Slashdot Mirror


IBM's Answer To Windows 7 Is Ubuntu Linux

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like IBM isn't much of a friend of Microsoft's anymore. Today IBM announced an extension of its Microsoft-Free PC effort together with Canonical Ubuntu Linux. This is the same thing that was announced a few weeks back for Africa (a program that began a year ago), and now it's available in the US. The big push is that IBM claims it will cost up to $2,000 for a business to move to Windows 7. They argue that moving to Linux is cheaper."

133 of 863 comments (clear)

  1. IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Oblong_Cheese · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you reduce the cost of software to zero and compete only on the hardware, you shut out some people from the market and trample others with your behemoth size.

    1. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by AJWM · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, if Microsoft wants to take on IBM with its own tactics and give away a PC with every copy of Windows, that's fine with me.

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by pushf+popf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you reduce the cost of software to zero and compete only on the hardware, you shut out some people from the market and trample others with your behemoth size.

      Yeah, what a shame.

    3. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IBM's retarded. What a garbage article. Windows 7 requires less from your hardware, and sorry Linux is not always cheaper (free is not cheap).

      Less than what? If I really wanted to, I could fit a minimal-but-working Linux system on a floppy disk. Can you do that with Win 7? Be kinda nice if you settled that before talking about which OS has larger minimum hardware requirements...

    4. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That assumes that the value of the software is the same, value being usability, performance, etc. For netbooks, servers, and small dedicated devices I don't think Microsoft can compete at all.

      I'm all for Linux, but it can't completely replace Microsoft just yet. I use it for almost everything. However, there is still some development that I find easier to do with a MS operating system. Granted it's stripped down high performance version of XP, but it ain't Ubuntu.

      Now if nearly all of the programs being sold for the Microsoft platform worked equally well on a Linux platform then I believe that MS really could be shut out of the market with companies like IBM switching from Windows by default, to anything else.

      Unfortunately, I find a lot of the open source offerings for Linux lacking compared to what it is available for Microsoft. I can deal with terrible user interface and poor documentation on some of the stuff, but I doubt I represent anything but a small portion of the market.

      This is a real slap to Microsoft, but I hardly think this alone is really shutting them out of the market.

    5. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by capnkr · · Score: 2, Funny

      But... if you decided to put Linux on your Microstop CloudPC, will you then have to send a hardware rebate to MS?
      ;)

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    6. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry bud but I don't understand your point. What's wrong with IBM recommending people switch to Linux? It was IBM who recommended Microsoft DOS originally..... now they are simply recommending a different product to run on the PC platform

      I'm all for giving people choices.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Reyendo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did you know that Germany is also called DoucheLand and their currency is the DoucheMark? Krauts are a bunch of douches. Now you know!

      And knowing is half the battle.

    8. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Oblong_Cheese · · Score: 2, Informative

      And for some reason I'm posting Anonymously.

    9. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Minwee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, I find a lot of the open source offerings for Linux lacking compared to what it is available for Microsoft.

      Indeed. If only there were some way of running all that software designed for the Microsoft platform on a Linux platform...

      Just because your OS kernel is Open Source(tm) doesn't mean all of your applications need to be.

    10. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 5, Funny

      And the other half is violence

    11. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by md65536 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well... Microsoft's tactics over the past decade have been even better than that (or worse, depending on your perspective). They've stated that they were aiming for cheaper and cheaper hardware, with the cost of computers focusing more on software and support. So, let someone else worry about "giving away" the PCs. I think they've literally stated they were foreseeing a future where the hardware is free.

      I guess they enjoy the effects of market competition when it comes to *hardware*.

    12. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by IntlHarvester · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Modern IBM has more of a "Services vendor mind" than a hardware-oriented one. Traditionally, this means they prefer software products which are highly flexible and featureful, but difficult to "self-manage". And perhaps they're right, and Linux is a better fit for the outsourced IT model.

      Plus, if you RTFA and decode the marketingisms about "Smart Work", this has less to do with Linux vs. Windows and more to do with IBM selling Lotus Notes to people.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    13. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by socsoc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Go Joe

    14. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Funny

      My custom-compiled kernel is 2.6 MB after optimize-for-size. I think you're in the wrong decade.

      Old disks hold 700MB right? Wait floppy disks? What's a floppy disk?

    15. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by atheistmonk · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, I'm Spartacus!

    16. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The cost of software is never zero; the cost of admins installing new software and of retraining every user to use a new release of the software far exceeds the licensing costs of the software in most cases. I believe Microsoft's own estimates for the total cost of upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows XP were over $2000 per seat; I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher now. Microsoft continually shoots itself in the foot by completely changing the user interface with each new release of software, resulting in massive productivity losses as everyone has to relearn how to do their job. Eventually, people will realize the huge impact this has on TCO. Not having to throw out your OS and apps, replace them all, and retrain everyone every few years on Microsoft's schedule is one of the real, tangible economic benefits of using open source.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    17. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by hagar� · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I recently made the big jump for our IT department from windows to ubuntu. We havent looked back and it has been a great learning experience for many. We now have a department that is a viral resistant island in our windows heavy environment. The only things I missed was Visio for network diagrams and IE for sharepoint access, which we provide via a simple XP vbox. Everything critical however is done via ubuntu. We have lost nothing and gained much. I think in many cases the decision to NOT switch is based on ignorance of the platform and fear of interoperability, rather than on solid factual information. In a business environment its a no brainer.

      --
      Insert something insightful here, or I'll insert something painful there.
    18. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by bertoelcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We don't like too much of a noob influx on Linux all at once anyways. It puts to much stress to the ones in the know.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    19. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by jonadab · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Of course, I don't consider it "working"
      > unless it has all the drivers I need. YMMV.

      Depends what you want it for. tomsrtbt is not without its uses. Sure, *most* of the time you have a CD drive, in which case you can just use Knoppix.

      But quite frankly, for the things you generally need to do in a "can't boot from the hard drive" situation, you don't *need* sound card drivers and webcam drivers and printer drivers and graphics card drivers for X and so on and so forth. You need fsck and fdisk and mkfs and mount and cp and mv and a very small text editor. Network card drivers and ifconfig are nice to have, but you can live without them.

      Knoppix, of course, is more than just a rescue disk. But if all you need at any given moment is a rescue disk, then hey, that's all you need. And if you haven't got a CD drive hooked up (a surprisingly common scenario for some of us), then you need it on a floppy.

      I'm not sure how this is in any way relevant to Ubuntu's being (or not being) a replacement for Windows 7, though. Nobody, to my knowledge, uses Windows 7 as a rescue disk, so the ability or inability of Linux to fill that role seems unlikely to have much impact on its ability to replace Windows 7. Workstation deployment scenarios seem much more to the point.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    20. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For a modern desktop, then yes, you're not going to fit all the drivers and subsystems on a floppy.

      But for a specific embedded system with very few subsystems, and basically no drivers, then yo u might get on a floppy.

      The point remains that Linux scales up extremely well, and scales down extremely well. That is why supercomputers run Linux and small embedded devices run Linux.

      Microsoft is terrified of reinventing its core products. Microsoft does push some innovation, and they do some core things right. But their biggest change was grafting their current broken OS on top of NT rather than reinvent properly. And despite the fact that they foresaw the internet being the core experience of your desktop very early on, they didn't forsee internet security issues. Even as they implemented terminal services, they still worked around a broken multi-user model. And even when they saw their kernel was behind the curve on performance, they instead decided to bloat it even more.

      The headless Server 2008 was a step in the right direction. There were some claims that after Vista, they'd throw out their current API and start Windows anew, using an emulation layer (akin to Wine) to intercept old API calls. Vista's failure made 7 a necessity.

      7 really isn't the savior press make it out to be. Most of the Vista UI regressions remain. With IBM and Google giving big-name credence to Linux on the HOME and BUSINESS DESKTOP, Microsoft should start quaking in their boots. IBM and Google have all the pieces to put together to deliver a really killer experience.

      I overheard someone once say they want an OS that they can use in their car, in their phone, and on their desktop. They want it to be consistent, minimal, easy to use, and provide them seamless access to their data wherever they go. I suggested Google online services mixed with Chrome OS, and Android may deliver that to them within a year.

      They paused, and then shocked, realized the future may be upon us very quick. And Microsoft is left with a prettied-up-Vista to show off.

      Microsoft better wake up real quick with a real, next-generation operating system of the future. It needs to be secure, flexible, low-latency, scalable, modular and customizable. It needs to be their Unix. Only, Steve Jobs beat them to the punch with OS X.

      Slowly, but surely, people will realize the Emperor is wearing no clothes. All the time, people see how sexy my KDE 4 desktop is. They ask me how they can get their computer to look like that. Then they hear it is free, legal, has no viruses, and easier to use than Windows.

      Then Ballmer starts throwing chairs.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    21. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by dotgain · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed. If only there were some way of running all that software designed for the Microsoft platform on a Linux platform...

      All that software? Sorry, pal, it's some of it, at best.

    22. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by symbolset · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is a valid, but unlikely Premium Microsoft eXperience (PMX) endgame scenario. 2014: Microsoft is suffering diminishing sales and shares, beaten on one side by an Apple grown to a media/technology giant five times their size and on the other side by hardware partners also grown much larger than them desperately trying to compete but weighed down by a pathetic Windows 8 demanding near zero pricing for OS software both on the server and the client. Unable to drive the hard bargains they historically had, Microsoft finally admits they want to own everything. They launch an own-branded mobile thin client solution with Mesh MiWi, three day battery life, serving the desktop experience with their full software suite through their own-branded cellular data plan at $100.00. Naturally this blows up in their face as a blizzard of court filings bury them in paperwork first from their partners and then for their customers. The product is their most popular ever - right up until they get 10% market penetration and their network goes down at the same time their storage service consumes everyone's data. Ultimately the whole thing implodes. As the Sheriff is escorting him out of the building, Steve Ballmer has a stroke leaving him as aware as ever, but unable to move or speak.

      2016:Apple Studios announce the summer blockbuster of 2017 will be "The Road Behind", the epic story from the beginning to its conclusion. Ballmer will be played by Scott Thompson and lured back from retirement for the role many believe he was born to play, Mark Hamill will be Bill Gates. Release will be by the usual streaming hi-def to pocket theatres worldwide as pay-per-view over the Apple 5G network. 2017:Widely panned by critics as low comedy that doesn't quite rise to cult status, it's rereleased immediately to Pico-SD where it sees a modest but profitable run.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    23. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Darundal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I shoved my old PC out in the living room with Ubuntu preinstalled for the kids/parents, and they love it. Nobody has asked me how to do anything, and the technophobe parents (won't update an iphone, points at computer and asks what is wrong with the modem) more often than not use it as opposed to the one that is in their room on a desk right next to their bed.

    24. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Schmorgluck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well shit! When I first put my new PCMCIA WiFi card into my laptop under Ubuntu, it worked seamlessly.

      Why, oh why did it work so well? I like using the command line!

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    25. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by sillybilly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, but that will come with a locked BIOS that periodically checks and makes sure that WindowsTM is running, and connected via the internet to one of the MS beacon servers. The system will shut down in 30 seconds, if not provided with an internet access. Kind of like killing the RPC service does on Win2k and later OS's. The OS will be a subscription only based operating system, the retro obsolete standalone licensing model will be deprecated. Everyone will be mandated by law to purchase a subscription, and if you can't afford it, the government will help you pay for it, at least initially. In your own best interest. But the hardware will be free! Kind of like you get a free cellphone if you sign up for a two year contract, and the monthly payments add up to well over double what the hardware alone would have cost you. Also the EULA will state that you agree that all your documents will be stored on the cloud, kind of like webmail, such as gmail/hotmail/yahoo mail is today. It will be extraordinarily difficult to download and store a copy of anything offline(meaning you would have to make hand typed copies), unless you're willing to upgrade to the Windows Plus service for another 1999.99/mo, kind of like Yahoo Plus, which will let you get POP3 access to your inbox, and POP4 access to your cloud computing My Documents folder. You can get an offline copy of your files, but they will not be good for much, because you'll have to jump hoops of a 30 step process to simply get it loaded into MS Breath or MS One. Still, there will be no way to remove the original copies online, and you can throw them into the Recycle bin, but nothing can ever be permanently erased from the Recycle bin. Microsoft will fund the increased cost of storage for free, but only for items in the Recycle Bin that you want to get rid of. Files in the regular My Documents storage will cost you about 8cents/terabyte/month (don't laugh, a 30 page powerpoint presentation by Office 19 will weigh in at a heft 400 GB filesize, among other reasons, because it will be 256 bit based), while the My Pictures folder will go at 4 cents/tb/mo, and My movies at a 0.01 cent/TB/mo. It will be illegal to scheme the system and try to store my documents files in the movies folder, because you will get ticketed, and get a real life court citation over violating the intellectual property laws of the contracts you have signed. There will also be a mandatory penance booth, called My Confessions, where you have to write a blog about everything wrong that you've done each week, and ask forgiveness for your sins. People caught not visiting this folder often enough will be red flagged, and real life psychologists will make them take multiple choice tests where there are two correct answers, and no matter which one he picks, the other will be deemed correct, and by failing the tests prove that he is in dire need of mental health attention, and a prescription. Who wouldn't help a fellow suffering human being who does not even realize he has a problem. Admission you have a problem is the first step towards any solution. Mind control? How about ascertaining that there is order in society, and security, by keeping very close tabs on everyone. Wait.. oh, never mind.

    26. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by wvmarle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fyi, in my office I'm running Mandriva since I set it up (4 years ago), at home for about 10-12 years now (Mandrake/Mandriva mostly). I'm using an Apple G5 laptop and an EEEPC also with Linux. And a Debian based server in office as well.

      Maybe things have changed, but when I tried out a Bluetooth device for my EEEPC it didn't work. This was one with a chipset that was supposedly supported well in Linux - but it just didn't work. Less than two years ago.

      There are many many el-cheapo no-brand webcams on the market, none lists Linux as supported. Only Win and OSX. I steer clear from those.

      Still many printers do not work. Many do, but before shopping for printers I will have a look at the printer database for brands that work.

      Digital cameras generally no problem these days as many do not require special drivers, they present themselves as generic "mass storage device".

      One of my PCs has built-in video adapter, including S-VHS out. I haven't been able to get this to work, the machine is only 4-5 years old by now but still it doesn't work well. It can work, I have seen tips on the Internet and success stories, but easy? No. It will require xorg.conf hacking to make it work. This iirc is an Ati integrated chipset.

      For e-banking I'm now using XP in VirtualBox on my Linux workstation. This is Bank of China (Hong Kong). It works in Firefox, but not under Linux because of some Java applet for the "e-cert" electronic key, which doesn't run in Linux. The web-site blocks me from logging in under Linux. And part of the web site (L/C operations - I don't use this) requires IE.

      Oh and W3Schools getting almost 50% FF that is nice but I don't think that is the net at large. That is a developers-targeting web site. Better try getting statistics from Google. Or e-bay. Yahoo maybe. Or what about bbc.co.uk. That kind of more general web sites.

    27. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by kklein · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft continually shoots itself in the foot by completely changing the user interface with each new release of software, resulting in massive productivity losses as everyone has to relearn how to do their job.

      This. This is why I ended up on the Mac the last time I was looking at a new laptop (sorry, Linux didn't meet my needs--as much as I wanted it to). I took one look at Vista and Office 2007 and was like, "oh good lord, why should I re-learn an interface???" I then looked at the Mac and found that, despite the fact that I hadn't used a Mac seriously in almost 10 years, I knew where everything was and how to do everything. Also, the MS Office interface still looked like something I knew how to use.

      Sometimes I cannot figure that company out. I actually think that the Office 2007 interface, now that I've forced myself to use it every once in awhile (I'm teaching a class that is helped by knowing how to do things in it so I can explain), I think that, had I never used the product before, I'd take to it very quickly. That is probably what they were going for.

      Except...

      When you have a monopoly, I think you should probably think more about keeping your existing customers than getting new ones. People have to use MS Office; they aren't going to start because of your great new UI. All a change of that magnitude does is piss of your base. They should have at least offered an option to keep the 2003 interface, which was basically the same as the 2000 interface. Basically, MS can't even get any new customers. It sure as hell can lose them, though. Their constant UI changes make no sense given their place in the market.

      OpenOffice, even though I don't like it, is easy to use. KDE and Gnome environments are easy to use. The Mac and its software is easy to use. Why would the industry leader in OSes and basic applications want to make their products more irritating than the (often cheaper) competitions'?

    28. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by rliden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny because about 30 years ago it was IBMs competition and lock in on its proprietary hardware (basically giving away their OS) that started this whole Microsoft thing. Competition on proprietary hardware and vendor lock-in isn't much different than competition on proprietary software with vendor or platform lock-in.

      I'm fine with IBM competing however they want (legally), but I doubt I'll ever see them as much different from Microsoft. To me they're the same animal with a different skin.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
    29. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That assumes that the value of the software is the same, value being usability, performance, etc. For netbooks, servers, and small dedicated devices I don't think Microsoft can compete at all.

      More netbooks sell with Windows than Linux. When IT staffers were asked "the operating system of choice for IT netbooks is Windows 7". Some are hoping that because of Moblin Linux will regain market share in netbooks. MS IIS comes in second in webservers, behind Apache. While down from it's high IIS still has a market share of 18% in webservers, excluding Apache more than all the others combined. I don't think Microsoft is in any danger of losing it's market share anytime soon.

      I'm all for Linux, but it can't completely replace Microsoft just yet.

      For most people both Linux and Macs can replace Windows. People just have this "Microsoft software is needed" attitude. Like a lot of other switchers before switching from Windows to first Linux then OSX I evaluated what I wanted to do, the tasks not the software. I then looked to see if there was any software available for Linux and OSX that could do what I wanted. Other than there being no drop-in replacement for Photoshop for Linux the answer was I could get software that would do what I wanted. And with WINE or Crossover Photoshop CS 2 will run on Linux.

      Falcon

    30. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by st0nes · · Score: 4, Informative

      Honestly, it's rigodamndiculous how difficult it is to find, download, and install software on Linux. At least compared to the Windows/Mac platform.

      Che? Synaptic. 2 clicks.

      --
      Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
    31. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by tuxgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They've stated that they were aiming for cheaper and cheaper hardware, with the cost of computers focusing more on software and support.

      M$ has refined the art of blowing butterflies, rainbows & unicorns up everybody's ass, and have years of experience doing just that.
      Today in order to run their crapware you need a high dollar, high end, turbocharged PC.
      So much for the validity of anything they say.

      I have been quite happy running tux on every machine I own, year after year, and it runs just fine & dandy even on hardware designed specifically for that butterflyrainbowunicorn OS.
      So .. who need it?

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    32. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by sagematt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Where's the "-1 Big fat paragraph" modifier? Because this is screaming for it.

    33. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm all for Linux, but it can't completely replace Microsoft just yet. I use it for almost everything. However, there is still some development that I find easier to do with a MS operating system.

      I agree. In fact, I have argued that very point on Slashdot here for several years now. The development story on Microsoft platforms with Visual Studio, .NET and C# really is the bee's knees when it comes to writing advanced object oriented software. This IMHO, more than anything else, has kept Microsoft afloat since 2003; without .NET they would already be dead. If the Linux crowd really wants to strike a blow against Microsoft then it must STOP attacking Miguel and Mono and instead help make the .NET experience on Linux the best that it can be. Right now they fight against Mono and attempt to marginalize it which ironically plays right into Microsoft's hand. If they really want to strike a blow against Microsoft then they need to hit them where it hurts by making MonoDevelop and Mono a serious competitor to Visual Studio and .NET Framework for development. Microsoft has always been keen to court developers (they talk all the time internally about "developer mindshare" because they know that developers are important) and the strategy has always paid off. Now is the time for the Linux crowd to take a page from the Microsoft playbook and focus more on the development experience with Mono.

    34. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by DangerFace · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, it's rigodamndiculous how difficult it is to find, download, and install software on Linux. At least compared to the Windows/Mac platform... 2 freakin hours to install some software on CentOS? Tracking down weird shit in the configure logs to figure out what the hell is going on. 30 minutes on Google to figure out it is a problem with the libxml2 linking. Another hour to fix the damn thing. That's not going to pass the Granny Test.

      I agree wholeheartedly! I mean, I use RandomTechieLinuxDistro, and for some reason using a distro set up to be technical is a technical experience! The gall! OK, so on Ubuntu I would click on add/remove programs and have several thousand programs right there. So what? Grannies obviously usually compile their own kernels and just boot into a shell. Why would they ever use the most popular Linux distro out there, just because it takes way less time to install than XP or OSX, can be tested from a live disk, is free, and is laughably easy to use?

    35. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, i've heard the talk about hardware being given away free with software... It's ridiculous tho...

      Software *can* be given away free quite easily, you don't even have to pay all the bandwidth costs because third parties will mirror your files... It's within easy reach of almost anyone to acquire the tools necessary to write and distribute software.

      Hardware on the other hand, while competition has driven the price way down, can never be free because each piece of hardware can only be cheapened to a point... It still requires raw materials for each and every unit produced, still needs to be physically moved, and also requires specialised equipment to build.

      What is absolutely disgusting, is that software has not seen the same competition that has driven hardware development so much... If software had evolved in the same way as hardware, it would virtually all be free these days and would probably just come bundled with hardware.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    36. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What software developers need to start doing, is targeting wine as their development platform...
      That way you don't really need to relearn anything or change the way you work, but you get linux/mac compatibility (of a sort) basically for free.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    37. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by jcupitt65 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Firstly, I did not say Ubuntu. I said CentOS.

      But no granny would ever use CentOS. It's not a consumer-oriented linux at all. In Ubuntu, you have 30,000 packages all nicely indexed with sensible descriptions. I've never had a package install fail in 5 years of use. Click Add/Remove and you can find stuff easily, with a star rating system too.

      There are no stores that sell Linux programs. No online appstores.

      Canonical's AppCenter launches in a couple of weeks, though it's just the same thing they had before but with a nicer GUI. Perhaps it'll encourage commercial software, we'll have to wait and see I guess.

      Linux UI's are not always "laughably easy to use".

      Hehe ya got me there, that's certainly true. But installing software is far easier than Windows or Mac.

    38. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Funny

      And they'll gladly sell you an older version that's light weight if there's a market of legitimately cheap PCs.

      (Typing this on a shiny new netbook with XP Home.)

    39. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Funny

      M$ has refined the art of blowing butterflies, rainbows & unicorns up everybody's ass

      Um, ouch?

    40. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by stuboogie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seem to be overlooking a crucial element in the "OS Wars". As many proponents of Linux or Mac OS seem to do. The issue is consistency and familiarity. These are the primary reasons that MS has stayed on top as long as it has.

      First, you may point out that Linux "scales up extremely well, and scales down extremely well." You can also point out that Linux is "free, legal, [and] has no viruses." However, you can't really say it is easier to use than Windows. Not for someone who has never used Linux or any other OS besides Windows.

      Whether XP is their first OS or they have progressed through the iterations from Win 3.1, they know Windows. They know where they need to go in the UI to perform the tasks they need to accomplish. They have spent valuable time learning how to perform these tasks in Windows. They are comfortable with it and they become proficient (to some degree) in its use.

      Now, one day their Windows is taken away and they are given Ubuntu or Mac OS X. They have no idea where to go to perform the tasks they used to perform with ease. They have to spend their valuable time to relearn a new OS with a new UI. Their actual productivity takes a big hit and they are frustrated that they can't just get their work done. Imagine if that was everyone in your company!! Sure, the company could spend numerous man-hours training the users on the new OS, or they'll have to beef up their IT department to hand hold every user as they painfully become acquainted with the new OS. Or, they can keep using Windows.

      Sure, MS makes some minor changes from time to time, but these are done gradually and limited. This gives time for the users to acclimate without making them feel lost. I would love to see MS "wake up real quick with a real, next-generation operating system of the future. It needs to be secure, flexible, low-latency, scalable, modular and customizable." However, look at the backlash they got from the changes they made to the UI in Vista and Office 2007. You can argue about the effectiveness of MS's implementation choices, but the underlying factor is they tried to change Windows for the better (at least that is their intent) and users hated it. I would argue that is one reason Apple and Linux saw an increase in adoption.

      I'm still not sure how well Win 7 will go over as it has the same UI as Vista. As I recently moved my Windows box to Win 7 from XP, I can attest to the minor inconvenience of finding where MS has put things in this UI, and I consider myself pretty adept with computers and technology in general. Overall though, I like Win 7 much better so far.

      The bottom line: advanced users and computer enthusiasts can adapt to a new and different OS much easier than the average user. Corporations are not going to go through the headache and growing pains of switching all their users to a new OS when many of the users do not know much more about Windows than what is required to accomplish their daily tasks. I believe Windows continues to persist as the dominant OS because MS does not make drastic changes to the OS. If users have to relearn how to use Windows, then they might as well learn another OS. That is when Linux and Apple benefit.

    41. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by mdm-adph · · Score: 2, Informative

      Honestly, it's rigodamndiculous how difficult it is to find, download, and install software on Linux. At least compared to the Windows/Mac platform.

      Aye, spoken like someone who hasn't really used an Ubuntu system in the last 3 years or so. :P

      Menu > Add/Remove Applications.

      That's all there really is to it. If you want to be really daring and install something that's not in the app store, download a .DEB file and doubleclick it. Advanced, I know!

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    42. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by EvilBudMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      --I think in many cases the decision to NOT switch is based on ignorance of the platform and fear of interoperability,--

      I think this is a real issue on the client side if you have CAD applications and Small Business Accounting Software. Larger enterprises can break away, but it is more difficult for the small business to do so.

    43. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Will the real Anonymous Coward please stand up?

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    44. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by lennier · · Score: 2, Funny

      "People will then ask "what is WINE" and we can smugly say ...

      WINE Is Not an Emulator"

      Q: So, what's this Wine thing?
      A: WINE Is Not An Emulator
      Q: Okay. What is it?
      A: It's not an emulator!
      Q: Right. So what is it then?
      A: WINE stands for WINE Is Not An Emulator. That's what it is.
      Q: Okay.... so I know what it isn't. What is it?
      A: Well it isn't an emulator. Whatever stories you've heard about emulation, they're all lies. Because Wine isn't an emulator.
      Q: It's not?
      A: No it most certainly is not. No emulation is occurring in any way, form or fashion. Nil, zip, nada. Emulation: not happening.
      Q: If it's not emulating... what is it doing?
      A: Something else, that's what. Something QUITE different from emulating, thank you very much.
      Q: Is it a simulator?
      A: Nope, it's not a simulator either.
      Q: A port then?
      A: Well. not a port as such, no. It's not just a recompile.
      Q:Not a drop-in replacement?
      A: No, it's a little different from.... what it's not emulating... so no, not quite a drop-in replacement.
      Q: An environment? An interface layer? A compatibility box?
      A: Yes, something like that. Not an emulator, but a layer... yes, perhaps a layer...
      Q: But it's a substitute, yes? An ersatz? A fake? A replica? A knockoff? A Clayton's beverage? A cheap facsimile of an expensive, unobtainable item?
      A: It's not an emulator!
      Q: Whats it not emulating?
      A: Well it's certainly not emulating Windows, that's for sure.
      Q: It's a Windows emulator, isn't it.
      A: Oh just go run Snow Leopard.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    45. Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over by rantingkitten · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, it's rigodamndiculous how difficult it is to find, download, and install software on Linux. At least compared to the Windows/Mac platform.

      I agree. For those who don't know the difference between the two platforms, I'll explain the process for each.

      For Ubuntu, and pretty much any other apt-based system:

      1. Click "System", "Administration", "Synaptic Package Manager".
      2. Type a few keywords related to what you want. For example, "dvd player" or "spreadsheet".
      3. Pick one from the selections that come up, and put a checkbox next to it.
      4. Click "Install". Wait for twenty seconds.
      5. New program is in easy-to-find, neatly categorised Applications menu. You're done!

      This is insanely complicated. There's no way any normal, non-nerd human could do this. And the selection of over twenty-eight thousand packages, free for the taking, is completely insufficient for today's modern world.

      For compaision, here is how to do it the easy way with Microsoft Windows:

      1. Search Google for likely keywords.
      2. Check the first two pages of results for things that might have what you want.
      3. Spend some time going through the most likely results to find one that you don't have to pay for, isn't a crippled trial version, and doesn't seem to contain adware, spyware, or other bullshit. You can't really always tell, so you'll just have to guess sometimes.
      4. Download the installer and run it. NOTE: Windows may warn you that installing this could set fire to a box of puppies. Ignore it.
      5. Click "Yes" and "I agree" to various questions and EULAs you aren't reading.
      6. Answer questions about where to install files you've never heard of. Sometimes the defaults will be okay, and other times it will want to install stuff in really wacky places.
      7. Ignore lecture about how you need to close all other programs. The installer finishes.
      8. Ignore lecture about how you need to reboot. NOTE: You may not get a choice.
      9. Delete systray icons, desktop shortcuts, quicklaunch icons, startup items, additional prorgams it installed alongside, and other party favors.
      10. Your new program is now somewhere in your three-column-wide start menu. It might be under the program's name, or the manufacturer's name, or perhaps under the umbrella corporation's name, or it might just be its own entry floating down at the bottom or top of the menu. There's no way to know and you'll just have to kind of remember where it is, or become obsessive about categorising this stuff by hand.
      11. Pray it didn't come with any viruses or trojans. You're done!

      Yes, indeed, this is a much better system. Easier, saner, and less prone to error. Everyone should use it!

      Finally,

      30 minutes on Google to figure out it is a problem with the libxml2 linking. Another hour to fix the damn thing. That's not going to pass the Granny Test.

      Yeah! And Granny is really good at dealing with missing DLLs, corrupt registry entries, files that mysteriously become locked or read-only, and handling conflicts between programs trying to steal file associations. Granny never has problems with Windows. I never hear from Granny asking me to fix her computer.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
  2. MS Response by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft responded by stating they are happy IBM has found someone new, that's just great, and hey by the way MS is engaged to Dell who is hotter than IBM anyway so there.

    1. Re:MS Response by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Funny

      Someone should tell MS that their fiance hasn't been entirely faithful.

    2. Re:MS Response by earnest+murderer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Someone should tell MS that their fiance hasn't been entirely faithful.

      Who cares she's just an empty box that does what she's told. IBM didn't want to shut up and let Bill drive.

      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
  3. Can't Lock Linux Down by hofmny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think one of the hindrances for businesses to move to Linux on the desktop is the lack of programs for Linux that allow the complete lock-down of the desktop. In Windows, there are many applications that let you control which users can access different areas in the GUI, well beyond Windows Access Control.
    .
    I don't know of anything similar in the Linux Desktop Environment to Windows Access Control or the other programs that are out there. Does anyone else?

    1. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you control the machines what is the issue?
      Just change the permissions, or remove the stuff or make it not even executable.

      The only reason apps exist for windows to do this stuff is because of the incompetence of the average windows sysadmin.

    2. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by GoochOwnsYou · · Score: 3, Informative

      A standard user account doesn't exactly have alot of control to begin with. The way Windows does things is they open up access and lock things down while in the UNIX word its all locked down and open things up (i.e. sudo)

      Your point is only valid if you want to prevent a use from changing his wallpaper, screen savers and the like. There are (expensive) tools out there but dont handle very well.

      Also in GNOME you have gconf and can put custom settings into a SOE very easily.

      --
      This sig has been distributed under the Creative Commons license.
    3. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Windows: hire the most incompetent lowest paid sys admin, buy program. Someone gets around it. Blame program. buy another program
      Linux: uh, hire the most incompetent lowest paid sys admin, someone gets around it, fire sys admin.
      Next: Goto Windows

    4. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah it is so hard:

      gconftool-2 --direct --config-source xml:readwrite:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory --type string --set /desktop/gnome/background/picture_filename /usr/share/backgrounds/warty-final-ubuntu.png

      gconftool-2 --direct --config-source xml:readwrite:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory --type string --set /desktop/gnome/interface/gtk_theme Human

      gconftool-2 --direct --config-source xml:readwrite:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory --type string --set /desktop/gnome/interface/icon_theme Human

    5. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by Techman83 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh wah?? Obviously you must be from a parallel universe, rather uninformed or a clever troll. I manage the desktop branch of a medium - large sized organisation and the amount of pain involved in locking machines down in the distributed workforce age is quite painful. Sure there are apps to aid this (we employ ZenWorks) and they do work really well, but you can't have used anything more then a default install of Ubuntu. Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo (neither run-as or UAC are sudo, they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation) you get with *nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows. Admittedly group policy has some nice default templates, but as soon as you step an inch outside the norm (which is hard not to) be prepared for pain, so much so that the only place we employ GP is on our Terminal Services boxes. Even then a lot of the "Lock Down" is pretty much just obscuring things without actually adding any security.

      Nice try, but I suggest you undertake a bit of a learning curve and you will be enlightened.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    6. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by keatonguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not true, you can lock down a GNOME desktop. This is not to say there isn't a learning curve to it, but I have done it for a production system that serves over 80 thin-clients in a K-12 charter school. It's all in the documentation (one of my favorite things about Linux's core systems, I might add).

      --
      If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
    7. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by phunster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are indeed a lack of external programs to lock down the desktop. That's because that kind of thing is built into Linux. ACLs, permissions, SELINUX and on and on.

      If you favour Windows, that's fine, to each his own. But please don't spread the MS cool-aid without actually knowing what you are talking about.

    8. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your point is only valid if you want to prevent a use from changing his wallpaper, screen savers and the like.

      I don't think that's entirely true, I can think of an exception or two. Particularly where the workstation may be used in financial dealings with publicly-listed companies. In some cases you do not want people to fiddle with the settings of applications, to - for example - change the location of an audit log. Well, you might want to, but the financial regulator might raise an eyebrow over it.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    9. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by hofmny · · Score: 4, Funny

      I used to work for a company that locked things down so much, that if you wanted to increase the speed of your mouse, you had to call the IT department, LOL.

      This is a bit obsessive, but it's their prerogative. Either its not that easy to prevent a user from accessing the mouse control screen in Gnome or KDE, or most administrators are "Windows Trained" and wouldn't know the steps to lock it down (most just run a 3rd party app that does it for them anyway).

    10. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would suggest you try figuring out why these apps require admin, using sysmon and regmon. Most of these apps are just poorly made and the users need write permissions to some file or reg key. Once you give them that the app works just fine.

    11. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by SleepingWaterBear · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know of anything similar in the Linux Desktop Environment to Windows Access Control or the other programs that are out there. Does anyone else?

      The reason you don't know of Linux programs that let you lock down the desktop is that no such program is needed. A default Linux install will allow you to control access to files and programs on a user by user, or user group basis without the need for extra software. It will take a little bit more expertise than using some program with a gui on windows might, but it also allows much greater control of precisely what user can do.

    12. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by hofmny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Huh wah?? Obviously you must be from a parallel universe, rather uninformed or a clever troll.

      I agree with everything you say, but instead I get modded down into the dirt as your obvious statements falsely manifest as being so informative as to incite a Linux/Window war, which wasn't even the intention of my initial statement. You even incited the mods, good job.

      Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo (neither run-as or UAC are sudo, they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation) you get with *nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows.

      The fact is, I only use Linux for servers and have been developing, administering, and project managing them for years. I know locking down a Linux server is easier and better than Window box -- in command line mode. However, I was merely trying to get a meaningful conversion started on locking down machines in a GUI environment, which I imagine is a different beast than GUI, which I am less knowlegable about.

      Nice try, but I suggest you undertake a bit of a learning curve and you will be enlightened.

      I don't know how you even get good karma or not modded as troll for that comment. I am already a knowledgeable system administrator in Linux as well as a seasoned software developer. However, the Linux Desktop has always been having issues over the years to gain any serious ground through a myriad of development problems. Over the past 2 years, it has improved a lot. However, everyone learns how to lock down Linux using the command line. The GUI environments could be a different beast. Sure, you could create groups and modify the actual binaries for Gnome, or KDE. That is obvious to such "enlightened" people such as us. But there needs to be better ways in order for businesses to jump on board. I know, because I deal with the business types all day, and am partly one myself. Hence my comment for a dialog on this situation. It does seem there is hope, as some people have talked about xguest or gconfig. Other people state that it is easy to control using SELinux -- something I always turn off and avoid like the devil. From what I gather, SELinx may be the solution to securing a Linux Desktop, so I will investigate this avenue. Thanks to everyone that left informative and not trollish comments.
      So I guess the conversation was a success, as it spread great information about this topic, even though trolls like you somehow are able to get modded so high while my initial posts get buried.

    13. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you control the machines what is the issue?

      Just change the permissions, or remove the stuff or make it not even executable.

      The only reason apps exist for windows to do this stuff is because of the incompetence of the average windows sysadmin.

      Right, and don't forget to sync up your passwd fiels across 30,000 desktops in your enterprise. I mean, it's just copying a file, right?

      Obviously there are better ways to do it than that, even on *nix today (ldap, nis, etc) but hey - maybe those only exist for linux due to the incompetence of the average unix admin? Or those other tools that make things easier, like config files. Who needs config files? You can just configure each daemon when you start it up manually, with command line params! At least, you can if you're competent.

      Now get off my lawn.

    14. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by GoochOwnsYou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      or most administrators are "Windows Trained" and wouldn't know the steps to lock it down

      Why would you hire a Windows admin (and by I mean Windows admin I mean only knows Windows) to work on Linux?

      --
      This sig has been distributed under the Creative Commons license.
    15. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by cbhacking · · Score: 2, Informative

      The backward-ness of your comment on sudo is hilarious.

      The core of sudo is actually a very simple program - at installation it is SetUID root (but executable by users). When invoked, it reads the sudoers file to check whether the action is permitted (possibly checking a password, etc) and if so, simply execs the parameters it was passed. The relevant thing here is that sudo itself (and therefore any program executed by it) always runs as root. Remove the SetUID bit on sudo (or change its owner) and it's pointless.

      How is this different from using Run As on Windows? Again you tell it the program to run, the user to run it as (default is Administrator), and provide credentials. There's no sudoers equivalent and the API to start a process is different, but the end result is the same - the program is run using the user ID of the high-permission user (root or Administrator).

      UAC, by comparison, actually works differently - Vista/Win7/Server 2008 user accounts have two tokens, elevated and un-elevated. If you're a member of the Administrators group but not *the* Administrator account, then processes normally start using the un-elevated token. If you use UAC to start a process, that process gets the elevated token. Here's the difference, though - the elevated token is still for your account.

      A quick way to test and compare: both Windows and *nix have the whoami command. Try the following:
      At an un-elevated CMD prompt, use whoami. You should see something like [computer_name]\[your_user_name]
      Next, type runas /noprofile /user:[computer_name]\administrator cmd and enter the password when prompted (on Vista/Win7, you'll need to have enabled the Admin account. You could alternatively use another user account on your computer). In the new window, try whoami again - it should come up like [computer_name]\Administrator (or whatever account you specified).
      Third, try opening a CMD prompt using UAC, then run whoami again. You'll get the same response as if you didn't use UAC.

      On Linux or another Unix-like system, type whoami and you'll see your username (presumably not root).
      Then try sudo bash followed by whoami (or even just sudo whoami) and it'll say root.
      Using su will give the same result.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    16. Re:Can't Lock Linux Down by natxo+asenjo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know your reaction was knee-jerk, but just in case you didn't know, unix machines can also be configured by policy (cfengine/puppet) and single sign ons originated in the unix world (kerberos). The freeipa project http://freeipa.org/ already has a working nice kerberos+ldap solution with integrated multimaster replication and quite easy to set-up (version 1.2, if I recall correctly). Version 2 will come shortly and it will be even easier). I know, I know, first I have to see it.

      You can now join linux/solaris clients to a freeipa kerberos domain in a very similar way as to how you join a window machine to a windows domain. You have delegation of tasks for junior staff and it just works. Why has it taken so long? Good question, ask the big linux players (google, ibm) why they were not interested in this. Red Hat started it and they are actively developing it right now.

      It takes time, but good stuff happens eventually.

      --
      Natxo Asenjo
  4. You go IBM!!! by kimgkimg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ubuntu would be great solution for the enterprise. Basic email and office apps, what more do you need? The only problem with Ubuntu is that it needs more testing and validation before each release cycle. I've had basic functionality break between releases and this will not be acceptable for business use.

    1. Re:You go IBM!!! by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've had basic functionality break between releases and this will not be acceptable for business use.

      With Ubuntu for basic business use you won't need to upgrade at every release. Their LTS releases guarantees three years of support. Running an old version is usually not acceptable for a home power user, but it provides the stability a small business needs.

      For a larger shop with at least one full time IT technician it would be possible to maintain your own repository with selected upgrades enabled. Then you can pick and choose the upgrades you need for new features in specific software. You would have the stability and security of an old release, and still get bleeding edge features where it matters with relatively little testing. This is how most major Windows shop does it for security patches and feature upgrades anyway.

      Also the differences and testing needed between each version of the major distros is still far less than what's needed between each new edition of Windows. That's when you ignore the immense practical problem of global reinstallation of individual Windows boxes (yes, MS shills, fire away. It's possible on Windows as well. Call me when it's possible for my company to have absolutely all system and OS settings administrated centrally while ALL the user's personal customisations ("registry") and documents rest in his home directory on a file server, and when a motherboard fries, it'll take less than half an hour to physically replace the box and get the user back in business with all software and personalisations in place).

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    2. Re:You go IBM!!! by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Basic email and office apps, what more do you need?

      I dunno about need, but there's a hell of a lot of stuff that wouild be desirable. I knew Ubuntu wasn't really finished, but I decided to check just how far along it had gotten by installing it a couple of months ago to function as my home network's router. It could do with huge improvement, to say the lease. Here's just a tip of the iceberg:

      - There are two separate clipboards, a mouse one and a keyboard one. Middle-click will often paste something different to ctrl-v. In this day and age, I'm sorry, I can't be generous - this is fucking retarded. Fix it, Canonical.
      - Sometimes selection copies stuff, sometimes it doesn't. Be consistent. I'd say make it never copy stuff.
      - This bug meant that I had to hack an init.d script by adding 'sleep 5', just to get a DHCP server working on the Ubuntu box because of the way dhcp3-server assumes interfaces will be immediately available and NetworkManager makes them available asynchronously. Ubuntu enthusiasts tell me NetworkManager is pretty much only good for wireless, and disable it for wired connections. Utterly pathetic. We desperately need Canonical to get this done - and competently.
      - Make up your mind as to what one should use to install packages. There's an add/remove software GUI, but there's also Synaptic Package Manager. Make up your mind, Canonical!!!!!
      - Better firewall configuration. I know I've been told a million times that you can't make a GUI for iptables because it's too complex, but I beg to differ - at least you can make a GUI for it that implements a decent swathe of its functionality. No, ufw doesn't cut it, it sucks. Not enough functionality. And how about a firewall that scans app binaries, and gives access on a per-binary basis?

      These are just some of the problems I've noticed, off the top of my head. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Linux be a viable alternative, but it can't beat Windows 7 yet... and TBH I was amazed that some of these problems still existed, given how long Canonical had been at it.

  5. Nobody ever got fired... by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...for downloading Ubuntu Linux.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Nobody ever got fired... by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Forget trying to install it. I got suspended from my local community college just for running live CDs on April Fools Day 2009, but I suspect that's more because of a stupid IT team than a hate for Linux. I didn't see much understanding when I tried to explain exactly what this thing was. I didn't do anything malicious. I just fired up a live session of an OS from a CD.

      I learned a lot from mucking around with the school system, though. It was totally worth it. :) And I'm never trusting the CCAC IT team again. I like Carnegie Mellon University's computer system a lot more than that of the Community College of Allegheny County (and I currently attend CMU).

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
  6. IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .... which IBM wouldn't even sell in its own computers. I wish 'em luck in their new endeavor. They'll need it.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp... by Narpak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OS/2 Warp was made at a time when a significant part of those with the knowhow to make and support a evolving OS worked for Microsoft. Not to mention that it is known that Microsoft leveraged their situation, and growing economic capacity, to convince manufactures that adopting their OS was a good idea.

      The Linux platform has a growing support base of not insignificant proportions at this point, and the Ubuntu system has proven itself to be quite robust and one of the easier implementations for new users to get a handle on. The capability to get technical help, support, documentation, and whatever else a company might need, is far different today with Ubuntu Linux than what is was for OS2 when it was introduced.

      I can not predict how this will turn out in the end, but looking back and using OS2 as an example for how this will develop seems like conjecture.

    2. Re:IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp... by jonatha · · Score: 2, Informative

      The main problem with OS/2 was that it came out too soon, and so the muckety mucks decreed that it had to run on a 286, and so lots of it was 16-bit, and so when the 386 came out the move to 32-bit was painful. The second problem with OS/2 was the GUI's single-threaded model....

      --
      The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
    3. Re:IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp... by rajafarian · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The second problem with OS/2 was the GUI's single-threaded model...."

      What are you talking about? The Presentation Manager was totally multi-threaded. Do you mean the single input queue, which was Microsoft's idea anyway? I do believe they fixed the problem of the GUI "locking up" before they stopped selling it retail, before I switched to Linux at least.

  7. Business by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ubuntu works for me. Large community, fixed release schedule.
    But whatever your choice, small to medium sized companies need to plan well ahead *before* they get locked in,
    otherwise one day you'll be in your office and your MS exchange server will say "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that", then you're stuck with the thing forever.

  8. A company like IBM doesn't need Microsoft by iamacat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If Microsoft introduces an incompatible change in Windows 8 (so that, for example a given version of IE can no longer be installed, or a driver for a widely deployed device stops working), it can force a company into unbounded costs of updating their software and hardware. On the other hand, once initial migration to Ubuntu is done, only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries, update a driver to work with 2.6 kernel and so on. While for an individual it may be acceptable - and cheaper - to buy new peripherals and applications - IBM can trivially afford custom development costs to keep an operating system running exactly the same way they want it.

    It doesn't make sense for any large business with non-trivial needs to run an operating system for which they can not control future direction.

    1. Re:A company like IBM doesn't need Microsoft by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do game development, and I use a lot of open-source libraries (BSD, LGPL, and the like, since I value having my source closed.) Every once in a while people ask me why I rely on libraries that I didn't write myself since, after all, they may be buggy!

      Well, a few months ago I ran into a nice hidden bug. I tried to track down the developer and couldn't, and I needed a fix right then, like, within a few hours. So I wrote one, and it worked.

      A month later I ran into a new bug, but this time I managed to find the developer. Turned out my fix was buggy (in a way that hadn't been triggered in the first place), but he'd just finished a non-buggy version, so I ripped out my patch and jammed his in and it worked. If I hadn't been able to find him, I would have had to sit down and fix it myself . . . but I could have.

      Meanwhile, I have many, many thousands of lines of libraries that just tick along joyfully without a hitch. Overall, it's a huge win, and the fact that they're open-source means that I can fix them if they break.

      It really is the way to go.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    2. Re:A company like IBM doesn't need Microsoft by melikamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, you are saying, we shouldn't use your program because if it's buggy and you are unavailable, it's tough luck for us. We are better off playing a GPLed game.

    3. Re:A company like IBM doesn't need Microsoft by mqduck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It really is the way to go.

      Except, of course, for the software *you* write.

      --
      Property is theft.
  9. Maybe IBM can't count??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $2,000 US to upgrade per machine? I don't know what in the heck IBM is talking about. I've been running Windows 7 on a two year old $500 laptop without any issues since Beta. They are easily over exagerating that cost, in my opinion, and frankly it turns me off of Ubuntu to see them buddying up with IBM in this way.

    *On an interesting side note, I wonder if they calculated all the man hours and reworking of customized code that most shops would have to put in to go from a Microsoft shop to all Linux - I seriously doubt it.
    **Do we even want to get into the compatability issues with COTS that still plagues Linux?

    1. Re:Maybe IBM can't count??? by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your neglecting the cost of system administrators installing new software on every machine, and of retraining every employee to use the new software. Actually, you're counting the cost as zero for yourself; how much total time did it take you to install the initial Beta and subsequent updates, and to learn how to use it? Is your time really worth $0/hour? If so, I really pity you... $2000 is about 40 hours of the average employees time. I suspect your total time wasted was probably about half that, but if your time is worth $100/hour, the numbers still add up to $2000.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Maybe IBM can't count??? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your admins are going around installing an OS and apps on each machine individually in a corporate environment, you need new admins. And there's nothing so new and different about Windows 7 that would require any retraining...hell, you can still make it look just like Windows 2000 if you want.

      IBM's numbers are still bullshit.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    3. Re:Maybe IBM can't count??? by tftp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If your admins are going around installing an OS and apps on each machine individually in a corporate environment, you need new admins.

      Each box has to be handled individually regardless of what you do. Admins may want to reimage the HDD, they may want to do clean unattended install, or they may want to do a standard manual install. It all depends on how many boxes need to be processed and how similar the results should be. But every box has to be touched - plugged in, powered up, and booted from some CD.

      And that much work is needed if you are dealing with new boxes. What if you need to upgrade existing machines? It's a night mare's job. All computers would be different. All would have some precious data on them that needs to be preserved. Some boxes would be just faulty. Some hardware would be insufficient for the upgrade. There would be 100's of different video cards, network and other I/O that needs their own, very special drivers. Windows 7 may not even have drivers for some older peripherals. No, an upgrade on a large scale would be risky and expensive, requiring a personal touch.

      In other words, "costs incurred by a geek in his basement" != "costs incurred by a large company during mass deployment of a new OS". The $2K figure sounds very reasonable.

    4. Re:Maybe IBM can't count??? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most machines that are running in a corporate environment (at least at the places I have worked) can be imaged remotely via a program like Ghost.

      Of course, I don't really think too many places are going to upgrade to 7 unless it comes installed on new hardware simply because there's not really any reason to go to 7 from XP if XP is working.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  10. Ubuntu needs some refinement in the server space by Luke+has+no+name · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ubuntu is an impressive distro for reasons many have argued here before. Karmic is actually a great improvement over Jaunty, and I think it's heading in a positive direction.

    I might not have seen it, but I think Ubuntu's server area needs professional, detailed, Ubuntu-specific (if needed) DOCUMENTATION on everything an Ubuntu admin would need to use. http://doc.ubuntu.com/ has the most up-to-date version of the Ubuntu Server Guide, which is a decent start. It pales in comparison, however, to the FreeBSD handbook.

    Where's the documentation on
    GRUB 2?
    Upstart?
    UEC?
    Building your own repository?
    Setting up mass deployment via Kickstart/preseeding?

    These are all things integral to the operating system and its deployment. I'm not saying Ubuntu has to have the definitive guide to Nagios or other 3rd party software.

    Some things are well covered in the Ubuntu Server Guide, "Pro Ubuntu Server Administration" and Prentice Hall's "The Official Ubuntu Server Book". I would like to see more enterprise tooling and documentation for Ubuntu Server before I expect them to make a significant trench in the enterprise space.

    And for those who might say Ubuntu is a desktop-oriented distro,
    1) You haven't seen the work or the marketing Ubuntu has done on their server side, and
    2) I think Ubuntu could succeed if they can market themselves as THE operating system for an organization.

  11. Active Directory? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Informative

    Has anyone here been able to find a good guide for joining a Linux client to an AD domain?

    1. Re:Active Directory? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      You did not say which distribution so here is one for ubuntu.

      http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=5712234&postcount=6

    2. Re:Active Directory? by PhrstBrn · · Score: 3, Informative
    3. Re:Active Directory? by fluffy99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I swear, some people can't be helped

      Yeah, those folks need to go back to Windows where such a simple task is easy to accomplish in the control panel and doesn't require all that nasty editting of krb.conf and smb.conf.

  12. Re:Irrelevant by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

    ViewTouch

    now sod off you stupid troll

  13. Re:Ridiculous by borcharc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And don't give me crap about open office solutions. It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything? $2000 is only relevant if the people are actually fairly computer savy, which pretty much everyone everywhere is not nor do they care to bother.

    I have converted several MS Office users to Open Office, they have never complained. It usually came down to one simple issue, $339.99 or free, pick one, they are the same. This is my experience with office workers, executives, and my 60 year old mom. There is almost no relearning, no one complains especially when the boss says thats how it is. If you disagree perhaps you should give open office a try, its not the same piece of crap you installed 10 years ago....

  14. Re:It isn't just licensing costs... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down and the officers of the company put in jail.

    Ahhhh, the sweet sweet smell of Microsoft FUD.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  15. Re:Irrelevant by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Funny

    > ...there's no low to mid range POS software that runs on *nix.

    True. "Piece Of Shit" software is a Microsoft specialty.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  16. About that... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Uhh . . .
    Ubuntu needs 256 MB RAM and ~8 GB (they say four, but from personal experience, you need at least 8) of Hard drive space.
    Windows 7 needs 1 GB RAM and 16GB Disk.

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system)

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    1. Re:About that... by Homburg · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want decent performance, for a workstation, you want at least 2GB of RAM

      Bollocks. Contemporary Linux distros run OK in 512 Mb, absolutely fine, with multiple apps running, in 1GB. Ubuntu's 256 Mb requirement is, well, optimistic, but you don't need 2Gb of RAM for normal desktop use (Firefox, Evolution, and Openoffice being used at the same time, say) under Linux.

  17. Re:Ridiculous by AnotherUsername · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If someone utilizes Excel to its full potential, they would be pissed off if they switched to Open Office, because, frankly, Calc doesn't have the high-end functions that Excel does.

    --
    I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
  18. How many times does IBM have to get beaten by MS? by Zerimar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    MS-DOS beat PC-DOS NT3.5 beat OS/2 Heck, you can argue that MS SQL Server is beating DB2 If I were choosing a side in this fight, I'd stick with Microsoft...

  19. More companies should follow IBM by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The past 6 months for several clients I have been running Proof of Concepts of moving from Desktop infrastructure to VDI(Virtual Desktop Infrastructure)

    Microsoft have made licensing for running Windows desktops in a virtual environment so insane and added ridiculous costs just for the privilege of running Windows XP, Vista or 7 in a data centre that when you look at the ROI you don't see a massive benefit of shedding hardware.

    A couple of those clients are actually now investigating migrations from Windows desktop to Ubuntu/SUSE Linux and running legacy Windows applications from Sun SGD/Windows Termial Server.

    VDI offers huge opportunities for companies to shed the upkeep and maintenance of desktops and Microsoft are putting in as many hurdles as humanly possible to keep companies purchasing desktops every 3-4 years so they can still get their Microsoft tax from OEM's. I'm advising anyone these days to assess their dependence on windows if they are looking at VDI solutions and investigate deployments in Linux.

  20. Look at it this way. by JoeSixpack00 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think everyone here is missing the point. This is less about how accurate IBM's claims are, and more about the fact a company as large as IBM with a name that established was actually willing to publicly say it. That by itself is a major benifit for Linux.

    This is all about momentum, marketing, and market share. I mean seriously, we act as if Microsoft has never made erroneous or speculative claims in the spirit of customer coercion. This is how business works.

    1. Re:Look at it this way. by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As the old Apple joke goes, your getting the OS with a $2000 dongle.
      IBM is getting world class code for free and gets to sell support and branded hardware.
      Now thats smart.
      Value added and nice to the community.
      Its win for IBM, win for corps, win for developers and end users.
      Thats the good win btw :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  21. Here we go again by davmoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find it interesting that these stories never seem to talk about the cost of retraining in that switch from Windows to Linux in the work place. The authors must be those same people that keep writing about how software companies should replace boxed product with downloading because bandwidth is free.

    I'm not saying that many companies wouldn't benefit financially from the switch. Many would. But there are a lot that wouldn't. Anyone who thinks the Microsoft license and the cost of the hardware are the only expenses has no business being a decision-maker in their company's IT.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    1. Re:Here we go again by Techman83 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah they forgot to mention the Cost of training for the switch from XP to Windows 7 and the also Office 2003 to Office 2007. Both are significantly different as far as interface goes and we have users that are going to require significant training no matter what we do. It's something that we haven't quite figured out how to tackle, as the ones who can't handle change scream the loudest.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  22. The answer was Ubuntu Linux, but .. by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Funny

    the question was "Do you believe insider trading is rampant within IBM?"

  23. Software freedom is "really the way to go". by jbn-o · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I do game development, and I use a lot of open-source libraries (BSD, LGPL, and the like, since I value having my source closed.) Every once in a while people ask me why I rely on libraries that I didn't write myself since, after all, they may be buggy!

    [...]

    Meanwhile, I have many, many thousands of lines of libraries that just tick along joyfully without a hitch. Overall, it's a huge win, and the fact that they're open-source means that I can fix them if they break.

    It really is the way to go.

    Too bad your users don't have the same freedoms you enjoy. You're right—software freedom is the way to go. Sharing and improving, truly controlling one's own computer and the social solidarity that gives rise to is the single most important reason why nobody should use proprietary software. Including yours.

    1. Re:Software freedom is "really the way to go". by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Games work on a somewhat different market than proprietary software does - the goal isn't to make a "good product" and then keep improving it, the goal is to make a "fun game" and then - fundamentally - it's done and you don't keep mucking with it besides fixing any major bugs. Even if I did open-source it, the most that would happen would be a few bugfixes and a few crummy third-party games with the same engine. It's just not worth the trouble - no gamers really care.

      (See the open-sourced Quake engines to see the absolute most that you can get out. It's not much.)

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    2. Re:Software freedom is "really the way to go". by rliden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well to be a bit fair the guy is talking about how awesome open source is when it benefits him and how much more awesome closed source is when it benefits him. Not that I mind the infighting, but it sounds pretty hypocritical to me too.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
    3. Re:Software freedom is "really the way to go". by True+Grit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's just not worth the trouble - no gamers really care.

      Hogwash.

      There are plenty of gamers that care, they just don't have any *choice* in the matter.

      Its the commercial game makers that don't care.

    4. Re:Software freedom is "really the way to go". by True+Grit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, so far, every single one of my games

      I know nothing about your games, so my comment was only meant in the general sense of the entire gaming industry.

      On average, people don't care.

      On average, commercial game companies never release the source for their old games, nor do they even go out of their way to allow gamers to mod/hack/tweak their games (and many actively make this harder).

      So of course people aren't going to 'care' about something they have no control over anyway.

      The ability to be modded is somewhat more important, but even then, they are rarely interested in modifying more than the obvious things that can be exposed through the mod interface.

      This sounds like you're talking about your games, and not talking in general. As always, it depends on the game.

      The fact there are still actively developed games (including new content), even after all these years, based on the old Quake engines that you mentioned is just one counter-example. Maybe they don't look like much to you, as you said, but the example the other poster gave of 'Urban Terror', which I played a little bit of awhile back (although shooters are not really my thing), looks to *me* like its a lot more than 'not much'.

      For me, this prevailing attitude of 'write it, pimp it, then let it die' slowly turned me against the commercial gaming industry over time, as I watched one great game after another die a slow death (no updates/fixes for new OS versions or to deal with new hardware, bug fixes, minor/trivial improvements, etc), not because the game didn't have fans who cared, but because the game's distributor SIMPLY DIDN'T GIVE A DAMN.

      Every gamer has their own example, but for me it was the game 'Master of Magic'. A fabulous game with *enormous* potential, but its fans never even got so much as a mediocre sequel to it. Nothing, Nada, Zilch. So the seeds of my discontent began with the death of my beloved MOM... and then turned to pure disgust over the last decade with the still ongoing obsession with glitz-over-substance action-shooters, cranked out one after another, using a nauseatingly unoriginal, cookie-cutter approach.

      Haven't bought a game in over a decade, but its not because I'm no longer interested in gaming...

      But please, feel free to ignore these rantings of a cranky, turn-based-strategy-lovin' old-timer who hasn't taken his meds yet this morning... grrr, where the hell *is* that bottle!

    5. Re:Software freedom is "really the way to go". by patrickthbold · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Meh. He's using BSD, LGPL software. He's perfectly within his rights. In fact I'd argue that the authors of the software he's using are fine with his decision to keep his sourced closed, considering how they chose to licence their software.

  24. Re:It isn't just licensing costs... by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Windows expertise fairly cheaply
    Like the sidekick cheap?
    or London stock exchange cheap?
    The deal you get on the back of a napkin during a nice lunch is soon gone with recovery and the PR mess of epic fail.
    The only thing cheap about MS is the first try as a student to get you hooked.
    Just like a smart drug dealer at the gates.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  25. Office 2003 to 2007 vs. to OOo? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And don't give me crap about open office solutions. It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything?

    Unless you're like my employer, which uses Access as a platform on which to run an off-the-shelf VBA app (from which we're slowly migrating), is the retraining from Microsoft Office 2003 to OOo 3.x with its traditional menus really that much harder than the retraining from Microsoft Office 2003 to Microsoft Office 2007 with its ribbon?

  26. Re:It isn't just licensing costs... by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 4, Informative
    Did you even read the Secunia links you posted? Both unpatched vulnerabilities require usage of Apache's mod_ftp module, which I've honestly never even seen used as most hosts and general servers use external (and hardened) FTP software like ProFTPd:

    Successful exploitation requires that a threaded Multi-Processing Module is used and that the mod_proxy_ftp module is enabled. (...) An error in the included APR-util library can be exploited to trigger hangs in the prefork and event MPMs on Solaris.

    And the second (first in order on the site) unpatched vulnerability deals strictly with a mod_ftp input validation issue. Again, I rarely even see mod_ftp even used as opposed to an entirely seperate FTP server daemon but disabling the faulty module is simple enough in environments requiring absolute security.

    And input validation issues are usually patched fairly quickly anyways, I mean come on, this is 2009 and there are too many developers for the project that wouldn't let this sort of thing continue for this amount of time. Not to mention the fact that these unpatched vulnerabilities are nothing compared to the olde IIS Webdav exploit of a few years ago - too bad there wasn't a community aware of it sooner other than the underground black hats already using it to their advantage by the time it was brought to the attention of MS.

  27. IBM should jump first? by 2Bits · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why isn't IBM jumping first, and take the lead to move the whole IBM to Linux desktop? You know, the do-what-you-are-preaching concept? Last week, 5 IBM people came to our office to pitch for a 3 million contract, and I saw every single person (technical and sales) is running Windows Vista, with the latest MS Office. The only thing I recognized as IBM-made is Lotus Notes, which we also use here.

    About 8 years ago, it was the same thing with Sun. We had a bunch of Sun people came to our office (another company), and they kept bitching about MS Windows and MS Office, while at the same time preaching Linux and Star Office. And guess what they were running? Yeah, you got it. At one point, I had enough of their bitching, I told them with a straight face: "Why don't you guys install Linux and Star Office, and send me that fucking slide in open format?" They looked at me as if I was from Mars, then I turned on my laptop, and it was running Linux.

    One suggestion to the big guys: don't preach, do it. Then everyone will follow, you have enough clout to take the lead.

    1. Re:IBM should jump first? by Kamien · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're misinformed. IBM is already jumping. You can have a Linux workstation (Open Client for Linux - for Red Hat/Fedora, Ubuntu, SLED) in IBM. What's more the default office suite in IBM is Lotus Symphony now. MS Office is slowly going away. BTW: I've never seen Windows Vista installed on any work PC in IBM.

  28. Re:It isn't just licensing costs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    And to quote from the secunia website:

    "PLEASE NOTE: The statistics provided should NOT be used to compare the overall security of products against one another. It is IMPORTANT to understand what the below comments mean when using the statistics, especially when using the statistics to compare the vulnerability aspects of different products."

    But just for fun - don't forget that IIS needs to run on Windows: 212 Secunia advisories, 282 Vulnerabilities, 12 Unpatched...

    That's the secunia report for Windows 2003 "Web Edition" - which is reasonably representative. Compare that to OpenBSD.

    Goodluck with that! :)

  29. Re:Ridiculous by jim_v2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can see that one going down:

    CFO: "Why can't I open this spreadsheet that accounting sent me?"
    IT: "You're using Open Office...that spreadsheet was made in Excel and Open Office doesn't support X feature."
    CFO: "Well how the hell can I open it then?"
    IT: "We need to wait for enough other people to have the problem and for the developers to add the features."
    CFO: "My god...how long will that take?"
    IT: "Could be a few weeks, maybe months...or never."
    CFO: "Fuck that. I don't have time to waste. You said Excel will open in? Get that installed on here NOW!"

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  30. Re:Ridiculous by whoop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is accounting running rogue software without permission from the CFO? How about "CFO: Why the hell is this accounting peon running Excel when the company switched to Open Office months ago? Fire him for piracy."

    If you don't implement a standard company-wide, then you will run into trouble. Simple.

  31. Re:Misguided by maugle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.

    That's your argument against Ubuntu? Do you know just how many forums are dedicated to solving various Windows fuckups?

  32. Re:Addendum by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I appreciate your efforts. However I post my opinions as they are. Some days I get modded up and others I get modded down. It happens.

    Certain opinions (I'll take XP over Gnome and Ubuntu, or I think Apple is as evil as MS) almost always get me modded down. I still post them because I honestly believe those things.

    I really enjoy the concept of democratic moderation and karma rankings. But I don't believe in catering my posts to manipulate them.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  33. A Dozen Developers by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 3, Informative

    You clearly have never worked inside a large company, or if you did, you didn't pay attention. They have better things to do with their precious developer talent than recompile Firefox and Linux kernels all the time. Stuff like writing Visual Basic applications to assure that they will forever be tied to Windows, leaps immediately to mind. Oh, wait...

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  34. Re:Oh no you didn't by jim_v2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Uh, I used Vista right after it first came out and never came across a program that didn't work. Same with Windows 7. So no, not like Vista.

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  35. Market capitalization by symbolset · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is not off-topic.

    I happened to notice today that Apple surpassed IBM in market capitalization (the total value of their stock) about a month ago. Apple has been on a tear for the last five years, growing about 24x. Even though IBM has a valued brand, a deep patent portfolio, committed customers and a broad portfolio they haven't kept up with that pace. I think that the last technology company Apple has to surpass in company value is Microsoft - and they're closing in. Apple's executing well not just in PC Hardware (where they've cornered the market on premium PCs at over 80%), but in media where they've pretty much taken all of the market for online distribution of music (and they're working on video), and in cellular phones where they're a serious threat to Blackberry. So Apple is not just in a wider base of markets than IBM and Microsoft - they're winning in all the markets they're in. They're executing well.

    Microsoft wants to be Apple but Zune, Plays For Now and the Microsoft Danger FaceKick isn't going to gain them new customers in the new markets they need to win. The have a considerable negative partnering history to overcome. If Steve Jobs got a good stock incentive to come back and rescue Apple in 1996 he should die the world's richest man. Since I'm talking about how smart he is, here's a quote:

    "There's an old Wayne Gretzky quote that I love. 'I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.' And we've always tried to do that at Apple. Since the very very beginning. And we always will."

    IBM could do these things and the fine article is an indication that they're slowly interested in doing so. I wish them well - I prefer committed open source to Apple's exploitation of BSD's liberal terms, though I have to admit it's more of a personal bias than a difference in utility. I don't think IBM can pull this off without outside help. The Boys From Boca thing was, as far as I can tell from subsequent history, a one-off incident of accidental genius.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  36. Re:Oh no you didn't by mgblst · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and even then they are as buggy as hell.
    How would this be different to running them on Windows then?

  37. Re:Oh no you didn't by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please don't ever use the Wine as an example of Linux being compatible with Windows software. Because a huge majority of programs simply don't work with it, and those that do have had special coding done in Wine to make them work, and even then they are as buggy as hell.

    No, Wine has a strict policy of not letting app-specific hacks into the mainline tree, if that wasn't the case things would be a mess and nothing would run. Certainly not everything works 100%, but there are many apps that run very well. For example, I played Diablo 2 on and off for several years through Wine, and having originally played it on 'doze, I can tell you it plays identically through Wine.

    Also, Wine has made an enormous amount of progress in the last 4 years. It helped a lot that the Win32 API pretty much stopped dead between XP and Vista, as it gave the Wine team a huge amount of time to catch up instead of having to chase a moving target. The huge Vista backlash also helps quite a bit, Wine has only really started on D3D10 support this year or late last year, but the fact that really nothing uses D3D10 (because it doesn't work on XP) makes the lack of support largely irrelevant. There's really no point in comparing Wine 4 years ago to Wine today, so much so that it's probably not unreasonable to say that more has changed in Wine's last 4 years than the previous 12 years before that.

  38. Re:Why Microsoft isn't worried about this by davaguco · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have to agree with this. I tried to switch to some Linux and Open Office distribution a few years ago, and the kind of things I had to learn to do to get that machine running, and then to fix several driver problems, were a bit too much for anybody without a lot of technical expertise. I have several friends that are in love with Linux and Open Office, but they all happen to be software engineers, and when I complain about something not being user-friendly, they tell me that it's really very easy, you just have to "mount this drive and then ...." do you really think users are going to consider introducing linux commands, ever? If you believe users should know this stuff, then you just don't live in the real world.

    --
    Please google and research "peak oil" a bit. You will discover this crisis is a lot worse than they have told you
  39. Re:Ubuntu needs some refinement in the server spac by SheeEttin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Where's the documentation on GRUB 2?

    Depends. There are a bunch of man pages on the grub commands, and there's /etc/grub.d/README and /etc/default/grub for the menu configuration. There's also Google.

    Upstart?

    http://upstart.ubuntu.com/

    UEC?

    https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UEC

    Building your own repository?

    Apt supports file:/, so you can use that if it's just for personal use. Otherwise, you apparently just replicate the directory structure of an existing repository on your server and generate the necessary files. (Google produced many quick guides on how to do this.)

    Setting up mass deployment via Kickstart/preseeding?

    https://help.ubuntu.com/community/
    https://help.ubuntu.com/7.04/installation-guide/i386/preseed-using.html

    All except GRUB and "building your own repository" were found in less than a minute on Google.

    Remember that Ubuntu is mostly an amalgam of discrete software packages, all bundled up nice and neat. The best place to look for documentation is usually the origin.

  40. Re:Oh no you didn't by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, Wine has a strict policy of not letting app-specific hacks into the mainline tree, if that wasn't the case things would be a mess and nothing would run.

    Actually, Windows has app-specific hacks. There was a /. story when Vista was coming out that linked to an MS blog in which the developer described how Quicken would not run on Vista, so MS hacked the API to identify Quicken and do as that app expected. They test all major software and most have app-specific hacks.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  41. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can see that one going down

    No, you cant. The mistake is never the CFO or his equipment. This is how it would go:
    CFO: "Why can't I open this spreadsheet that accounting sent me?"
    IT: "Because accounting used Excel and its formats, which is against company policies."
    CFO gets out the cluestick and applies it to accounting.

  42. Re:Misguided by JonJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, but it invalidates your argument. Both operating systems have issues. Your point is null and void.

    --
    -- Linux user #369862
  43. Market capitalisation is perception not reality by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Market capitalisation was one of the things that caused the financial crisis.It isn't real because it makes the incorrect assumption that you could sell the shares and the price would remain the same. This is characteristic of a bubble. One cause of the Japanese crisis was that at one time real estate in Tokyo was so expensive that its market value was greater than all of the rest of Japan. But once there was a recession and offices started to empty, real estate prices dropped like a stone. There was a similar bubble collapse in the UK in the 1990s, and there is a similar one in the US today.

    Market capitalisation is a result of several factors - the perceived cool factor of a share being one of them, and the need to include them in certain types of fund being another. The point is that a perceived decline in value can collapse the bubble very fast, as shares start to be sold which triggers off removal from portfolios and small investors getting out.

    All this is very basic finance 101 but is widely misunderstood. If you are in for the long term (which is the least risky way of making a profit) you need to look at the customer base and the value added. Apple has many customers for its newer products which are on phone company contracts, and it does not have the majority of the smartphone market. It has forced Nokia to look at its product range again, it has stimulated the development of Maemo, Moblin, Chrome and Ubuntu Netbook. The competition is coalescing around Linux with value added in the front ends. Apple has a strong installed base but its market cap is based on a belief that it is the wave of the future. A change in perception, a major provider coming out with a competitive iPhone replacement (Verizon/Pre?) could depress Apple shares overnight.

    IBM, like Rolls-Royce, is rather invisible to the public. It has no real brand image. But, like Rolls-Royce, it has stackloads of bought in installed base who can't just replace their phone when the contract ends, or buy a new notebook computer.

    I'm reminded of someone at Rolls-Royce commenting on their share price that "people don't take into account that if we never sold another product, starting tomorrow, we would still be around in 60 years servicing our installations. And many of our customers are Governments".

    Apple may overtake IBM in the long term. But currently this is far from evident, and market cap is not a useful measurement.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  44. Re:Oh no you didn't by makomk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you look more closely, you'll find that those bugs were fixed by fixing the underlying issue in Wine that causes them. Read the part of the changelog that says what actual changes were made. The reason the list of bugs looks like that is because issues in Wine generally show up as issues in running some application (or, more often, several applications).

  45. Re:Misguided by maugle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why must you take what I said in the worst possible light? Let me make this plain: The fact that there are many, many forums dedicated to solving the many, many problems with Windows does not let Ubuntu off the hook. But it does reduce your argument of "the Ubuntu support forum is full of Ubuntu problems, therefore Ubuntu isn't ready for primetime" to a pile of smoldering ash.

    Unless, of course, you think that none of the operating systems available today are ready for primetime.