Slashdot Mirror
Linux, to be (Like Microsoft) or Not to be?
David writes "Stephen Shipman delivers a very articulate and concise view of how Linux fits in server and end user environments. He expresses his view in response to Nicolas Petreley's 'rant' in Linux Journal. He points out the subtle implications of efficiency versus consistency." From the article: "[...] efficiency (as measured by keystrokes) isn't the only metric for ease of use. Consistency must also be taken into account. Microsoft has made a lot of hay (and green) by flogging consistency".
It's not Microsoft's continual flogging of consistency that bothers me. It's that they consistently flog the dolphin.
Seriously, Microsoft. You'll eventually go blind.
To be or not to be Open Source, that is the question.
Whether it is nobler in mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Microsoft fortune, or to take up your arms against a sea of troubles and by using Linux, end them.
To die, to sleep no more.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Bottom line: if you want Windows, you know where to get it, and you're welcome to it. I've never twisted anybody's arm to use Linux, and it is an act of collosal stupidity to turn Linux into "I Can't Believe It's Not Windows!(TM)" just to make users of one system feel more at home. I could see having one or two distros be "ex-Windows-user-friendly"; that's fine, that's choice, that's what Linux is all about. Steamrolling *all* of Linux into a Windows-clone takes away *my* choices of wanting a system as different from Windows as possible.
Thank God I'm not the only one screaming this into the void anymore. People are finally starting to wake up. Where have you all BEEN for five years?
Vista is pretty much multi-user on the Unix level
So in one instance of Vista:
I could run one copy of IIS in two instances on separate addresses.
I could run one copy of the Windows Networking service in two instances on two addresses, so that the files and other objects visible in each instance could be completely unrelated... with one only exposing "D:" as "\\servername1\ftp" and the other on the other interface exposing "\\servername2\C", "\\servername2\D", and so on...
I could run one copy of Active Directory in two instances and serve two completely serapate DNS hierarchies on different interfaces.
I could create an environment where "C:" was mapped to "C:\chrooted\C" and so on, and even registry access from that environment went to hives in C:\chrooted\C\Windows...?
Microsoft doesn't get it.
Apparently, the 'it' in your statement is not referring to 'money.'
By the way: Could one of you Windows users, any lovely one of you at all, explain to me why you're so hot to use Linux if Windows is all you love? Because whatever's lacking in Windows that's making you switch to Linux, shouldn't you just stick with Windows and complain to Bill gates to give you what you want - whatever it is that you're not getting? I mean, come on, Microsoft is getting your money - surely you have more sway with MS than you do with a bunch of hobbyist hippies who are doing it for free, anyway?
I don't need uniformity of lookout on Linux. I run admin stuff on console 1, KDE apps in KDE on virtual terminal 7, Gnome apps in Gnome on virtual terminal 8 and OpenGL 3D accelerated games in Fluxbox on virtual terminal 9, all on the same box AT THE SAME MOMENT! Do not tell me nonsenses about efficiency versus consistency of user environment while playing Warzone 2100 and reading Slashdot at the same time.
There you are, staring at me again.