Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sends Linux Survey
GnrlFajita writes "According to Newsforge, Microsoft is sending Linux users a survey asking why they use Linux, and what can be done to make Windows better. The article suggests taking the survey (or surveys, one for business users and one for home users), then sharing your answers with others in the community." Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN.
Last four options in the "rank the reasons you like Linux for the home" section:
The satisfaction of not giving Microsoft more money.
I don't trust Microsoft.
I don't want to use proprietary software.
I don't want to use commercial software.
I was almost taking the survey seriously until I saw those options.
like when the retarded kid at school asks you how to become more popular..
Still, the biggest advantage I can think of is the open source model - the industry has been working for years on ways to increase reuse, but commercial licensing and patent issues get in the way of that.
First they were insulting Linux and saying it has problems bigger than windows, and in the last week they seem to have shown interest in learning from windows. this is like an admission that their software is worse than linux. just my $.02
Investing forum
If we were all really non-hypocritical, and truly interested in security, and usability, and not just microsoft bashing, this is a great opportunity to help them out and point out their flaws.... NAH!!
But seriously, we all complain about MS's problems, now we've actually got a outlet to complain to. If you don't speak up now, you really have no room to speak later!
I find that most often I end up learning from necessity, rather than for enjoyment.
They apparently don't plan to release the results of their surveys...
They just don't get it, do they?
Otherwise, I agree with some of the respondants on NewsForge - don't do the survey. It's just free marketing etc. info for Microsoft. They're not worth it.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
what can be done to make windows better:
remove all the spyware, follow international standards protocolwise, give the user full control over security, drop that stupid online registration
and stop the we are at war with the rest of the industry attitude and you will have my cash again.
To make it short become the microsoft of 82-83 again...
It's the licensing, pricing, and force-fed dependencies that suck. None of these are technical issues.
Could this possibly be a fake? You would think Microsoft would plaster the website with TMs, and legalese.
Also is it common practice for big corps to use SurveyMonkey. If they are being so open about it, why didn't they have it someplace on Microsoft's site?
Just a thought..
Why did MS choose to use surveymonkey? This seems like a hoax.
scott
Don't change a thing. Remain closed source and proprietary, release all software under draconian EULA's and other hamstringing legalities, and keep the security model (or lack thereof) exactly as it is, because like Richard Nixon said, you can't know what it's like to stand on the highest mountain (Linux) until you've been in the deepest valley (Windows).
1) Stop violating the law and pay restitution to each and every company that has been damaged and run out of business by Microsoft's immoral business practices.
2) Rescind the patent for the "long file name."
3) Have Bill Gates and the current management team resign from the company.
4) Drop your prices for your Office suite and OS to zero dollars and zero cents (plus or minus zero) to make it competitive.
5) Do not release your code until it's done, so security can be improved (like some open source projects are able to do).
6) Remove the requirements enter authentication codes and product keys. (Many open source products don't require this.)
7) Use open protocols and stop trying to sabotage everything to make a buck.
8) Try and improve your dismal reputation for shoddy work.
9) When making a charitable contribution cease donating "in-kind" the value of software given just so you can fleece the taxpayers of the tax deduction.
10) God forbid, pay some federal income tax you dirtbags.
11) In short, there is nothing you can do. Have a nice day.
The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.
I always looked at stuff like this as helping some executive somewhere in the marketing deparment get a huge bonus.
Give me some!
I took a look, at the first page. That was enough to make me hit the back button.
Any questionaire that starts out with a legal header is up to no good. Now, if Bill were to knock on my front door, and was willing to actually talk about it without getting bent cause I said his eula's were a work of the devil (the fact that they are isn't open for discussion IMO), then maybe we could have an informative discussion.
But you *know* what the chances of that are...
First, we kill all the lawyers.
--
Cheers, Gene
Strictly speaking, Linux cannot and probably will never be able to "advertise" in the same sense that Microsoft can. This, if anything, is a hindrance (not unsurmountable) to the spread of Linux.
I think what you really mean is "What you see is what you get." Microsoft products are the exact opposite of both parts of that statment.
Until the alternative word processors offer the full 'macro' capabilities of Word, i.e. embedded scripting in a .doc file 'just works' the way businesses need it to for their existing documentation base, they're not going to switch.
I agree, for light writing and word processing purposes (what most of us use a W.P. for) the alternative word processors are quite capable and useful.
But the kind of 'seamless' compatibility I described above just isn't going to be there, ever. That's like demanding alternative editors with the full capability of Emacs but derived from a completely separate code base.
- We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
Don't do homework for MS. After they GPL their OS i'll fill out any survey they wish; but until then they bite me. "no silly rabbit, trix are for kids"
Or more importantly, I want my diary to be readable in 20 years, thank you very much.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
It's about the opensource philosophy for many people. Unless they decide to make windows truly open source, not shared source, many people will continue to use GNU/Linux. duh. Also, DRM and palladium will just convert more people over to linux. I like to decide what files can open and what programs can run on my computer. It's MY COMPUTER. I should be in control.
That doesn't make Windows better. That makes its competitors better.
Perhaps they have little or no interest in soliciting information from the kind of noob who'd run Mozilla but not know how to enable/disable cookies.
Who would that be in the first place?
In 1999 or so, when I started using Linux for most time, Windows WAS a lot better for most purposes -- if you forget stability. For example, there was no decent web browser for Linux, only Netscape 4 which crashed all the time. Basically, it was really hard to get even basic desktop functionality.
Today, Mozilla Firebird is much better than IE, and in general, Linux has a good or at least useable solution for any need I have. In addition, it's getting better every month. Bad fonts were fixed with BitstreamVera and OpenOffice 1.1 is finally "good enough". Programming tools, etc, were much better for Linux back in 1995. On the other hand, MS products have mainly become slower, more bloated and even clumsier to use.
I would choose Linux over Windows based on merit and usability alone even in the case both were equally free.
Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
I am sorry, but I believe this to be the point which they continue to miss . . . and apparently you do too. Without a process being "Open" there is no accountability and no assurance that the process meets the claimed criteria.
What value is there for me to fill out this closed survey? So that MS can later make false claims about Linux users that I can never check because the survey was closed?
It is not a matter of MS being able to scrutinize the community through surveys. It is a matter of the community being able to scrutinize the claims MS makes that affect us. The goal is to attain the truth, which is impossible in a closed process.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
If they actually plan on using the answers to the survey when making subsequent decisions, let's lead them to make wrong decisions.
Actually, that may not be far wrong. Think of it: Whoever answers this survey as if it were realistic may also be gullible enough to fall for an RIAA-like lawsuit from SCO.
All MS has to do is enter into some kind, any kind of "business partnership" with SCO, then they're free to share any data confidentially without the slightest fear of any taint or PR disaster.
OH WAIT - they're already business partners with SCO to the tune of $6 million for "Linux licenses".
PS: What kind of ActiveX crap does the survey download? What settings on Windows does it change? I'm afraid to even follow the link. What MS does to Windows machines, IMHO, is just as evil as anything done by virii / blackhats.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
No, I don't mean Microsoft, I mean all the posts I've read here so far.
We have nothing to fear from the world's largest software maker paying attention to the needs and wants of the Linux community. Really. Honestly. We've loathed them for years because their software sucks -- why not help them do it better? If your answer is that they *can't* do it better, then fine. But that's not my answer. I can think of a number of things that I'd like them to do. I'll still use Linux, but I'm hopeful that those times I'm obligated to use Windows won't be as painful.
Or are you too afraid that Microsoft can beat Linux after all?
Oh, come on. They're just saying that they may or may not use your input, and don't have to pay you for it. It's this little thing called COMMON SENSE. It's not even written in legalese!
What, in that agreement, specifies that you are restricted from doing something?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
There is no option for "I prefer Linux over Windows", or "Linux suites my needs nicely and it's free". I don't know if its done on purpose or it's just arrogance but the question seems to assume that Linux is not very good and there must be some other reason for you using it home.
The question was posed as "What's wrong with commercial software?", not "What's wrong with MS?". Try to keep the non-sequiturs out of the discussion.
why run from Vincenzo?
Because that's a feature of all large businesses - there's nothing special about MS in that.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
How about the win32 api, which is neither fully documented nor correctly documented.
It might be helpful if Microsoft would act like a real business instead of a government subsidized utility and do some real risk analysis of the security risks associated with Windows. Is there any reason to assume that ever major gang tjat conducts financial fraud hasn't infiltrated Micro$oft at this point? What audits of the security of Windows have been conducted that would mitigate this?
a good portion of the rest of their products are sold at a loss.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you just describe the classically illegal part of a monopoly?
15. List the top one or two possible improvements that you would like to see made to Windows.
./configure --disable-nls and not have the script ignore us. We don't want all the translations and some of us do notice and don't like it when we tell software to do something basic like this and it ignores us.
Nothing. You don't understand, your whole design philosiphy is flawed. You are presenting to the user little boxes that say "this far and no further" Such boxes do not exist with Linux. For instance, I can network every computer in my home, multiple firewire, multiple ethernet, SCSI if I want to, bond them all into one virtual interface, install openmosix, have a cluster, have it serve a webpage or my mp3s and I can do it from the internet cafe. From the command line. For free.
I don't have to worry about viruses. I don't have to worry about a document I write containing identifying information about me. I don't have to worry about what's the next thing that is going to attack my box, due to your screw ups. I don't have to worry about my computer doing things that you want it to do rather that what I want it to do. Free upgrades, for life. Don't like something? Change it. Would you like to have no bloat? Rip out X Would you like your apps to be optimized to your CPU? OK, change your $CFLAGS. Got old hardware? No problem, what do you want to do? Mail? Web? Game server? GUI overhead? What's that? You don't understand. Windows is a fisher price toy.
16. List the top one or two improvements that you would like to see made to Linux.
Gnome, stop trying to be another microsoft. Don't walk down the same road. Some of us don't want binary format registry file configuration files that can't be edited by hand.
GTK, some of us like to run
Glibc, modualize the security options. Let the user choose the level of encryption. There is a project that replaced the stock md5 with blowfish. This is a good idea.
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
...to answer this survey would be, "we use Linux because it is Free as in Speech." Any other answer is just a cheap way of giving MS helpful tips on how to make more money. Too bad the survey does not really allow this kind of answer. But, I think, if everybody participating said that (GNU/)Linux is the single choice because it is Free, we could leave a good impression... at least I suppose RMS would agree.
/really/ use GNU/Linux (although, of course, I get all these reasons as a side effect). I use it because it is Free." I wonder what MS would do if everybody answered the survey like that?
So, if it is possible in any way, fill out the survey saying, "none of the given reasons are why I
True, but it also costs money, and Slashdotters are a bunch of commies who don't want to pay for anything.
Yes, you are a troll, but you accidently made an important, but incorrect comment.
I pay for linux. Every production machines I have that uses linux, has paid support. I have purchased every version of RedHat in the box, since 4.2 (except 9, which had no box set).
I use both windows and linux, in about equal quantities. I use windows where I have to use proprietary software on the desktop. I use linux where I need machines to be bullet proof reliable and dedicated to do one or two tasks at very high performance levels.
I AM trying to migrate to Linux fully, but not because of money. Its because of choices. I have an old dual cpu pentium pro 200 box that I run as a dedicated DNS server. Old, but still very good performance and incredible uptime. It is stripped down to a kernel, bind, sshd and a few utilities. This means very little CAN go wrong. I could do the same thing on a new box, or an old box, with the load being the deciding factor.
MS does not give me the option to do this, as you MUST install the gui, not practical to use BIND on, has 10x the amount of software to do the same task. Also, it is impossible to backup the entire OS with Windows (on purpose). MS does not give me the option of taking an old machine that is out of production, and installing the same OS and BIND, to act as a backup (unless I want to pay for a license I am not likely to use). Linux does.
I use Linux, not because its cheaper (its not for me), but because I am too lazy to keep up with the other 95% of the OS that is not necessary for any given task, AND I am too professional to NOT keep up with it if its installed. At the server, Linux is is just faster, easier to install, more reliable, more stable, faster, better supported, easier to customize, easier to maintain, easier to learn, easier to backup and restore, smaller, more flexible, and requires less manhours than Windows.
After previewing this comment, I realized I was wrong. When you consider all the costs, I guess it is cheaper then. Hmm.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
The bottom line for me is exactly what you stated. They have a legal statement at the beginning that says they can make use of your answers however they want. Frankly, my comments about both Windows and Linux are professional opinions. People pay me for those. Microsoft explicitly stated that they weren't paying.
Also, when it comes to a decision about what OS to put on my own hardware, they must discuss it on my terms, not theirs. Here's what Windows would have to have to compete with Linux:
There is nothing to trust about Microsoft.
How about allowing OEMs to sell dual-booting machines and let the people/market decide? I think we're way past the point of "fixing" windows and are in the area where people should be able to test the "competition" from Dell, Compaq, or whoever without the OEM's fearing losing their contracts with MS.
We should just be able to say "Yes, I want windows 2000 on there and Mandrake 9." And the OEM should make sure it has drivers for both systems.
First they were insulting Linux and saying it has problems bigger than windows, and in the last week they seem to have shown interest in learning from windows. this is like an admission that their software is worse than linux. just my $.02
If we were all really non-hypocritical, and truly interested in security, and usability, and not just microsoft bashing, this is a great opportunity to help them out and point out their flaws.... NAH!!
But seriously, we all complain about MS's problems, now we've actually got a outlet to complain to. If you don't speak up now, you really have no room to speak later!
Dear Mr MS Marketing,
I use linux because
1. I expect to own software I pay for
2. I expect software I pay for to work as advertised
3. I expect not to be foreced into downloading other components I don't want of said software to keep my machine secure. (IE media player has to be downloaded to make explorer secure)
4. I expect to not be forced to give up all and any reasonable legal rights when I open the package.
5. I do not want to deal with software that guarantees via the liscence agreeement that the publisher can remotely look at my computer at will.
As soon as the law makers get their opposable digit out of their anal orpheus, and restore a modicum of protection to consumers I don't have any faith that any of the points that I have outlined above will be addressed. Lets face it, you pay for the software, break open the box, and you have no legal expectation that the software will work, in any way shape or form.
Full source code for all Microsoft products released under the GPL.
You could have ended your list here. The GPL addresses all of the remaining items.
The survey sites themselves are slashdotted but from people's comments here and on NF, I can tell Microsoft have tailored these surveys very specifically to make it easy for them to simply filter out all the zealots. For example, anyone who suggests Linux provides a superior gaming experience, better hardware support, or other things which are known Linux weak points is an obvious zealot and can be safely ignored.
There was apparently a section at the end of one survey asking users why they didn't want to use Microsoft - and the options included "don't want to use commercial software", "I feel satisfaction in not giving Microsoft any money", something like that. Another obvious zealot filter. And from the comments, people seem to be falling for it big time. Seriously, zealots do nothing but hurt the free software movement in taking every chance to ridicule Microsoft, no matter what they do. Eventually, someone will go too far, Microsoft will slam him/her with a lawsuit and it will be another HUGE PR fiasco for free software - even if the person was just a random zealot and not in any way involved with any free software projects.
What zealots don't realize is that by posting bogus and/or hateful answers to the survey, they will in fact be helping Microsoft - moreso than if they were to answer it seriously and professionally. When trying to persuade a company to use MS products rather than free-software ones, MS will be able to simply show them some survey results and say "look, these are the people you will be trusting your business with". And noone will be there to contradict them, obviously.
But if that's the way you want it, fine. Not my problem. I've always chosen software depending on what gets the work done, I don't care much about whose license says what or whose software is free as in speech or in beer. Being zealoty about software is useless. But being zealoty and accomplishing the exact opposite of what you're trying to do is ridicilious, and I laugh at those people.
Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
They have a legal statement at the beginning that says they can make use of your answers however they want.
Yup. That's been in the small print of every survey I've ever taken, and on the "comment on our product/service/whatever" form I've seen.
What's your point?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Of course they will, but Linux users can always say, "Hey, Microsoft knows they have an inferior product, so they came to us for help." As much as /. people hate Windows, this is, I think, a good thing.
First, by asking Linux users what they can do to improve Windows, it is a de facto admission that Windows is an inferior product. Second, maybe we could get some good things out of it, like fully-documented APIs and more-open protocols from Microsoft.
However, don't expect Microsoft to release jack under the GPL. Put it out of your mind, because it'll never happen. And don't expect that Linux users are going to go easy on Microsoft. We have put them in our sights and will take them down, not through legal wrangling, but because the open-source community will out-build them.
And have it standard equipment, not some overpriced add-on package.
Let us write software that is cross-platform.
The best reply I've seen so far, from any LUG member is the following:
...with one stone. If people answewred this this survey with the answers they gave here then Microsoft got you guys hook, line, and sinker. Now they can demonstrate to the business community that you guys are irrational morons with the intellect of a three year old. Congratulations.
If on the other hand you truly answered as responsible adults, which many of you don't seem to be, then they got some excellent advice on ways they can make Windows better and stem the adoption of Linux at home and businesses.
This has to be one of Microsoft's more ingenious marketing efforts to date.
Flexible file/directory-entry metadata allowing both spacial and browser based file/application management solutions
Imagine, if you will, a marketing person looking at that. Are they seriously doing to write in an advert:
Just write something critical of Linux that would be nice, is rather technical, and is just as applicable to Windows. Then you'll be providing positive input without worrying that one day you'll read a Microsoft ad: If Microsoft wants to improve Windows, let 'em.You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
At the bytestream level it'd be pretty hard anyway, as the formats are based on several different technologies (for instance, OLE Structured Storage). The format also contains wierd stuff like gaps of garbage to stay compatible with bugs in earlier versions.
I don't usually respond to *any* surveys simply b/c my time is more valuable than offering it for free to some company.
With that said, this is yet more evidence - along with the price drops in Thailand, Ballmer's world travels and all their other efforts to quell the tide - that Linux is slowly restoring competition to the marketplace.
Linux may one day supplant MS, it may not. It might garner a significant market share and co-exist with MS. As long as there is competition in the market, MS can't abuse their power and THAT is what is important to me.
Microsoft is full of smart people and can determine the technical weaknesses of Linux without Linux Zealot Fred Jones's help. Or, MS can go right to the source in the public developer mailing lists.
What you guys seem to be suggesting is some sort of GNU/Stalinist censorship: No one may say anything bad about Linux because it could be used against us.
Sorry, it's Open software and an Open community. Circling the wagons is impossible.
- Full source code for all Microsoft products released under the GPL.
GPL is a bad licence to begin with. the BSD licence would be a lot better, if they were to adopt anything at all.
- All protocols, APIs and data formats fully documented.
They are documented, that documentation is not always free though.
- All security holes disguised as features closed, permanently, and no new ones added, ever.
Exactly which security holes did MS disguise as features?
- Dump Trusted Computing. It is about restricting the rights of the end user.
Ok, at least we can agree on something. I concur, trusted computing is a bad idea.
- A tool set comparable to Linux, free. That is, compilers and interpreters for C, C++, Fortran, Ada, Pascal, Objective C, Prolog, Haskell, Lisp, Perl, Python, Awk, lex, yacc, Basic, etc., etc. Debuggers, libraries, editors, profilers. Libraries for test scaffolding like CppUnit and JUnit.
Point is, the compilers ARE free. You can download C#, visual basic and others WITHOUT paying for them. It's the IDEs that typicly cost the money. You also don't need to use a MS language, there are other langauges available for windows for a variety of purposes that MS had nothing to do with, which work fine under windows. Java comes to mind, as does Delphi, PHP, Python, Perl and many others which are too numerous to list. In fact, there probably isn't a language that you listed which is not also available for windows. Many of these GNU tools you want have windows ports as well.
- A promise that existing formats will be readable and losslessly convertable to future formats, forever.
You're not very clear here. Formats for what?
- A repudiation of their old EULAs and conversion of all of them to the GPL.
The GPL isn't the answer to everything. I don't blame MS for not using the GPL, I wouldn't either.
- No forced upgrades.
Upgrading is inevitable. MS does not force you to upgrade. If no one ever had to upgrade in the Linux world, we'd all be using kernels from 1990. MS doesn't force anyone to upgrade, people upgrade because they want the new offerings included in those upgrades. Hell, if you still want to use windows 98 these days, most software will still run under it.
- # No coerced upgrades, where existing users have to plead with people who have already upgraded to jump through hoops to avoid sending unreadable new formats.
This isn't MS's problem, it's yours. If you want to cling to old formats, outdated software and outmoded formats, that's your problem.
- Choices. Under Linux, I can choose Gnome, KDE, plain X with a variety of window managers etc. I can also choose AbiWord or OpenOffice or many others. I don't want a world where one company maintains a de facto standard and actively hinders anyone else's attempts to interact with it.
You really don't know a lot about windows, do you? You DO have choices under windows. How about blackbox for windows? How about Litestep? how about geoshell? There is a MASSIVE list of shell replacements (which could be likened to window managers) for windows. I don't NEED to use MS office either. I can get openoffice and/or abiword for windows. I can use any one of a dozen other office suites as well. The fact that MS office just happens to be superior to most of them is the reason most people will buy office instead of using something opensource.
Quit trying to blame Microsoft for coming up with a STANDARDIZED model for which to do things. It's proven that it works. KDE and GNOME are still trying to agree on standards for interoperability between them, and it has only worked with limited success.
I suggest you learn something about the operating system you intend to bash, it might help to make your arguments a little better.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Enough people to matter.
Besides, if only 1 person in your organization is making use of macros and other advanced features, it's very useful that everyone else can open that person's documents without additional software.
So, Microsoft should bundle *more* software?
I'm all for it, but you that for every item added, there's gonna be somebody unhappy because MSFT has (somehow or other) reduced the user's choice. And they'll be right in line behind those bemoaning the disk space reuqired to install Windows.
Before: Windows doesn't include MP3 ripping software!
After: Call the laywers! Microsoft is freezing out competitors by including MP3 ripping software!
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
All protocols, APIs and data formats fully documented.
All security holes disguised as features closed, permanently, and no new ones added, ever.
Dump Trusted Computing. It is about restricting the rights of the end user.
I agree with most of the above although I wish Linux would strive to meet the ones I've quoted as well ! Not everything is rosy on the other side of the fence.
For starters: how about issueing online surveys that don't demand cookies to be accepted?
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
1: Advanced.
.tar.gz is still the most reliable package format, as it works equally well - when it works, which is whenever you can satisfy the dependencies - on all distributions and well-made installs from scratch}.
2: > 2 years.
3: yes
10: everyone
15: Availability of the entire source code to all current and obsolete Microsoft products; either under a Copyleft licence {such as the GNU GPL or the Creative Commons Attribution / ShareAlike licence} or by placing it in the Public Domain.
16: Hardware vendors need to adhere more closely to published standards, or else provide full disclosure to enable the creation of open-source drivers; and to label products as compatible with Linux {and for that matter, the BSD family}.
I'm not sure the survey isn't a fake, but on the other hand I'm not ashamed of what I think. I honestly believe that the closed-source model, by the way it keeps victims beholden to a single entity, is tantamount to slavery. And I don't think Linux needs to change so much as other people's attitudes need to change. I'm -- to put it extremely mildly -- annoyed at the fact that almost every piece of hardware I pick up trumpets its compatibility with the latest Windows and MacOS, yet fails to mention Linux and the BSDs. Even things like keyboards, mice, network switches and USB hubs -- which are to all intents and purposes OS-independent. That sort of thing is exactly why Linux et al are considered to be "alternative" OSes.
In the meantime, what we -- as a community which values honesty and mutual assistance -- can and should do is twofold. Firstly, if we are ever forced to purchase an unwanted Microsoft product, we should exercise our right to explicitly decline the EULA, and make sure Microsoft knows; that way, we will not be counted as Windows users to inflate Microsoft's statistics. Secondly, we should let hardware manufacturers know that Linux/BSD users use their products, and post reviews of hardware we have used so that other Linux/BSD users -- and would-be converts -- can see that hardware they might like to buy is compatible with such systems. We must lead by example a little -- we can't expect anyone to help us if we aren't willing to help ourselves.
Once more hardware is seen to be compatible with Linux and the BSD family -- thereby answering a common, if not entirely undeserved, critisism often levelled at such operating systems -- then it will be feasible for non-specialist retailers to offer family-friendly, matched packages of PC, video-in, printer, camera and scanner, with a GNU/Linux or BSD operating system and appropriate drivers already installed. Bye-bye to the criticism of difficult initial installations. Supply a recovery CD which allows you to boot up, login as root and set up user accounts {in case someone forgets their root password}.
To answer the criticism of software dependencies, I propose for someone to distribute a series of CDs which contain the source code for an application and, crucially, all the libraries it requires, so dependencies can be met from a single place. {IMLE
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Just reading their questions makes it abundantly clear to me that they don't understand the potential of Linux:
2.What best describes your involvment with Linux?
Hobbyist
End user
Informal team computer expert
Front lines IT support
IT administrator
Developer of internally used applications
Developer of applications for sale
IT manager
Consultant
I'm focusing in particular on "Developer of internally used applications" vs "Developer of applications for sale". In Microsoft's world, those are the only two alternatives. In the world of open-source, there's a wonderfully happy medium in-between. What about the growing group of developers whose job is to take existing open-source software, improve it for internal use, then release it back to the community (like RedHat, Apple, AOL, RealNetworks, NASA, etc.)? What about developers who write free, open-source software to work with the hardware that their company produces (like Myricom)?
In Microsoft's world, the only reasons to develop software are for your own personal needs, or to sell to make a profit.
Participating in this 'survey' will assure your perpetual receipt of a flood of pro-MS propoganda.
And...investing in Microsoft is risking having your own money used against you in the marketplace.
Best advice...steer clear, there's no good news about dealing with the beast.
Is there a particular reason you feel obligated to assist this very large corporation?
I actually do not want MS to bundle anymore software. I especially do not like the restriction of choice, meaning that regardless of any conspiracy theory or fact... I should not have apps break after patches due to API changes or re-routed calls not done in a proper abstracted method. The Hidden API that was apparently supposed to be disclosed way back when (but due to political changes was pulled back) would be nice as well. I don't believe MS should be legally forced to disclose this unless there is an actual contractual breech to customers and vendors surrounding it. Simply put, I CHOOSE not to use MS whenever possible for these reasons. That is as a user and a developer.
Don't try to force me to compute the way you, and Hollywood, and the Government want me to compute. NO DRM. None. Nada. At all.No proprietary formats; I've already lost enough productivity, and personal data thinking to rely on Microsoft proprietary formats.
Don't sneak information off of my computers like I have caught you doing in the past. I'm as Microsoft free as I can possibly be after I installed a firewall and found out my Microsoft Works software, which I NEVER used, was ET-phoning-home every single week for supposed updates (which updates I was never offered in over two years of ET-phoning home. This is what began my rabid antiMicrosoft proselytizing.
It's MY computer. I don't lease it. I don't run it at your good pleasure, or under your benevolent supervision, or to your tune, or at your permission. It's MINE.
All protocols, APIs and data formats fully documented.
Get back to me when the open source camp achieves this. Oh, I can look at the source? You can look at a disassembly. Trudging through x86 asm is a bit more taxing than looking at poorly commented C code. But just a bit.
A tool set comparable to Linux, free. That is, compilers and interpreters for C, C++, Fortran, Ada, Pascal, Objective C, Prolog, Haskell, Lisp, Perl, Python, Awk, lex, yacc, Basic, etc., etc. Debuggers, libraries, editors, profilers. Libraries for test scaffolding like CppUnit and JUnit.
All already available. Do you mean MS should foot the bill for recoding all of these and then release them under the GPL? Why? Does it bother you that it's the gcc team and not Linus writing the C++ compiler for Linux? Oh, and with regards to some of the newer stuff (like C# and VB.NET) the compilers are free for the downloading. In addition there are open source compilers that are coming along nicely.
A promise that existing formats will be readable and losslessly convertable to future formats, forever.
I'm going to assume that you're talking about the Office formats. Guess what? Done. I can save any Office file in 2003 and it's readable on both 2000 and XP with no conversions or hassle. I think Microsoft recognized that people were simply not upgrading because having to deal with clients on older versions was such a hassle.
No coerced upgrades, where existing users have to plead with people who have already upgraded to jump through hoops to avoid sending unreadable new formats.
Taken care of, really. See previous item.
> what can be done to make Windows better
Microsoft is not gonna like what they hear. Many IT managers are very nervous about the single-supplier issue. They HATE to be locked into a single supplier, they NEED a way out of that trap. That's gotta be issue #1, hands down. The only way out of that trap is to open up the Windows source.
Microsoft funds an idiotic site called "softwarechoice.org". The point of that site is to try to tell customers that the single-supplier issue (and other licensing issues) are "illegitimate" reason to choose their software solution. Given Microsoft's attitude about this, there's just no way that they intend to listen to what customers REALLY want.
Look at big companies like IBM and SGI, or small ones like Red Hat. Why do they spend their own R&D dollars improving Linux, and then releasing the source code publicly? Why didn't they do the same thing with a BSD Unix?
Big companies were using BSD unix in their products for a while (and continue to do so). They were not obligated to release the code, which is why you didn't see quite as much.
Linux is about mind share, though. SGI didn't release XFS to Linux because, as a company, they thought Linux needed a better filesystem. They wanted a significant contribution to something that's on a lot of people's minds. Linux is big business now, and everyone wants to have a piece of it. It's not because it's GPL, it's because it's Linux.
But the GPL license gives them dual motivators: an obligation to release new code as payment for using old, and an assurance that code they do give out won't be turned against them by a competitor.
I don't think that describes ``dual motivators.'' It sounds like they have a restriction on their freedom vs. the BSD license (freedom to produce a product from the thing without giving away their work product), but a consolation that says that at least anyone looking at the code will also have to release their changes.
That does *not* keep their code from being used against them. One company may be great at producing code while another is great at getting money from it. The code the first company releases is available to anyone, so they don't really have anything special to offer after it's written. If this company were the only source of this implementation (i.e. closed-source), they would then have an advantage.
There's lots of GPL code, but I don't see lots of companies going out of their way to produce GPL code.
But yeah, Linux is big business right now because people can use it at home, and it solves many enterprise problems. I imagine we'll see postgres doing the same thing at some point for the same reasons. The thing is, postgres can do it more quietly since there's no requirement to ship tweaks and stuff.
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
Only two points:
1. Do not be surprised if the results of this survey end up in MS anti-Linux propaganda, or are otherwise used in a manner (hoped by MS, at least, to be) detrimental to Linux, or to OS in general.
Their PR goons and lawyers probably already know what response they are looking for, and it is virtually certain that the statstics of the answers they do receive will be able to be manipulated to give it to them. In addition, the answers in general may provide new insights and ideas for, say , undermining the motivation of programmers to work on OS, or other forms of psychological warfare. After all, they have already gone after the end users, where they are discovering that bludgeoning doesn't work. Who remains to attack?
Make no mistake: MS is fighting desperately on every front to undermine Linux, and one would be badly mistaken, IMHO, to assume that this survey represents any change of heart. This is just one more strategy to get inside the enemy's head in order to destroy him. There are bombs, and there was Mata Hari... and being asked deferentially for your opinion can be flattering, can it not?
2. Re the sruvey itself: As Louis Armstrong famously said, "If you got to ask, you ain't never gonna know!"
-- A.C.
It's the one thing they don't "get". We don't want a feature, or a frill, or any particular thrill -- just the source, the full source, unrestricted for all to use or see.
So in any future era, like the present one now at hand, when MS says goodbye to Windows [X] (current, 98), anyone can make the decision to transition based not on fear of no more security fixes or fear of being unable to keep up with new hardware -- but based on need or want for the new things in whatever
new Win OS delights!
That's the enduring process of open-source. The maker goes out of business and you aren't left stranded -- you have all the source code for your product. How many pieces of junk CD's have I tossed because the no longer ran on newer OS's and the companies no longer support them (assuming the company is still around). You get to a point when you want to say "STOP".
Even linux, I watch...was true with 2.4 and 2.6....the benchmarks showed
how nicely linux scaled under load with multiple processors...but the bottom end response time seemed to increase in both (just looking at
graphs). Yeah, 2.4 handles itself better under high load and might not lock up like 2.2, but under low load that my system is at 99.9% of the time...?
Does anyone still run linux on an i386? or even i586? aren't most at the Pentium-Pro/PII/PIII or better level? Does linux still run on a 386 or 486?
Anyway...seems like so much "growth" is by forced change...is that really growth -- the music industry thought the upspurt in CD sales in the 90's was. When it was just the public playing "catchup". Now they have to go and invent a new format (duh...it's not about piracy...)
-l
"10.Rank the importance of server operating attributes to your organization.
(1 indicates a preference for low product cost and more administive and end-user time. 5 indicates a high up-front product cost but less user effort)"
Note that this assumes that your two choices are "low cost/more administration" and "high code/less administration". In practice, Linus is both lower cost and lower administrative overhead, while Windows is higher cost and higher administrative overhead.
"11.Rank the importance of easy initial configuration and setup of a server operating system against easier administration.
(1 is easy initial setup and lousy administration and 5 is difficult initial setup and great administration)"
Similarly, this question assumes that you have to choose between "hard setup/easy administration" and "easy setup/hard administration". Linux is both easier to install and easier to administer than Windows.
Ah well, perhaps even by setting up false options, they'll learn something about what people consider important.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
While there will always be the possibility for security holes in ANY OS, when has there ever been ONE in Linux that has been hidden?Where is Trused Computing in Linux? Even if there ever was some framework for TC, in Linux it would be something that could EASILY be turned off or taken out. Under MS Windows, it WILL be an "integral" part of the OS and used against the end-user by software companies and the media companies to enforce their "IP".
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Let us have a short retrospect of a quotation of Mr. Mahatma Gandhi:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win."
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
Apple and osX use openGL for their graphics, and are quite happy doing so. Why shouldn't Linux? (it does already).
We should put more effort into improving openGL, speed, usability, and whatnot to make it competitive with directx
Even Entourage will not connect to 5.x, and that IS made by Microsoft... ;)
...still doesn't quite explain 2000+...
2000 or later only. Go fig. Maybe MS doesn't want to deal with 5.x's kludgy implementation again, so they don't open it (maybe they don't have documentation of it?)
Where are there any undocumented protocols or protocols that you cannot get the documentation for, used in Linux?
I didn't say anything was undocumented, the emphasis on my comment was intended to be "fully". Some of the documentation for various security packages I've been working with is badly written and incomplete with badly worked through examples. I'm a fully paid up member of the open software paradigm but I wish that when people contribute they'd realise there contributions are more valuable if they fully document their software. Not that they have to, their contribution is valuable nevertheless, but it'd be even better if they did.
All security holes disguised as features closed, permanently, and no new ones added, ever.
While there will always be the possibility for security holes in ANY OS, when has there ever been ONE in Linux that has been hidden?
I think we read the second part of this one differently, I read it as "no new security holes added ever", I think you might have read it as "no more holes disguised as features added ever". To be honest, I doubt if even Microsoft deliberately add a true security hole disguised as a feature. Certainly they claim many security holes are features after the event, certainly some features they add contain inherent security problems but they, you'd have to assume, fit into the architectural model that they are/were trying to maintain however flawed that may be.
As to the last comment, I'm not sure why you've emphasised the "against" in the last sentence, if it's a tool that could be used to protect intellectual property is that a bad thing ? Maybe it is if you believe that companies shouldn't own it in the first place. Personally I see too many people "stealing" software and justifying it by saying it should have been free in the first place.
Follow Apple's lead (again!) and dump the 20-year-old DOS core of your OS, replacing it with one of the unix variants out there. Now, go rewrite your GUI and desktop API to work on top of it.
Make a legacy layer (MS-WineX?) to run "old" apps, and have a well-documented standard API -- just ONE -- no "magical hidden" parts for people with deeper pockets -- which all developers can use to write applications. If you need help with this, find an old AmigaOS kernel/intuition reference set and read it.
Force the hardware industry (and MS is the only one really able to do that) to get rid of the antique BIOS garbage, and adopt something more flexible like what recent Suns use. While you're at it, ditch ISA and let it rust in peace. Send the keyboard/ps2 moue controllers off with it and standardize on USB.
At that point, you'd have a solid stable environment which CAN emulate all the bugs of yesteryear, but doesn't have to. You'd also have nicely put yourself in place as the desktop linux solution.
One other tip.... listen to your customers. When they've been telling you your system is bug-ridden, unstable, and insecure for YEARS on end, and are CONSISTANT about these reports... maybe you should do something more than have Steve Ballmer run around on stage yelling about how great your company is?
Which is EXACTLY why document specs should be open. I support around 6000 users. Of those, only about 50 know how to do anything useful with macros and of those only 1-2 actually require any type of macros. I doubt either would *need* VBA macros as long as they could just automate some other app.
Why should our organization have to pay over a quarter million $ just because 0.03% of my users might need MS Word macro capabilities? But instead, as long as we want 100% file compatibility we are locked into buying MS-Office for every PC.
If the file formats were open, alternative apps could be 100% compatible and the choice of which app to run could be made based on needs and not lock-in.