Slashdot Mirror
Shuttleworth Says Ubuntu Can't Just Be Windows
ruphus13 writes "When Mark Shuttleworth was asked what role WINE will play in Ubuntu's success, he said that Ubuntu cannot simply be a better platform to run Windows apps. From the post, according to Shuttleworth, '[Windows and Linux] both play an important role but fundamentally, the free software ecosystem needs to thrive on its own rules. it is *different* to the proprietary software universe. We need to make a success of our own platform on our own terms. if Linux is just another way to run Windows
apps, we can't win. OS/2 tried that ...' The post goes on to say, 'Linux simply isn't Windows (nor is Windows Linux) and to expect fundamentally different approaches (and I'm not just thinking closed versus open) to look, feel, and operate the same way is senseless.'"
Time to start eating, paytard. I exclusively use Ubuntu, love it, and it's color scheme. Btw=> you can change the colors, paytard.
"Regrettably," he adds, sighing as he drops a Windows XP box with an "Ubuntu Linux" sticker placed over the product name into the trash. "Would have saved me so much money..."
The enemies of Democracy are
95% of the people who use computers are using Windows applications. (Don't mod me to -1 'cause you have a stat saying it's actually 93.7%, schmuck). The vast majority of the bazillions of people running computers are running Windows aps on Windows.
Why? Because they work. They do what needs to be done. And primarily because people know how to use them to do what they are using them for.
So if you want 'your' operating system (Mbuutuu, Umbongo,... whatever the fuck it is...Why did you give it such a bizarre name if you wanted it to be widely used and be taken seriously?) to be as used by all the bazillions of people who are using computers, then it better run Windows aps,... and run them well. Better than Windows, for that matter. Because nobody is going to shift to 'your' operating system unless Windows either stops working, or evolves into such a pain-in-the-ass to use (with endless pop-up windows and BSODs) that people are willing to risk switching away from Windows. And if Windows works, which it does...currently.. then why bother switching when you can't be sure that the alternative that you are being forced to switch to is actually going to work and you aren't having to go through some mutha-fugging 'learning experience' just to get back to the level of applications computer skills that you already have under Windows.
So, in the real world, 'your' operating system (Mbuutuu, Umbongo,... whatever the fuck it is...Why did you give it such a bizarre name if you wanted it to be widely used and be taken seriously?) isn't going to be used by the vast majority of people until you need to be a serious computer expert in order to tell 'your' operating system (Mbuutuu, Umbongo,... whatever the fuck it is...Why did you give it such a bizarre name if you wanted it to be widely used and be taken seriously?) from Windows.
What I'm saying is. You have to be indistinguishable from Windows AND better than Windows before millions are going to switch to 'your' operating system (Mbuutuu, Umbongo,... whatever the fuck it is...Why did you give it such a bizarre name if you wanted it to be widely used and be taken seriously?) from Windows.
Heresy, talking like this on Slashdot. But truth is always heresy. Get used to it. Move on. Fix the things that people hate about Windows with 'your' operating system (Mbuutuu, Umbongo,... whatever the fuck it is...Why did you give it such a bizarre name if you wanted it to be widely used and be taken seriously?) and everyone will switch.
But....
Our operating system is `~free~`. Well, la de da, everything is free if you don't pay for it. And who actually pays for Windows? It comes with computer that you buy. It comes with the computer that was issued to you at your work. It comes with every computer that you buy second-hand on CraigsList. For all realistic perspectives from the average computer user, Windows is -free-, too. If you're buying thousands of licenses for your corporate group, well of course it's not free. But you're not an average computer user.
Indeed; I loved OS/2 but it was frequently a bitch to install on anything vaguely 'exotic' and lacked hardware driver suport - sound familiar?
And compared to XP, Vista also needed $400 worth of hardware.
Wrong. In almost all cases it just takes a $40~ stick of RAM.
Depressing proof that it's all in the marketing.
Hey, maybe you should get a marketing gig yourself? You seem to be pretty good at making up bullshit to prove a point.
"When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee