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.
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
...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 from the linux/unix guys, "Linux is outdated/obfuscated!"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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I have to call bullshit on that.
I know every single server I manage, every single workstation in my house is linux. But I support sales people. I must use Windows on a workstation to natively support those guys - yes I have many "workstaions" for various projects - only one with windows. So I am paid to use MS. If you were PAID to use MS, you would as well. Don't kid yourself and don't even think of calling me a sellout.
ymmv
If you did a search for it, you'd find that there are. However they are mostly "theoretical" and nobody has yet seriously sat down to design a fast-spreading, damaging Linux virus. (As an aside: there are experimental viruses that are able to infect cross-platform -- i.e., they run on both Windows and Linux. Pretty crazy, huh?)
Microsoft's point is fundamentally correct however: there are no serious Linux viruses not because they are impossible on Linux, but because Linux just isn't popular enough yet to make it worth the virus writer's time. It makes much more sense to exploit that vast majority of Windows machines. (If you look at Google's Zeitgeist page, you'll see that only 1% of Google queries come from Linux boxes. I consider that a fairly good indicator of the popularity of Linux.)
None of what I just said should be construed to mean that Microsoft isn't responsible for the security of their operating system. There is a major difference between Windows and Linux viruses: on Windows it is very easy to obtain administrator priviledges, which makes Windows viruses much more dangerous. However, it is dishonest for people to claim that Linux is impervious to viruses. It's not true, and to boastfully make that claim is to court disaster.
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.
More likely, Microspeak for "We haven't talked to a single user."
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
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'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.
This is coming from Microsoft. They declared that "DOS is DEAD" back when Windows 95 came out.
Yeah...right...
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.
thank you personally for your insightful comments. They'd like to, but The Man(tm) won't let them.
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
You can always tell the average age of people on Slashdot when the concern is wheither or not Linux is better than XP and has a bunch of games. For the record I think that Linux is much simplier to use after you learn it and many of the distros have the same nifty little configuration tools that you can find in Windows. And don't get me started on the number of times I've tried to do some simple thing in Windows XP only to get lost in config "wizard" hell. Win2k isn't nearly as bad about it. XP is a step backward.
More on Topic: What MS is most worried about is servers. They aren't gaining much ground in that area and Linux is poised to become the dominent player in that area. So MS does what they do best, the spread FUD, in hopes that some PHBs will get scared and stop considering Linux for deployment.
MS also knows that Corporate embracement of Linux is good for it (and thus bad for them). RedHat is focusing large companies who want top-level support. There isn't anything at all wrong with that as so go the bigger companies the smaller ones follow, until eventually you start seeing it on people's desktops.
FUD isn't making Linux or free software go away anytime soon.
The Anti-Blog
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
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..."
1% of Google queries come from Linux boxes. I consider that a fairly good indicator of the popularity of Linux.
Don't make the same kind of mistake as MS.
That is an indicator of the popularity of browsers hitting Google that provide a UserAgent string that identifies the system as Linux.
On topic, though, I think there have been (cheese, lion) worms that have exploited applications typically run on Linux.
Public marketing security comparions are always suspicious, though: Linux the OS has been much less vulnerable than applications overlying, such as PHP on top of Apache, or sendmail, etc.
Likewise, Windows security looks worse because of overlying misconfigured misdesigned applications such as IIS, Outlook. Since Win2K, the OS per se has been much less vulnerable than in the Win 9x days.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
There's an easy answer to that -- don't let them know how to get to root. Most of the desktop utilities simply pop-up a password box in this situation. Don't teach the idiots that "root" is a user name, nor about the "su" command, and you will not have this problem.
Or, make it so you have to have a command line override (documented only in the man page) in order to start X as root. The only people who will read the man page are those capable of handling it - a very self-discriminating setup.
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
Of course I might be wrong...
And I hope nobody sees me as some kind of Microsoft evangelist for my comments, because that's about as far from truth as you can get :-)
Microsoft's point is fundamentally correct however: there are no serious Linux viruses not because they are impossible on Linux, but because Linux just isn't popular enough yet to make it worth the virus writer's time.
Just to re-phrase that a little better:
"there are no serious attempts at Linux viruses not because they are impossible on Linux, but because Linux just isn't popular enough yet to make it worth the virus writer's time."
If Linux magically took over 90% of the desktop tomorrow, sure, there would be an assload of activity going towards writing viruses for it.
The damage that would come out of this is less certain.
In order to create such wonderful things as Blaster or Slammer in this imaginary Linux world, we'd have to see every major distro start shipping with an SSH daemon or Apache running by default. And running as root, or a lot more local root exploits.
It's certainly possible, just a lot less likely.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
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.
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...
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.
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"
MS already collapsed back in 2001, just like ESR predicted:t ml
4 8
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/12/13/216237_F.sh
Besides, Windows became obsolete with the introduction of $350 computers.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/28/13242
How *DARE* Microsoft use such harsh language towards OSS! That type of doom and gloom FUD is exclusively reserved for predictions of THEIR demise, that invariably come true.
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
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
Or better yet, get a playstation that runs linux and write your own games. :)
Microsoft has something to gain by being late to the game: They could have learned from all the mistakes made out there in Unix-land, and delivered a product with good security early in its life cycle.
They chose not to. They chose to forgot security in favor of "ease of use". That was their conscious decision to make.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
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.
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
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.
I like your point, but... Who's Luna?
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.
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.
>Here's the big issue with so-called free software: you still need to hire someone to install, configure and maintain the software. That type of maintenence ain't cheap, to say the least, especially for large organizations.
Large and medium organizations have always had to do all of these things with proprietary software and still do. But how much of a headache do you have maintaining it once you have it set up? What kind of uptime are you getting? What needs to be done to maintain security? How expensive are ongoing support contracts? What about support for your older hardware? That is where the real cost comes in for businesses. It's complex. Taking all that into account, Linux (even if you pay US$200.00+ for it), looks pretty good.
~==>RocketSHE
phase 1: ignore free software
phase 2: laugh at free software
phase 3: fight free software
phase 4: hope ghandi was wrong
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
"Since Win2K, the OS per se has been much less vulnerable than in the Win 9x days."
I would not agree, while win2k made advances in basic things like user authentication and file permissions, it combined default network services of questionable value for desktops (messenger, rpc portmap) with a lack of a firewall.
The combination of these monumental design blunders produced a machine that had all sorts of entry points just waiting for an exploit.
At least win9x was so useless that it didn't have any services running, exploitable or otherwise.
Its really difficult for me to believe that in 2002 or 2003, when ever XP was released, MS still thought that it was a good idea to turn on all these services by default and not provide a firewall. Whare do their security "experts" come from that in 2003 they could not recognize the insanity of this? Didn't everyone know this by the early 90's?
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.
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.
Exactly.
Folks who claim Linux isn't ready for the desktop are poorly informed. I've been using Linux as my main OS for several years now, and for my work (writing) it is much better than Windows.
Why? Well, here's a little personal history. I started writing oh so many years ago on an Atari ST. When the time finally came to admit that Atari was never going to overtake the PC clone, I bought a Pentium 60 and Wordperfect. I kept Wordperfect through a succession of clones, since it was perfectly adequate for writing professionally.
As an sf writer and general techfreak, I was almost immediately intrigued with Linux and the open source model. Also, when the web first appeared, you had to know a little Unix to put up a site (my first site was hosted by UNC, like a lot of web pioneers.) So I experimented with a Slackware installation, but at that time, Linux really wasn't ready for the desktop.
Time passed, Windows progressed, I started building my own boxes and had to actually start paying actual money to put Windows on them. I kept reusing Wordperfect in each new box, even though I worried that someday the big box of floppies might not work. Eventually I tried Redhat 6.1 and discovered that Linux was now ready for the desktop, or at least the desktop of a writer who wasn't much interested in games. I found a copy of Wordperfect for Linux and thought I was set for life. But it got even better when I started using OpenOffice, and knew that my files would be eternally transportable to new machines.
Couple that eternal transportability with the worry-free nature of Linux online (much less danger of virii, worms, etc.) and with the flexibility of Linux (I can run an Atari emulator and access files from 15 years ago written on the ST) and with the availability of all kinds of software to play with that would cost me an arm and a leg in a Windows environment. It's more fun for me to use Linux on my desktop and more practical.
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*
Just because it's the only viable solution for the majority of users, does not make it a good solution.
There are markets where REGULATED monopolies are probably a good idea.
Software is not one of them.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
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
Linux isn't ready for the desktop. I'm not poorly informed either. I ran Linux as my primary operating system for several years, then switched back to Windows 2000. I have a Linux box and a Windows box at work and am intimately familiar with both.
The reason why it has been perfect for your needs is that it doesn't appear that you do that much with it. Word processing isn't an extraordinarily difficult task. There are many other things, however, that the average desktop user uses their system for, such as web browsing, email, and music. There are equivalent programs to do this things in Linux, but what happens when you want to view a quicktime video? Or an AVI? Or watch a DVD? Or read an Excel document? Or...
Yes, these tools exist, but it takes a combination of the knowledge of their existance and the know-how to install and configure them in order to use them. This is beyond the average user. Frankly, I found it tedious to have to go through a drawn out setup procedure every time I wanted to get something to work in Linux that just worked in Windows.
Linux is prefectly suitable for the hobbyist, but is not anywhere near the stage of being ready for the average desktop user.
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.
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*
"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.