Slashdot Mirror
BBC To Host Multi-OS Debate
Bananatree3 writes "BBC is currently seeking submissions from all you Microsoft Windows, Mac and Linux devotees "in 100 words or less, why you are such a supporter of your chosen operating system and what features you love about it". They will then select one user of each platform to go head to head in a debate that will be part of the BBC's Microsoft Vista launch coverage on January 30th."
Don't appply unless you're 20 something and remotely good looking. The BBC recently knee capped their tech presents to only pretty people who don't seem to care even remotely about tech.
Not to mention I've seen nothing but Second life all over the news tech wise in months.
I like muppets.
Because it's not Microsoft Vista?
Thank you, the defense rests.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Whoever appeals to the general public and doesn't alienate themself with overly strong opinions. Someone who recognizes strengths and weaknesses in all platforms and summarizes that, but puts a spin on their own favorite platform.
QTFA: "We have received many entries and have now closed the call for submissions. We will be in touch with people shortly. Many thanks for taking part."
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I foresee a potential disaster in the linux presentation.
It's undoubtful that the most hardcore Free Software fringe of the Linux community has the most public appeal.
I mean...they're somewhat "weird", it's likely that the BBC will chose a super nerdy guy that bitches on everything that is not free software, and the topic will change from a mere technical analysis to the usual religion flamwar.
Windows and OSX will be presented as desktop systems. I doubt the server side of the story will be interesting to the average BBC listener.
Linux, unfortunately, will fail to show its good cards there. I'm not talking about mere graphics, of course, but the whole user friendlyness "from the scratch", hardware support...
I hope the supporters choice will be wise.
640KB of virtualized ram will be enough for everybody
And don't say "fewer attacks and/or security exposures on this OS as compared to Windows", because right now all non-Windows platforms are benefiting from "security through minority".
There's even a dorky genius here on slashdot who posts from his Amiga, and one of the benefits he lists for using steam-powered computing hardware, is the complete absence of any attacks targetting his box. Although he probably has to worry about termites eating his DRAM.
All of that would change if AmigaOS or Linux or whatever became the de facto standard.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
they only had a few submissions. I guess news spreads quickly beyond Slashdot. :)
emacs vs vi
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
There's no "good OS", "bad OS" anymore. We have a developed industry and specialization. We have a bunch of OS that are all good, but for vastly different purposes.
... free). /less than Mac, but not a lot/, lots of software, superb dev tools).
My web servers run on BSD and Linux (simple, secure, stable, proven,
My designers run Apple-s (cultural phenomenon, the whole product line speaks "design", good software, user friendly).
Most of my developers and my accountant run on Windows (user friendly
When you grow up, you realize there's no place for favoritism and politics in here, just tools you pick depending on your task.
That said I suspect Apple supporters will come out the winners from the BBC competition. It's purely a branding thing, and entirely predictable: all Apple does it cool (good job, Steve & co!), all Microsoft does is not cool (with power comes resp... come the obligatory haters), and all Linux does, is way too geeky (by geeks, for geeks) and no one in the general public cares.
I submitted something to this yesterday but I think they've stopped taking submissions now.
I repeat what I wrote here for the benefit of you all and the good of society in general:
"Vista is best computer. it plays all my games just with putting in the disk and cliking on the mouse, i like the internets also and just with clicking the OKs it works really good in Vista.
My frend works in IT and he says that linux is rubbish and you cant even put in the dvds and theirs no games and he says no proper business would use it because it wont let microsoft run their programs on it so it is useless for all serious things. That is another reason why i use Vista because its good and i can use it for business too if i wanting to.
Mac is too expensive and will get too dirty cos its white"
So, the BBC is just too burnt out to cover this one themselves? I don't know about you, but I don't feel like watching some inexperienced laymans' debate unless they're required to drink a beer every 10 minutes and are given the ability to electrically shock eachother which they are strictly told to "only use as an extreme measure".
What I noticed from the comments, is that it seems most people who have tried multiple systems, prefer Mac or Linux. Most people who prefer Windows have ONLY ever used Windows, which defeats their arguments, they dont even know an alternative to compare against, they are simply saying a computer is better than not having a computer.
That to me would seem to be the best argument for a non-windows supporter, "I KNOW there are better OSes because I have actually used them".
If this were really happening, what would you think?
For me the issue has always been more about the morality than the technology. Proprietary vs Free/Open Source. Monopoly vs diversity. Most importantly I consider the nature of the people/companies delivering the products. We all know that Microsoft software is incredibly unrealiable, insecure and too big and slow, but even if they were delivering the best software in the world I would never buy or use it if I had the choice. It is because I object to and abhor their business practices.
Microsoft itself has been mired in legal problems almost from its inception. It is probably the most sued company on the planet and it has been convicted of economic crimes in many different countries. They then simply ignore whatever legal judgements against them using their incredible financial clout to challenge whatever the courts rule. They seem to be completely immoral. It is for moral reasons more than anything else that keeps me away from using their software.
Yes, technology is important, but morality is even more important.
Host: So you don't like Microsoft Windows. Care to explain why?
Mac/Linux supporter: (Tosses chair at Microsoft supporter.)
Toss a chair?! There is no way a Mac/Linux supporter would ever lower themselves enough to toss a chair at a Microsoft Supporter. I don't care how obtuse they're being. It just wouldn't happen, and I find the accusation vaguely insulting.
We would toss the Microsoft supporter at the chair.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Windows supporters claim their OS is the best, because a) most of them aren't aware of what an OS actually is, b)It means they don't have to think about what they're doing, c)they're already using it so it must be the best, right ?
Mac supporters claim theirs is the best because, a)it looks so much better than any of the others, and b)everything just works (never mind that it is built using only known and defined hardware).
Linux supporters claim theirs is the best because a)it's free, b)it's not vulnerable to viruses, and c)it's not Windows or Mac.
I placed my comment on there stating my support for GNU/Linux, as in my opinion, it remains the only OS (with respect to the BBCs question) which is designed to be used as a general purpose computing system. Windows is a black box, and does it's best to restrict the users. Macs are designed for ease of use and visual appearance, not for maximum flexibility. Linux is designed to be flexible, in every sense possible. It can look as good or better than a Mac, it is not restrictive in any meaningful way, it is open to change and despite what the big two like to promote - it is not difficult to use. I don't care whether people think it's "ready for the desktop" because these people really have no concept of what a computer is for, they just want an appliance. That's up to them, but for myself, I would rather have something that can perform virtually any computing task I throw at it, and not have to pay through the nose to be a part of somebody elses restricted vision.
Of course my post on the BBC was somewhat more succinct than that, as 100 words is really far too short to make a serious point about anything.
Also, I take any opinion espoused by the BBC as suspect, because they are fairly IT illiterate themselves (at least in their reporting staff). They consider a rootkit "a virus" Pop quiz, and a pc is nearly always considered to be running Windows. I must admit, incidences of "forward slash" on TV are getting less gradually. (before you start, how many times do you use the term "full colon" to differentiate from a "semi colon" ?)
i use teh linux cuz i r a 31337 h4xx0r0r & ur box will be 0wned by me cuz im so 1337 & all 1337 h4xx0r0rs use teh linux and teh intarnet runs on teh linux also
See you in the studio!
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
It's true that rms may not be the best introduction to linux (or gnu/linux) for the general, non-technical public audience. But there are lots of very eloquent Free Software advocates who can be very persuasive without coming across as gonzo anarchist whack jobs. Regular people are starting to notice DRM, at least when they can't (easily) transfer their iTunes files to another player. Get someone like Eben Moglen in there to talk about MS and Apple working with the entertainment industry to sell us our "culture by the sip", and that will resonate with them.
Get someone from a free documentation project like Project Gutenberg, or the library community, to talk about proprietary formats and the dangers they pose to our ability to access our own data. Maybe not everyone will get it, but I think there would be real value in introducing people to the idea that they can get off the MSOffice upgrade treadmill.
I know rms' stubborn adherence to sticking GNU in front of Linux rankles a lot of people. But this is exactly why it is so important. If we want to argue in favour of Linux only in terms of features (more stable, excellent browsers, spreadsheet needs work, wordprocessors ok, multimedia tricky etc.) then we throw away our most compelling strengths. If you just want to replace Windows, Linux is ok, but if Windows is the standard we measure by we will always come out behind. But if you want to replace the proprietary paradigm that Windows represents, GNU/Linux offers more than enough to make up for the gap between OOCalc and Excel.
Like any social movement, you have to present your message with tact. But that doesn't mean you should abandon that message all together.
yp.
Dilbert January 25, 2007 (Disclaimer, I still use windows :P)
Why do I prefer Linux over Windows or Mac? That's pretty easy, but it also goes to show how it all depends on what you want out of a system.
But obviously I'm an experimenter. I need basic tools, like a good web browser, as much as anyone, but beyond that I like having a system which is very flexible and open. If, on the other hand, you're an eBay-phile and really really want to use Turbo Lister to manage your auctions, then all the above points are irrelevant: you need Windows because that's the only platform on which Turbo Lister runs -- End Of Story.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
You should always use the best tools for the job, whatever you're doing. People's impressions of what tool does the best job varies, but I think anyone who's a zealot for any ONE system is a moron. The smartest people I know use whatever is needed in the circumstances.. for example, Windows or a console for gaming, OS X for desktop, Linux for servers (or Ubuntu for desktop, etc).
So this 'debate' will really be three or more zealots sitting in a circle flinging mud at each other, screaming that one operating system is the best, rather than actually admitting they all have their niche. This isn't just a BBC trait, but one of the whole media.
Since this is for a 'MS Vista launch', probably funded by some Windows interest somewhere, what makes anyone but Windows advocates think that this will be a fair debate? Seems to me that MS Vista will be the winner despite the debate or presentation. Are you guys really that naive to believe that MS Vista isn't already the winner in this particular debate presentation?
This article is nothing more than sensationalism. I might as well ask, "what are the best style of shoes?" A useful discussion is what are the benefits of each OS. Using that information a person looking to pick an OS for them, for a given use, can make an informed decision. In a previous article I wrote a list of features where Windows and OS X were respectively ahead of one another. Sadly, not a single person replied with additional features as I requested, while numerous people responded to argue tell me that some feature was not useful (I don't care if it's useful to you) or to argue that their favorite OS was just as good at that, even though they obviously had never used both OS's being compared for that purpose.
Just for fun, I'm going to copy my list here and add Linux into the equation. This is going to be a lot harder, because there are so many different Linux distros with so many different features and no one has used all of them. I'm going to try to stick to things I've used personally. Please if you have features to add to one list, go for it. If you want to complain that your favorite OS is better for some reason you can't put into words, or if you haven't actually used all the OS's and thus are just assuming the way other OS's do it must not be better, or if you want to argue the reasons for these advantages and disadvantages, please don't bother commenting. Also note, this is in regard to use on the desktop, not the server.
OS X Wins:
Windows Vista Wins:
They should choose that Anonymous Coward guy, he always has plenty to say...
A lot of software exists for Windows that isn't likely to be ported soon. Windows emulation enables non-Windows users to run them anyway.
And why are so few Windows users concerned with Lunix or OS X emulation?Because open source software that originates on Linux have a tendency to become ported to Windows, while the reverse (closed source software that originates on Windows) does not exhibit the same trend. The closed source Windows programs requires involvement of the holder of the source code to be ported, while the open source Linux programs can be ported by anyone with experience in programming in both affected environments.