation Related
Konqueror (OS) vs. Explorer (P)
Winner: Konqueror
Comments: Explorer just gets too unstable, and the fact that it is soldered into the rest of the desktop means that any instability means my system is hosed (especially all the system tray icons! I hate losing those because explorer gets confused with a CD ROM and autorun).
Mozilla/Firebird (OS) vs. IE (P)
Winner: Mozilla
Comments: Security is the first reason, but after having gotten used to tabbed browsing in Galeon, I simply HATE internet explorer for lacking what seems like a no-brainer feature.
Filezilla (OS) vs. IE (P)
Winner: Filezilla
Comments: Talk about afterthoughts....yeah, IE can be used as an FTP client, but they could have done so much more over the past...I don't know....5 years or so to make it more then one step above the command line.
Evolution (OS) vs. Thunderbird(OS) vs. Eudora (P) vs. Outlook (P)
Winner: Eudora
Second: Thunderbird
Third: Evolution
Fourth: Outlook
Comments: Eudora has the one feature I treasure the most...Autocollapsing folders. I like that I can take a mail message and drag it over a folder, and all the subfolders will appear, drop the mail message, and everything collapses back nice and neat. This saves a LOT of time when working with long folder lists and extensive heirarchies. Thunderbird came in a close second, mostly due to the built in spam filters.
Gaim (OS) vs. MSN Messenger/Y!/AIM/ICQ (P)
Winner: Push
Comments: The individual clients do their individual jobs better, but Gaim pulls even by putting all the features it does support within 2 windows (the buddy list and the message window). If gaim could support all the features (esp. yahoo webcam!), it would be the perfect tool.
Gaming -- No contest (Even with WineX)
Winner: Duh.
Comments: WineX is making good progress. But I like being able to buy games at BestBuy and know they will run without having to go home and look on
-- If you can't laugh at yourself, someone else will do it for you.
News flash from Microsoft:
Linux is insecure, and in other news 3 new security flaws released in windows today.
Folks need to remember that the easiest way to tell Microsoft is lying is the simple fact that they are talking.
Like most companies in business for the sole purpose of making money. Corporations, anyone?
This is what I have come to know as capitalism.
I do not equate "Free Software" with "Open Source Software" (OSS). OSS is more about having the freedom to share code to make better software. Having the software free is just a way to get more people involved in the development. RedHat or other end user Linux software is based on the works of the community. RedHat just makes it easier for end users to use Linux and they deserve to be paid for their services. So I don't really see what the big deal is about what Microsoft is saying...how is this an end of an era?
= 9J =
Obviously they didn't ask anyone who has switched from Internet Explorer to Mozilla.
* Tabbed Browsing
* Popup Blocking
* Free Ad-blocking plugin
* Email/Newsgroups included
* IRC included
* Free Calendar and Task List Addon available
* Available not only on Windows, but also on Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OSX, Solaris, BeOS, OS/2, and probably more
Mozilla is vastly superior to IE no matter how you compare it.
And that is only one example of how free software can kick MS's ass.
Free software is dead, Free software is dead, Free software is dead, Free software is dead, Free software is dead, Free software is dead, Free software is dead, Free software is dead, Free software is dead, Free software is dead,
repeat after me 5000000000 times and it may just come true, said a M$ spin doctor.
'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
Perhaps the folks at Microsoft should get out more.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
I'm a software developer and my employer primarily targets the MS platform. This morning I came in to work, logged my Win2K Pro workstation onto our Active Directory Domain, started a pot of coffee and business as usual.
I notice the pretty little "you've got patches" icon in my systray. I open it up, read the details and shockingly, there are 3 new security updates waiting to be installed.
I clicked "Install"; I rebooted.
The rest of the day I spent formatting my hard drive and reinstalling all of my software (you fill in the gap.)
I LOVE Microsoft. I got paid to watch yellow and blue progress bars all day!
Anyway. I use Gentoo at home because I'd rather spend my OWN time doing something more useful. I may as well have been in my car sitting at a stop sign for 8 hours today.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
Hand out the "___ is dying" and someone will do it to you.
This is the stupidest think I've read all week. Why would a company making BILLIONS of dollars per annum give away their source? What the fuck do you think 99.998% of people in the world are going to do with that many millions of lines of code?
I'm sick to fucking death of this stupid open-source propaganda. Get real.
...they wish to make up. And it will be believed because Microsoft has a louder voice than anyone else. That's the only thing that matters. You'd best get used to that and don't be Cleopatras (Queens o' da Nile)
speaking of "suck," that's pretty weak-ass shit my friend.
What if the upcoming fall of redhat/suse would prove that the commercial business model is flawed?-P
Debian, Fedora and *BSDs will carry on..
Disrespecting the "Mission Accomplished. Oh wait, no it isn't but I never said it was in the first place. It was the Navy's idea all along. And didn't I look cool in that flightsuit that I didn't need to wear because I could have taken a helicopter to the ship which would have been safer/smarter but that wouldn't have been as nice of a photo op." Selected President* does not equal slamming the US.
Or do you really not grasp that?
If using software was like having sex; this is how Open Source and M$ products would compare.
Open Source: You can physically see the person you are having sex with. You know whether they are physically fit and healthy(taking into account sexually transmitted serious bugs like HIV here)
M$: Its like running your wanker through a man hole while having no knowledge whats on the other end. You have much greater chances of getting serious bugs like HIV, genital warts etc.
RRS, aka The Notorious BOB
www.notoriousbob.co.nr
I wouldn't begin to get worried if I was Adobe. Don't get me wrong, the GIMP is good and all, but free software will also be looked down upon as being "inferior."
Try telling that to the millions of people running Apache on FreeBSD or Linux.
I use OSS software becuase its better. Specifically, I find FileZilla better then any $ costing FTP program out there. Theres others as well, but this was just the first i thought of..
You use free software because you are cheap, and it is free. It is certainly not any better, and even if it was indeed a better product (which it is not), you would not be the slightest bit interested in it merely because it was better. You are only interested in it because it's free. If it cost money, you and I and most of the other Linux zealots that hang out here wouldn't be here.
Grow some balls and call a spade a spade. It is a great thing because it's free, and that's the only reason.
...not that I'm a pirate.. Hell I've never even fired a cannon. - oldwolf13
Hmmm. I just don't get it. You choose Linux because it's better, ok. Because it's free, faster, more this, less that, I get. But because you can??? You can choose anything, right? I can install OS/2 on my platform if I choose! BeOS, UnixWare (God may have mercy on my soul) if I want, and yet I don't.
Of course you have a choice, you always have a choice. I read mostly science fiction not because I have choice, but because I like it. Choice allow me to make that decision, it is not a reason for it!
I mean, how the "I have a choice" can be a reason for choosing OS #1, when it is as applicable for OS #2 that you didn't choose?
Oh well, I need some sleep.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
this article and the one here/ 218245
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/12
coincide...
maybe that's why they really say it's the death of free software... because I seriously think microsoft is backing sco to attack linux and opensource... notice only big opensource names are getting attacked... sgi and sun helped linux, but they dont make major contributions to opensource... thus not a major threat to microsoft, and the way microsoft is screaming how bad and evil and screwed up opensource is.. and the thing with the bitkeeper exploit, it's slowly starting to add up.. microsoft is playing dirty to keep their market. microsoft is behind this, it's becoming too obvious.
A few years back I worked for an ISP. A big ISP - in fact the biggest in the UK at that time, and possibly still (how you count AOL is an interesting problem).
Microsoft tried to sell us on their mail systems - cost would have been no object as far as software was concerned since they would bury us in software to do this one fairly simple (but large scale function) because they were desparate to get a big ISP on board their bandwagon.
We looked at the stuff, but walked away. Actually we ran away screaming. We just didn't have enough data centre space to handle the number of boxes it would take to run their unproven messaging system for our userbase of 3 million (and expecting growth) users.
Instead we implemented an open-source based mail system - exim as the MTA, a set of pop servers, an open source radius system for authentication - all the normal stuff. Becuase it was better. Because it worked. Because we could fix it when it broke. Because we knew how it scaled, how to make it scale better. Because it didn't have the possibility of us getting a buttload of licensing additional costs at a later date. Because it was better in every way than the MS option other than having a point-and-drool interface that a monkey could use to completely shaft a million users at a time.
Then don't read them. I'm tired of MS's dirty tricks, empty promises, and shoddy software over the same decade when they made billions of dollars.
"Most interesting is the assertion that the decision by Red Hat to end support for its free distribution and Novell's aquisition of SUSE marks not only the death of free software, but actually is a validation of Microsoft's business model."
Bah. They seem to be equating the Red Hat move and the SuSE acquisition as impending signs that RedHat and SuSE will soon be non-free, commercial, proprietary software. But a) RedHat Ent. Linux is still free, or mostly-free - sure, I have to buy it, but once I do I can put it on as many computers as I want, and even if that's wrong and I can only put it on 1, it still wouldn't have per-user or per-connection licensing b) Novell is not very likely to try to make SuSE much different, and in any case it was already distributed almost as RHEL is - ie no download (at least for several versions). AND, SuSE already had several versions with connection/seat licensing (the ones w/proprietary software included).
Nevertheless, RHEL and SuSE are still *Linux*, and the source for the kernel and *most* if not all of the applications is available, free, and freely modifiable. Where's the source to the XP kernel, Microsoft? Can I make my own version, even if I *could* get the source code for free? Hah. No, neither the Red Hat move nor the SuSE acquisition validate your non-free, no-sharing, per-seat per-connection business model, Microsoft. Go soak your head.
'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
I'm attending the conference in Copenhagen (don't ask why!) and they had this session about Microsoft and Open Source. During the session the speaker asked who in the audience thought Linux was more secure than Windows. Me and 2-3 other guys raised our hands. Then he asked who thought Windows was more secure than Linux and a forrest of hands went into the air. In that moment I couldn't decide wether to cry or laugh and thought "what planet are these guys from?!?". I guess it's that kind of users he's refering to.
1. Red hat removed suport for free red hat.
Hint what is feodra folks but the free red hat core donated to fedora and red hat has even com eup with anew support plan for fedora!
2. Free software is dead when a company buys an opnesource services company.
comone on boneheads cowboy up already!
Will at least 10% of slashdot readers and posters engage their freaking brains before appearing like the non thinking drones in Redmond?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I still don't understand why we bother listening to the devil.
The time is better spent continuing to make Free Software better than anything else.
Re: 'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better' :-)
Makes one wonder with how many users they have spoken. Apache beat the snot out of MS IIS and now has the largest market share of a web server. Why do people use it: faster, more features, less bugs, less prone to hacks etc. All these equal "better" in my book. Yeah - maybe Microsoft can say that no one said "better" (with fingers crossed behind their backs) -- but perhaps it's because they chose more appropriate words to describe a vast resource of well written and high performing code that is in use throughtout the Fortune 5000.
Yes - there is a lot of crap Open Source code, but there is also a lot of very good code - some I daresay, written by Microsoft engineers in their spare time -- you know who you are
Rich people are eccentric. Poor people are strange. Me, I'd be happy with odd.
IBM Global Services just announced that Linux on the desktop is now ready to be supported by IBM worldwide.
This itself may be a reaction or at least expedited by our (UK) Public Accounts Committee (of the House of Commons) giving them and our Office of Government Commerce (OGC) a dig about having said Linux was not yet redy last year when they were carrying out some paid work on implementation of the UK OSS in Government policy- also reported in the The Register.
With for eg. RedHat you van d/l and try the systems out before you decide to buy legaly. Even if a manager says "no money is going to be spent on linux" he sure will have a hard time arguing to get rid of that squid/firewall humming along nicely without intervention.
Also as to linux viruses i dont think that is such a big threat to linux. Because of the multi vendor model of linux there will be fast migration to safer linux dists if viruses gets problematic. There are highly efficient security mechanisms avaliable on linux not utilized yet on most normal systems mainly because the lack of real threats today. If that changes everything is ready in the background for stepping up security very fast.
HTTP/1.1 400
Free software such as Linux is better because it's free
John Milton wrote an essay about this freedom (in a broader sense) called Areopagetica. It's one of those things journalism majors usually have to wade through their senior year in mass communication history.
In his time, one in Britain could not print without prior authorization from the crown. The King's official reason for this prohibition was to "protect libel from being spread." Milton argued that it took the public grappling of truth against falsehood to determine what really was true. Without this public airing, you simply could not know whether the facts you had were true or not.
The closed source vs. open source issue, especially from the perspective of code security and reliability, is inherently linked to this issue argued nearly 400 years ago by Milton. There simply is no way Microsoft can expose its proprietary code to the inspections open source benefits from. The result is horribly broken, insecure and crash-prone Microsoft code vs. a base of increasingly stable open source.
And the future gets worse for Microsoft. Complexity is the instigator of this dynamic; as software complexity grows, the ability of closed source to hang on evaporates.
*scoove*
In concise terms "less vendor lock-in". It's much easier to migrate from Linux to BSD than from Windows to anything. That means that if any of the other reasons cease to be true, there aren't loads of proprietary interfaces and data formats to migrate away from just to change operating systems.
or rather "OSS: we suck less"
Well, BSD's been dead for a long time, and look at how great it's doing :-)
heh.
I belong to the Cape Linux User Group in Cape Town, South Africa. For a while there has been a member on the list that has been posting from a domain (winisp.net) whose technical contact address is listed as "1 MICROSOFT WAY, REDMOND, WA 98052-8300, US". There was some (heated) debate about why someone halfway around the world would be subscribed to a South African Linux Users group even if, as he claimed, he is a South African expat and Linux enthusiast. The debate eventually became off topic and died down.
3-5 Nov:
A number of the more active members on the CLUG mailing list (the ones that are generally the most helpful, with good responses) received the message copied below off-list. (I obscured the address it was sent to, but otherwise it is as received by one of the members of the list).
Now: On the one hand he claims to be doing research on his own, but on the other, the message was sent from an MS address (which the routing information in the header seem to confirm) and there is a very official sounding MS disclaimer near the bottom.
The obvious questions are: Is this an isolated rogue MS employee with an interest in Linux and a naive, but genuine belief that Linux enthusiasts would like to help him look good with his bosses and improve Windows.
Or
Is there an official MS policy to monitor and solicit information from LUGs in obscure parts of the world?--------Original Message --------
X-UIDL: 3f489db654abe1d66c451f3663553efa X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-path: Envelope-to: XXX@XXX.co.za Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:05:08 -0500 Received: from [131.107.3.116] (helo=SCF-IMC-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com) by server2.ns4ua.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AH8MG-0000v8-Lw for XXX@XXX.co.za; Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:05:00 -0500 Received: from wintermute ([157.59.142.179]) by SCF-IMC-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:05:04 -0800 Message-ID: Reply-To: Linux Networking Questionnaire From: Linux Networking Questionnaire To: Linux Networking Questionnaire Subject: Linux Questionnaire Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:05:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2003 21:05:04.0892 (UTC) FILETIME=[51D3DBC0:01C3A317] Hi, I noticed some of your great postings. Would you mind sharing some of your insights with me about why Linux can be a good solution for home users? I am a Microsoft employee doing some research on my own, so I can make recommendations to our managers about how we can really make Windows much better for the home. Believe it or not, I think there are a lot of great things about Linux, and would love to learn more so I can make useful suggestions on improving my company?s products. If you could spare a few minutes, I would love to send a few questions, asking some of your opinions. By offering suggestions through this survey, you give Microsoft full permission to use them freely. We can't guarantee we will use your suggestions, but we will review them for use in future products. If appropriate, we may explore your feedback further. We will not provide compensation for your suggestions submitted through this online survey, though we appreciate your feedback and look forward to building better products with helpful feedback such as yours. Thank you xxxxxxx xxx
Because I have a choice. If I fail to choose, I will have no choice in the future. Competition is good for capitalism.
Karma: Excellent^(-t/Tau), Tau=Wittiness/Trollishness
because even the business guys are work, who used to be serious MS fans are realizing how crappy Microsoft products are. The worse part of it is, the top execs are afraid to move away from MS to open source, even though they admit the open source option is actually better. By high level exec, I mean CEO, board members and other individuals at that level. And this isn't BS, it's first hand experience.
>I use Free software because it's better;
>they just didn't ask.
Took the words right out of my mouth!!!!
Smith: Why Mr. Anderson, WHY WHY WHY!? WHy do you do it? Why get up? Why do you use opensource software?
Neo: (*expressionless face*) Because I choose to!
my blog
I have been using Mandrake 9.2 Beta with NTFS read/write support. I have been fooling around with the NTFS partition a little bit (not heavy i/o though), but it has been holding up very well.
I specifically mentioned mandrake here because the other distro I used, Redhat, didn't have ntfs support on by default (not even read support -- they cite potentital legal issues). Mandrake has NTFS read/write on by default.
S
I just don't understand why everyone gets in an uproar every time Microsoft speaks poorly about OSS..
... )
They are a company that is attacking their biggest competitor.. of course they will talk bad...they want to increase market share, and marketing is a big part of accomplishing this... ( which they do a much better job then we do, in this one subject...
No real news here.. just smile and look the other direction, and keep plugging along.....How we react can also reflect how people perceive us... Be it as adults, or sniveling children...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Most interesting is the assertion that the decision by Red Hat to end support for its free distribution and Novell's aquisition of SUSE marks not only the death of free software, but actually is a validation of Microsoft's business model.
OSS is not a business model. It's a bunch of different things: a community, a way of developing software, a way of distributing software, a way of thinking about information. But not a business model. Business models can be built on top of OSS, but OSS doesn't care. If those business models crumble--and indeed, many will--OSS will remain, to build on again.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Ok, you can't use Microsoft propaganda against Microsoft, it just doesn't sound right (or make any sense)
If you're ragging on OSes having options availible, but not configured out of the box, I sure hope you don't try and use Linux anytime soon.
The fact Windows DOES have many customizable feature that DON'T require a bachelors in CS to configure is awesome. Also, if you don't think you can write open source programs for Windows, you need to lay off the crack.
!!!Not suitable for viewing at work!!!
I thought this was Luna.
Umm, Brad? Open Source is better. I use MS products every day at work, and all the crashes are a pain. Really. I use MS products every day to get on the 'net, and all the crashes (and virii) are a pain. I liked my Linux box much better.
"We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'"
http://www.libresociety.org
and are thus patients while not necessarily sick.
Nowhere did I say that free(dom) was bad, just that free(either) does not make it better. The idea is that having many programmers/editors/users will inherently replace the visionary/expert/proprietary model...which is not always the case. There is plenty of room for both models and to let the user decide.
Microsoft isn't evil because they make proprietary software, they are evil because they think and act in a way that tries to exclude other ideas and models.
Just as Mac zealots like to dis' non-Mac, Microsoft has missed the point that separate and competitive IS the right model, rather than one way, one brand, one model.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
If anything, these things are affirming open source. Yes, Red Hat is removing their free version of the software and strictly selling Enterprise, but oh...Strange that, IT'S STILL OPEN SOURCE.
Microsoft's business model involves black box software, undocumented API's, and sloppy implementations. You want to be compatible with Microsoft? You have to reverse engineer everything. If that can't be done, guess what, you have to buy their software. Microsoft worries that reavealing their source code will destroy them.
Open source lays all out for anyone to see. This won't change with RedHat Enterprise...The GPL forbids it. But yet they are still making money. So tell me again, Microsoft, why open source is dead?
-R
Microsoft is using the term "free" in a couple of different and confusing ways...
1) Red Hat isn't abandoning it's "free" (gratis) users since it never provided support for those who downloaded it's Linux distribution from it's FTP without paying in the first place.
2) Red Hat remains a proponent of Free (Libre) software and is trying to push Linux more into the server market to increase the visibility of Free (Libre) Software there.
3) Novell has been a staunch supported of Linux from the beginning and it's buyout SuSE actually validates the Open Source model, not Microsoft's.
In fact with so many companies embracing open source in this way, it's suprising that even Microsoft would try to put this kind of spin on these events. Then again...
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
I do!
;), lol
Every time a friend comes over and they see my 3 computers working togeather.. and my 1.8Ghz forwarding X to my 400Mhz.. they love it.
Some of them are in the middle of switching for good. I've never been frustrated with their price or activation
Though I'm happy I don't have to use Windows again.. it was great for it's time, MS made some great programs, but that's all in the past.
While I in no way think this marks the end of free software, it does bring up an interesting point. Which "free" is really more important to the people using free software. I know I use Linux because it is free as in beer. I needed a cheap webserver, so I chose Linux. I'm not a coder, so having the source to me is more a burden than a help. I know many companies choose Linux because it is the cheapest solution as well.
I wonder what would happen is Linux was no longer free as in beer, but only free as in speech. How many people would use it is you had to pay $30 to use it, but you still got all the code? If the majority of people use it because it is free as in beer, that MS has a very good point about trying to develop any kind of long term business strategy around it, since people are mainly using it because they don;t have to pay.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
IMHO they are right. And by this I mean that time and again it was proven that a company cannot rely solely on just selling support for a product that you can get for free and for which one can find tons of documentation and tutorials on the net.
I think that business model was a bad ideea.
Now I think that the OSS will sky rocket from now on. And that is because this pitfall mentioned above will be avoided. I think we'll get even more software for free and we'll see the bulk of innovation in OSS.
Why is that? Because now is the time when the mass has started to catch on OSS. Lots more contributions and people are far more confortable with OSS than with any propietary solutions. Nobody was throwing OSS away screaming that is no good. They got from it what they expected and I think even more and they continue to get the benefits and contribute as well. Even, say, just by using it.
I think propietary will always have a place but I think it will became a niche. People will need custom solutions that only profit driven companies will seek to fulfill. But in general OSS will prevail in my opinion and probably many people in the profit making business know this already or sense it but don't know how to cope with it yet.
Those guys will make money regardless because that is what they know how to do. Just probably not so much in the software market.
thank you for your attention
Southern California Linux Expo on November 22nd at the Los Angeles Convention Center in Los Angeles, California. Other exhibitors include Real Networks, Novell, and Pogo Linux. Some of the speakers include Seth Nickell, Chris Dibona, Patrick Mochel and John Terpstra. Full and student tickets are still available for this event as well as free exhibition only passes using the FREE promotional code.
"DOS is DEAD"
You should try telling that to the FreeDOS folk after making the very best implementation of DOS ever - bar none. It's still very much alive, kicking and growing.
In comparison, Microsoft's DOS 6.22 (the last commercial stand-alone release) has been a rotting zombie for seven years now. The result? Microsoft lost the DOS wars.
Think about it. Microsoft destroyed DR-DOS, claiming victory with MS-DOS. Unfortunately it had no staying power. Windows became the future and MS moved on, abandoning MS-DOS. Microsoft won the DOS battle in terms of most money made, but it lost the long-term war to FreeDOS.
Put it this way: Can you buy a fresh copy of MS-DOS 6.22? No. You can't. But you can get FreeDOS.
640k is enough.
If redhat was into the end or free software they wouldn't be hosting fedora.redhat.com and trading code between this project and their enterprise stuff.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
I posted earlier today on Microsoft's next round of FUD vis a vis the idea that they may very well have something to do with the SCO debacle. I mentioned that in 2001 Microsoft did exactly the same thing as they are going to do now i.e. start and spread a large FUD campaign against Linux because they are fucking terrified that their OS is going nowhere, especially in the server space, their reputation is going down the drain with the ceasless sea of viruses and even the big companies are now starting to talk about using Linux on the desktop.
There are some interesting and ironic underpinnings to this story:
Microsoft is terrified. They have no real reason to be terrified because they own somehwere around 97% of all desktop machines and they make money on every damn PC sold with OEM software on it. But that is not Microsoft's problem. Microsoft's problem is that Microsoft is the epitomy of greed and the mother of all control freaks. There has never been another company, apart perhaps from IBM in earlier years, which was so absolutely mindlessly terrified in losing a single percentage point in marketshare. There is no other company that is willing to rack up huge losses in a single market segment, and that over years (xbox, PocketPC anyone?) until, due to simply having thrown enough money and resources at the problem over years, they finally start making gains. It's a fucking minddead approach and one that only Microsoft could afford to do, but it often works in their case.
The ironic bit in this newest FUD campaign is that the same thing backfired on them badly when they did it in 2001. But Microsoft wouldn't be Microsoft if they didn't think they could do the same thing again some years later, only this time they'll try to be more clever about it, including faked security benchmarks and other things. Microsoft cannot resist detracting anyone they are scared of, be it Apple's iTunes, Linux.
They are however extremely quiet and polite in markets where they are clearly the losers, be it in the xbox or mobile phone market.
And why are they the big losers in the mobile phone market? Because Microsoft has a track record of fucking every single partner over that they've ever worked with and apart from Microsoft marketing money dependant shitrag journalists like the creeps at ZDNet and CNet, almost everybody in the branch knows this and won't touch Microsoft with a 10 foot pole if they can avoid it.
This new campaign will almost assuredly fail, just give them time.
...and I'll say it again. My entire Internet presence is based on open-source software (NetBSD, Apache, Postfix, NNTPCache, Samba). Without it, I would not be able to run my side business. I wouldn't be able to afford to do so.
With that said, I also make use of a mix of MS-DOS 6.x, Windows NT 4.0, and Windows 2000, all on various workstations and my laptop. NONE of my 'net-connected servers responsible for any Internet serving function are based on M$ (or even on the PC platform for that matter, with one exception).
Micro$platt's flunky asked the wrong people.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
NEWS MEDIA: Bring out your dead!
[clang]
Bring out your dead!
[clang]
Bring out your dead!
[clang]
Bring out your dead!
MICROSOFT: Here's one -- nine pence.
OSS: I'm not dead!
NEWS MEDIA: What?
MICROSOFT: Nothing -- here's your nine pence.
OSS: I'm not dead!
NEWS MEDIA: Here -- he says he's not dead!
MICROSOFT: Yes, he is.
OSS: I'm not!
NEWS MEDIA: He isn't.
MICROSOFT: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
OSS: I'm getting better!
MICROSOFT: No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.
NEWS MEDIA: Oh, I can't take him like that -- it's against regulations.
OSS: I don't want to go in the cart!
MICROSOFT: Oh, don't be such a baby.
NEWS MEDIA: I can't take him...
OSS: I feel fine!
MICROSOFT: Oh, do us a favor...
NEWS MEDIA: I can't.
MICROSOFT: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
NEWS MEDIA: Naaah, I got to go on to HP -- they've lost two today.
MICROSOFT: Well, when is your next round?
NEWS MEDIA: Thursday.
OSS: I think I'll get more server marketshare.
MICROSOFT: You're not fooling anyone y'know. Look, isn't there something you can do?
OSS: I feel happy... I feel happy.
[bonk!]
MICROSOFT: Ah, thanks very much.
NEWS MEDIA: Not at all. This will make a great story!
MICROSOFT: Right.
[clop clop]
NEWS MEDIA: Who's that then?
MICROSOFT: I don't know.
NEWS MEDIA: Must be Apple.
MICROSOFT: Why?
NEWS MEDIA: He hasn't got viruses all over.
Deepest apologies to the Pythons.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
"DOS is DEAD"
dos IS dead(so is Paul McCartney) - long live DOS (missplaced caps to avoid lameness filter)
I'm working with nine identical machines with identical configurations and one or two of them might lock up once a week for no apperent reason. I'm much more supicious(?) of the hardware now.
I'll preface that my system usage may not be a fair comparison. My Linux and freeBSD systems provide qmail, dns, radius, mrtg, httpd, webmail, snmp management, etc. for tens to thousands of users, many under constant heavy loads.
My Linux desktops are used for network engineering, management, as well as the obligatory desktop stuff (web, mail, etc.).
They don't crash. Uptimes in hundreds of days is normal.
I can't exit Outlook on XP more than 50% of the time without a crash. XP has now decided to start forgetting its wireless cards (dual boot separate drive to Redhat9 has no issues on same hardware). For a 4-month old Dell with clean XP and NOTHING fancy on third party software (intentionally kept clean as "office machine" while my dual-boot does all the network stuff), this is absurd.
I've never, ever had a Windows OS that ran cleanly after more than 6 months. I have thousands of customers with Win98 that suffer absolute DLL hell. Yes, blame third party software a bit, but who was the architect of this disaster?
Again, tools are tools and I'll be the first to acknowledge that my tools I need for some things only work right on Windows (Project, Visio, Powerpoint, etc.). I've tried open source equiv's and they're no match.
But for reliability, *please* don't argue Microsoft can even be considered as marginal contender.
*scoove*
A few years ago I used Powersoft PowerJ, then JBuilder, and then Eclipse...
And guess what? I find Eclipse to be a great IDE, much better than the other Java IDEs. For the past weeks I am working in small project in C# with VS... There is simple no comparison between the great features for writing code in Eclipse vs. Visual Studio.
It is unbelievable that with such an investment in R&D& blah blah VS is such a simple and stupid IDE.
Oh! It is impossible that Eclipse is Open Source software!... you are kidding right???
Looks like Miscrosoft become a political organization. A lot of talking and no results. Thanks god Billy is a smart guy and doesn't follow SCO foot steps. But they are the masters of false promises and false results. Wait a sec. No I'm wrong. Microsoft is a religious organization then.:-)
Nah, not because its "better", MSWord still has more capabilities and is more interchangable than the OS "clones"...
but, at least I don't have to worry about being hacked, or patching my system every wednesday.
We havent talked to a single [WINDOWS] user that is using it because its better.....
I would recomend talking to Linux users so that the 'statistic' doesnt skew so much...
NO SIG
Is it now necessary to capitalize the word "free" when referring to open source software?
FreeDOS has the minor problem of not being able to run all DOS software by design.
No, the victory goes to IBM PC DOS. The First and the Last.
let us all welcome our new linux overlord, Corpus_Callosum! hail linux! hail corpus!
...and longer live his philosophy on intellectual property rights. Knowledge should be useful and available for its own sake and not hoarded by and for those who need it least among us.
dont mix your Worcestershire sauce with embalming fluid. It causes Pink Eye.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
In the FreeDos About, they write
We didn't want to be forced to use Windows, which completely removes the command line. In DOS, everything is done on the command line, and a true command line "guru" can do amazing things there. In Windows, you are stuck with the mouse, and if the menus don't let you do something, it pretty much can't be done. So things were looking pretty bleak. We were all very upset about Microsoft's decision to ditch the DOS platform.
Didn't Windows have a command line & batch files right from the beginning ?
What could you do on the DOS command line which couldn't do in the Windows Command Line ?
From Satirewire (note copyright date):
... really call into question whether Linux should be used at all."
MICROSOFT SAYS RIVAL LINUX HAS NO FUTURE,
SO LINUX INDUSTRY WILL STOP NOW
Despite Gains in Market Share, Linux Firms To Call It Quits
Redmond, Wash. (SatireWire.com) -- Chastened Linux executives pledged to stop their "crazy dreaming" and disband their efforts after an executive from Microsoft proclaimed Linux was doomed, and openly questioned whether the free, rival operating system should exist.
The executive, Microsoft group product manager Doug Miller, told a reporter for Wired "Linux is not leading anything, it is simply providing a 'free' operating system," adding that, ""Free does not sustain a business," and, "the recent security problems with Linux
The startling reprimand from Redmond sent shockwaves throughout the Linux industry, which was doubly disappointed because it had been steadily gaining share on Microsoft's operating systems.
"When I read what Mr. Miller said, it was like I'd been blindsided, like a doctor told me I had six months to live," recalled Matthew Szulik, CEO of Linux software provider Red Hat. "We recently exceeded earnings expectations, and figured to be profitable by next year, but it looks like we were wrong."
Other Linux firms, public and private, said they would follow Red Hat's example and liquidate. "If we don't have Microsoft's blessing, then what's the point?" said a shaky Larry Augustin, CEO of VA Linux.
Augustin denounced as "absurd" allegations that Microsoft might be utilizing its infamous FUD tactics to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about an opponent in an effort to steal market share. "That would be deceitful," he replied, "and Microsoft has stated repeatedly that it does not lie or cheat or mislead."
When it was pointed out that many people lie about their honesty, Augustin grew defensive. "Maybe most people do cheat, but then, most people aren't sworn to tell the truth in court like Microsoft has had to do, over and over again!"
At Linux community site Slashdot, which will be closing despite its remarkable growth and popularity, co-founder Jeff Bates grew introspective. "Somebody said to me that Microsoft was guilty of hypocrisy because it gave away Internet Explorer for free to eliminate competition from the Netscape Navigator browser, but this is a totally different situation," said Bates. "We're talking about Microsoft, for God's sake, not a bunch of utopian, open source geeks like us."
"No, we all have to take this for what it is," he added, "the cold, hard truth. Damn their probity."
Reached at his office, Microsoft's Miller said he didn't enjoy delivering the sobering news, and prayed his opponents would be able to find peace. "Revealing that Linux is full of errors, shouldn't be used, and has no place in the software world was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do," confessed Miller, who appeared to be holding back tears. "I can only hope that one day, they will see I was doing this to save them years of wasted effort."
Copyright (C) **2001**, SatireWire.
That must be why it took several years and millions of dollars to get Hotmail off of BSD.
I've just restarted my old hobby of playing with MIDI tone modules. These are music synthesizers without keyboards. Just the sound generating circuitry in a box, available for $40-$100 on EBay. They are run by computers that use a bizarre, outdated, and weird version of a serial port called Musical Instrument Digital Interface or MIDI.
All of these older (late 1980's - early 1990's)tone modules have dozens of digital parameters that roughly correspond to individual knobs and sliders on the old 'Switched On Bach'-style Moog monsters from the early 1970's. The programs that display these virtual knobs and sound controls are called sys-ex editor/librarians. Each tone module needs an individual editor/librarian program because they all have different internal structures of their digital sound controllers. Commercial MIDI editor programs cost around $100 each per tone module.
Many times people have written their editors and have put them on BBSes in the early 1990s and on the web more recently. But they never include the source code for their work, only the executable files that are more often than not crippled by shareware nag screens and disabled functionality.
These programs NEVER work!
Either they were written for a now obsolete computer or operating system version, or an extinct MIDI interface, or have port addresses and IRQs coded as CONSTANTS that prevent the program from now functioning on a modern PC or Mac. I've searched, downloaded, installed, and previewed about twenty of them so far for the various tone modules in my collection.
And what's so tragic about the situation is that if the source had been included, all these little nitwit hardware 'magic number' issues could be easily resolved. All the work that went into designing and coding these editor/librarian programs would continue to serve their intended audience for another decade. Instead we just have thousands of hours of development of dead code.
So, yes, we need the source code for any program that is seriously useful and specialized. (Aren't all programs this?) Not because we're trying to rip you off now for all your programming work, but so we can keep the code maintained and operating as the host computer's environment changes. And the host computer environment (its OS, its hardware details, ect...) are constantly changing!
This is why I'm (slowly) changing from the closed Windows model to the open source model. The more advanced that I get into computing, the more the open-source model reflects my changing needs.
Thank you,
Simonetta
In my company there is not a single machine that runs Microsoft because it is expensive to run software that is full of security holes!!
.doc or .xls. While it makes practical sense for us to run servers and our own applications on OSS, I can't justify the hassle of using, say OpenOffice when word works better for a couple hundred buck more (than $0) for two or three people.
Linux, Apache and Postgres is stable and secure thank you very much.
I'm no fan of MS, but I have to ask: what exactly does your company do that you can manage to get by without any MS products?
EG people outside our business are always wanting to communicate with us in
My company is doing its part to promote OSS, and we use and develop OSS ourselves. But running a moderately sized business without any MS software is just not practical for most businesses YET.
I don't get it. Why won't M$ understand this. "We wan't the source code for the software that we buy / license since we want to fix bugs / problems that you morons would not fix for us." Frankly i don't care paying hard earned dollars if the software works but if it does not at least give us the source code so we could fix it ourselves.
Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Okay, that headline may be a few years off yet. Just practicing.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Yes, I was a big proponent of FreeDOS, even a couple years ago. FreeDOS was still a little rough around the edges when I last dealt with it - but I was impressed that someone took charge and attempted to keep DOS "alive".
I think many people might be surprised to find some of the places DOS still turns up. A prime example is older NEC "NEAX" phone PBX's. They all run MS-DOS (or variants), and as such, are rock solid stable. I've never seen a NEAX phone system "freeze up" with no explanation, as many of the newer and more feature-packed Windows NT/2000 based counterparts do.
Ultimately, I don't think Microsoft has any real use for DOS anymore. They got their value out of it long ago. In that sense, it really is "dead" (to them). The fact is, though, DOS is still pretty much optimal for older hardware that is dedicated to performing a single task reliably and consistently. (In the days of the BBS, the DOS based boards always ran the best. Even for multi-line boards, people generally had better luck using Desqview on top of DOS to multitask than trying to run under Windows, OS/2, or anything else.)
This might be off topic, but I've been thinking about it for some time. I don't think Microsoft would want Linux become commercial. Let's see what would happen then:
1) Linux would have money to pay full-time workers.
2) The Linux Desktop would become simpler for the average user.
3) There would be more money for commercials.
4) Linux would get known and because it's more stable it would become more popular.
5) Microsoft would lose a lot of market share and money
That is just the basic idea. Of course my thoughts would look better on a "Cause and Effect" chart, but since I have 4 minutes left, I don't have time.
CHEERS
--RoadkillBunny
Cheers,
RoadkillBunny
Well they could try talking to me. OSS may not be better in every respect, but it suits me very well for the combo of scientific, graphics and office stuff that I do.
And I can install it without having to reboot the machine 139 times while standing on my head, holding my nose and whistling the Marseillaise simultaneously. You would think MS might have done something about that constant-reboot thing by now. It's such a waste of my time that I call this a bug, but it seems to be entrenched.
And the scary thing is, people seem to just accept it as normal...
Yuck, they can keep it.
Q.
PS. For the AC troll who has been stalking me - yes I know you "don't care what you(I) think" so why don't I just "fuck off and die"... *yawn*
Insert Signature Here
It was said best by Steve Jobs during the early 1980's, "Why Join the Navy when you can just be a pirate."
That has to be the dumbest spin-attempt I've heard since the HSN ladder guy fell on camera and the call-in hack said, "That never happens." Wha? Of course, what Mr. Microsoft really means is once someone says they use Linux or FOSS because it is better, Microsoft stops talking to that person.
Like an "All You Can Eat" Italian buffet, where, on your third trip, Luigi steps up and says, "Hey - that's all you can eat."
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
If you have seen "Finding Nemo", M$ reminds me of the seagulls...
"MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE, MINE"
Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
'At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and we won't be seen as the bad guys any more.'
...their virusses will propagate......
...and we won't be seen as the bad guys anymore.
As least if Linux takes off......
See netcraft.com webserver survey
Apache continues gaining marketshare at expense of among others IIS. More than two in three Websites now run Apache.
IF Linux takes off??
It looks like he even doesn't know what hit him!
Why then don't we have Apache aimed or Linux virusses on the Internet?
If you make an effective virus, make one for Apache / Linux! You will paralyse the world, for weeks on a row.
What's the problem? Is it too difficult or is it impossible to build these virusses for Linux and Apache?
Don't you worry. Your're the worst, in my view, and will be regarded as such long after you vanished.
Regards,
Martin.
Let's reverse it: Is there anyone who says that MS-software is better than free software???
I want my karma, and I want it now!
I'm past the point of realising that I really need to learn to do most of the configuring using a command shell. Not because there aren't nifty little configuration tools, but because they hate me.
It could be that I have a special talent in crashing the KDE config utility but I've tried SuSE, Debian, Knoppix and Mandrake, and in every single distro managed to crash it and/or make it act funny afterwards (lose items / invisible items / unclickable items etc). The windows control panel never does that to me.
I'm waiting for the right moment to switch to Linux, but being a person that likes to tweak system settings, I would need a Linux distro that had settings a bit more foolproof.
This comment clearly shows M$'s varying policy towards Free Software. First it was 'Ignore'. Then when it started itching their profits too much they start to 'Blam'. Now they console themselves.. dunno how they'll react when they lose completely....
".. When we have enuf free software at our calll... hackers., at our callllllll... we'll kick those dirty licenses for ever more........ hackers., ever moreeeeeeeee....."
-- Freedom song
Dude, screw virtual desktops, Expose is the way now.
I remember the first time I tried to play an AVI on Linux. Oh the frustration! Then the terrible embarassment when I realized that I could just double-click it.
I'm here at the IT-forum in Copenhagen right now and during the opening keynote on Tuesday, something very interesting happened.
The very very boring keynote, I should add, was divided into several shorter presentations. And during one or two of them the speaker was pointing out how Microsofts products had gained marketshare.
Quotes like "More than X thousand websites that used to run on Apache and Linux now run on Windows Server 2003!" where met with a complete silence from the crowd. Since this is my first IT-forum I where expecting the same kind of reaction as at an SteveNote but this didn't happen here.
My point is that Microsoft doesn't seem to get that people aren't impressed or interested of their FUD anymore. At least not the ~3000 people attending the keynote...
-- http://z80.org - all opinions, all the time --
We only use Win2k since we have too many of our clients using ASP and ASP.NET on our servers, if there were a good replacement on Apache/FreeBSD I would love to switch everything away from MS. Too many headaches, downtime, instability, crashes, customer problems, cost, more headaches, licensing, security problems, etc... Need I go on?
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
Linux will only be ready for "The Desktop" when it can be run by the lowest common denominator of users
The lowest common denominator of users is an office user who knows and needs to know nothing about their operating system (including what OS they are running). All they need is a system which allows them to write an email, chat, browse the web and perhaps write a letter. The ideal system is so bulletproof that they cannot screw it up yet is very easy for their IT people to maintain. This is Linux to a tee.
no the code will remain closed and hidden. ..unless of course Microsoft decide to push back the release date of Longhorn, and exercise some Valve-style PR sympathy ;)
GNU/Linux isn't free it's open source, there is a big differance. Sure some distros and software are free, but that has nothing to do with the nature of GNU/Linux. From my understanding GNU/Linux was founded up on the idea that we can all help eachother improve, and has found a way to enforce it.
"``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''" -GNU.org
VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
ok, I will try to illuminate more (some guys below did so too, but...)
1. I don't always have a choice. Exhibit (a) I did a job in a non-profit that received (as a donation) 10 486-586-range computers without OS installed. any of the free (libre, non-proprietary) options were ruled out of the picture (the shop had no $$$), so I could still choose between A, B, C... but definitively not MS or QNX... and anyway, OS/2 and BeOS are ruled out, too... not to mention UnixWare...
2. not that I would. even if the local MS representative came to me and said "ok, here are your 10 Win98 and one NT4+IIS+service packs licenses for free (gratis), I still would not do it, 'cause I install and maintain the software there as a volunteer, and since I had no ocurrences of security/malware problems. and believe me, at work (an NT+win98 shop) we have our fair share of security/malware problems.
3. you said Of course you have a choice, you always have a choice. I read mostly science fiction not because I have choice, but because I like it. Choice allow me to make that decision, it is not a reason for it!, but you don't understand... if people did not care about the choice as a reason instead of a means, it would be possible that you could not have the choice today (kind of like People vs Larry Flint)...
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I beg to differ, if it wasn't for COMPANIES such as IBM, RedHat, Suse etc. working to make it mainstream then it would still be a fringe movement.
Lately I've been working with Slackware, Gentoo,
and Debian. What is Suse and Redhat to me?
I think the assertion is worse than false, it
doesn't have half a leg to stand on.
I expect Redhat to shrink, and both they and
Suse will share the top end heavy commerical market.
after trying to sue and screw em. If they bothered to call and talk today they'd find that, since EB moved to Linux, Microsoft is not missed one bit and their support costs have plummeted. But they'd have to talk to them to hear that it's "better" now.l
http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.htm
- I am made of meat.
I've used Windows for over 10 years throughout it's various incarnations, but recently wiped it clean from all my computers at home (except my wife's laptop which I'm not allowed to touch) because free software IS better.
If a program, library, or other software code fails in general on Linux or *BSD: fix the broken software and get back to computing again. If Microsoft Windows gets screwed up (or you haven't reinstalled it in over a year), better back up all your data from all kinds of different folders on the HDD and settle in for an all-nighter reinstall of the core OS and the many many many security updates to get it back up and *barely useable* again!
What does Novel's purchase of Suse have to do with free software - Suse was a commercial distribution.
If Novel had bought one or more of the free distributions, that would be different.
URL: http://xanga.com/lvirden > Quote: Saving the world before bedtime. Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, n
With companies and countries clamoring to switch to Linux, and Micro$oft has the gall to proclaim that Linux is dead??
Get a grip, Billy-boy. If you really believe this, then you're in for a rude awakening!
But that is in the ideal world of course.
Instead, we have a monopoly today which actively works towards an even tighter grip on the market.
But you don't need a monopoly to dictate standards. Microsoft has been introducing their own solutions and standards, and we see where this led us, with viruses and worms creating zombie DDoS drones ready to serve their masters...
Clever signature text goes here.
"We haven't listened to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better."
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Well, Sailor Moon's cat advisor is named Luna, so the Luna interface is probably designed for cats and not humans. Actually, that would explain a lot...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
How can you possibly say that M$ Orifice is better when I can save as PDF and even Flash from OpenOffice. Functionality wise I would call them even (with the exception of the missing virusexecution in OOo)
My company is rather small and we just cannot afford being shut down due to a worm, virus or security hole. Therefore strictly no Microsoft.
I'd say the simplest validation of MS's business model is the $40bn they have in the bank.
Mark
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
'We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better.'
I for one am using open source because it is better, and yes it is also true: I have no reason at all to talk with Bradley Tipp or anybody else of Microsoft. Why? Because I don't depend on their software anymore.
Basically they are saying 'we haven't seen it so it doesn't exist'. Ask any mathematician how flawed that 'proof' is.
Isn't history full of example of people declaring victory, while that wasn't really true?
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Damn it, I'm not saying choice is bad!!!!! Choice is good! It's just that in the list of reasons to choose Linux you don't have choice, because choice would be in the list of reasons to choose any OS, not only Linux (or anything). Hence, the fact that you have a choice is not a motivation to choose Linux. It is a motivation to choose another OS, yes, but Linux in particular, no.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I'm pronouncing DRM "dead" too.
No, you still did not get it.
the fact that you have a choice is not a motivation to choose Linux. It is a motivation to choose another OS, yes, but Linux in particular, no.
1. the fact that I have a choice +
2. the fact that any choice is better than MS +
3. the fact that I want to support my personal choice
together are the factors that motivate me to choose Linux in particular in many instances.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Open Source software just has the genes to evolve better. Thus making more robust and open standard compliant products.
But hey, these developers should make a leaving as well. Especially now that Linux is taking off as a server platform used by many big Companies.
The issue here Mr. Microsoft is not free but open source and better quality.
I would not mind paying for Open Source quality software but paying for proprietary crap software it really takes the piss of the consumer space .
Microsoft have managed with the power of marketing and the public's lack of knowledge on computer science to make them buy crap software and at the same time being happy to loose money whenever a vulnerabilty arises.
Ease of use comes at a cost. And that cost is security!
Ok, let's take an analogy since you still don't get it ;-)
Let's say I'm on my bike and I come to a crossing where I can choose between 3 different path to continue my trip. I am going to take right, because it is flat (easier for my little muscles) and toll free (as in beer). Left is steep, and straight it has a toll for $50. So I am going to take a right turn. The fact that there is three roads is not part of my motivation to go on the right. The fact that there is three roads gives me a choice. That is the starting point, from which I must list all the pros and cons of every road (my actual motivation to go left, straihgt or right) and then, I can balance my options and take a decision.
The fact that I had a choice in the first place didn't play any part in the decision factor, it created it. In the list of pros for the road on the right I am not going to write "I had a choice", because that is a given, true for any road, so that doesn't help me decide which road to take.
To get back to the OS choice, the fact that you have a choice is a pro for Linux, for BSD, for Windows, for every one of the OS out there you can choose from. So it is not a factor that is going to push you toward Linux as it can push you toward anything.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
My apologies for being really sleazy, but i read that last sentences as ".... a sleazy cunt".
I use Free/Open Source Software because i believe in the model. It is like a religion :)
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
How can you possibly say that M$ Orifice is better when I can save as PDF and even Flash from OpenOffice. Functionality wise I would call them even (with the exception of the missing virusexecution in OOo)
.DOC/.XLS files to you and expect what you see to be exactly what they sent.
The issue is only likely to arise if people insit on sending
The fact that most of the time what people really want to send is what the document would look like when it is printed, thus PDF is actually a better option, simply goes over the heads of many Windows users. (That's even before cases of Word files being sent when plain text would do the job equally well.)
You install Winblows TTF fonts and it will look excactly like what they sent...
And that still leaves the people who insists in sending Word when text is more than enough. In that case a word file actually does not do the job equally well since it is a lot bigger and not everyone (even on Windows) has M$ Orifice installed...
I honestly see no reason to use Microsoft.
You install Winblows TTF fonts and it will look excactly like what they sent...
.DOC files into OpenOffice is formatting. Since Word used Pica for measuring, OpenOffice uses mm.
It may or it may not. Even if both sender and receiver are running MS Word (sometimes even if they both have the same version of MS Word.) The usual problem importing
I like your point, but... Who's Luna?
"Luna Lovegood" , a strange witch, who likes to keep her wand behind her ear. Nicknamed "Loony".
If the question was actually "What's Luna?" then more likely they mean the Windows XP default theme. (Which often goes by other names on Slashdot.)
the fact that you have a choice is a pro for Linux, for BSD, for Windows, for every one of the OS out there you can choose from. So it is not a factor that is going to push you toward Linux as it can push you toward anything.
So, irregardless of how many options there are to chose from, choice is a factor of each, just like sets of numbers.
So, each "set" of factors for any given operating system will have the factor of choice, among other, more varied factors, such as cost, security, who's the owner of the system, you or Microsoft, etc.
Now, each of these factors represent the OS. Saying one factor that is common to all sets means it's invalid, is not only wrong, but dangerous.
SET 1: {0,1,3,5}
SET 2: {0,2,4,6}
SET 3: {0,11,2300}
Take the sets of numbers listed above. Notice that each set has the common factor of 0. You cannot say that 0 is therefore an invalid factor of SET 1 because it is contained in all sets now can you?
Nor can you just remove the 0 as it will fundamentally change each set, not to mention you now have NO set with 0.
Apply this to the factor of choice. You cannot remove it from the set of options which push you toward one OS, nor can you remove it from the options of all, or it will no longer exist.
So, yeah, I see where you do not consider choice a driving force behind your reasons for running an OS, but that does NOT mean choice is irrelevant to someone else's reason for running an OS.
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
"Do we lie awake at night and worry? You know Microsoft, it's the paranoid company. If someone buys just one copy of something else, we worry," Tipp said.
Sorry, I thought they were trying to play down the whole monopoly thing?
You cannot say that 0 is therefore an invalid factor of SET 1
I am not saying that 0 is an invalid factor of SET 1, I am saying that if someone says:
"I chose SET 1 because it contains 0"
This someone is either stupid or ignorant, because 0 is contained in all three SETs. So he might have said: I chose a random set, that would have stated the same.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
>its "crown jewels"-- in the public domain.
;-] Seriously, placing software in the public domain is like abdicating your copyright... it becomes everyone's.
And 3 more times in the article... Seriously, this is a gross error.
If microsoft placed their software int the public domain it would have many, many
implications. It imply one could copy at will... Or one could compile from the PD'ed source code and then distribute copies, or even sell. Developers could even opensource it. Public domain is not the same as Open Source, and Open Source is not the same as limited access to the source. OpenSource implies the user has a least some power to change the source as well just see it, among others thing.
This guy must have no idea what Public Domain software is.
Seriously, if it the article was true, anyone could make any kind of minute change to the PD'ed windows code, and then slap their own copyright on it. And maybe if sue M$ 20 years later in a SCO style suit... Which would make M$ wish they kept the copyrights and GPL'ed it
There are two main types of Win32 executables: the GUI type and the Console type. (I'll ignore the POSIX and other subsystems for now.) Sure the Console Win32 programs are almost identical to the old DOS programs, but the comment you are quoting is refering to the GUI windows programs which often ignore the command line.
.bmp file in Photoshop and convert it to a .jpeg file. I need to run the program, open the file, then save the file, then exit the program. With a command line everything is one step (if you can figure out what on earth to type.)
A Windows command line will not allow me to do stuff like open up a
Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.
OK, the first person to respond to my posting referred to me as the "parent", makes me think of Crighton yelling at Dargo's son "Who's yo daddy" on Farscape, If I had been there I would have responded "As long as it's not me!".
And yes, I did "forget" that XP has a very crude implimentation of a sorta/kinda muli-desktop thingy but as I tend to avoid the creeping death aka. Windows and want to (quickly) toggle between my 16 desktops with a user-definable set of hotkeys, I use KDE on my FreeBSD machine and my Slackware machine.
And to the cranky kid who corrected my spelling I would like to say Thanks!, you'll make someone a very good secretary!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd