Its easy to compare market values for Microsoft and Apple. Since they both are sold on the market. Linux based software isn't all commercial, and being Ubuntu has the ability to run Office suite, with the only limitation being having the MS Office license agreement. How does one honestly compare market values???? I run multiple partitions on my Windows machines so I have the ability to run anything I want. 98% of the time I use the Linux base distros - with the ability to run the MS products also. I use the wording ability to run. But with the advent of OO.org I have no limitations. I have no expense limitations also. And beside I never access the internet with my windows partitions, mainly for security reasons. Secondly Linux base distros operate so much more effectively and faster on internet and/or network connections. Apple? Now that the mac is a dual core pentium and OSX is unix based. Why not it works and a lot of open source is available for this nice OS too. And one can add partitions and install ubuntu with it also, or better yet us Vmware Fusion, and run anything you want. Cost factor. Open Source Linux Distros - Run better - Cost less in the long run.
The systems this article links too shows the install Ubuntu system cost less than the Vista installed system!
I wonder if any authors of these debates actually read the articles and links before they go on the defense or offense.
Ubuntu can be tuned to run Windows software. Vista has been tuned down in respect to running its own Microsoft software products and fails to run any linux software products.
And this debate is about a cost difference that doesn't include the expense of vista when you add office suites and etc.
Ubuntu is a better deal all around if you include comparisons to what is included in Linux distros and what you must buy from the Microsoft world to make it comparable.
Nobody has explained what they need windows for? Games maybe, buy a darn game machine. The'er Microsoft Office suites you can buy for the Macs, you can use crossover if you will not want to spend that kind of money. Or better most Linux packages come with a XML based Office suite(openoffice), Open source compatible with the world including Microsoft. Which runs in all three OS mentioned here. Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not true that even Microsoft is finally catching up to Open Office by switching over to an XML based Suite? And I thought it was weak to give in to the Dark side?
Slashdot Mirror
Its easy to compare market values for Microsoft and Apple. Since they
both are sold on the market. Linux based software isn't all commercial,
and being Ubuntu has the ability to run Office suite, with the only limitation
being having the MS Office license agreement. How does one honestly compare
market values???? I run multiple partitions on my Windows machines so I
have the ability to run anything I want. 98% of the time I use the Linux
base distros - with the ability to run the MS products also. I use the wording
ability to run. But with the advent of OO.org I have no limitations.
I have no expense limitations also. And beside I never access the internet with
my windows partitions, mainly for security reasons. Secondly Linux base distros
operate so much more effectively and faster on internet and/or network connections.
Apple? Now that the mac is a dual core pentium and OSX is unix based. Why not
it works and a lot of open source is available for this nice OS too. And
one can add partitions and install ubuntu with it also, or better yet
us Vmware Fusion, and run anything you want. Cost factor. Open Source Linux
Distros - Run better - Cost less in the long run.
Until We Meet Again.
Nisqually Pauli
Where does one go to see this claim?
The systems this article links too shows the install Ubuntu system cost less than the
Vista installed system!
I wonder if any authors of these debates actually read the articles and links before
they go on the defense or offense.
Ubuntu can be tuned to run Windows software.
Vista has been tuned down in respect to running its own Microsoft software products and
fails to run any linux software products.
And this debate is about a cost difference that doesn't include the expense of
vista when you add office suites and etc.
Ubuntu is a better deal all around if you include comparisons to what is included
in Linux distros and what you must buy from the Microsoft world to make it comparable.
Dang this whole debate is silly.
Paul
Nobody has explained what they need
windows for? Games maybe, buy a darn
game machine. The'er Microsoft Office
suites you can buy for the Macs, you can
use crossover if you will not want to
spend that kind of money. Or better
most Linux packages come with a XML
based Office suite(openoffice), Open
source compatible with the world including
Microsoft. Which runs in all three OS
mentioned here. Correct me if I am
wrong, but is it not true that even
Microsoft is finally catching up to
Open Office by switching over to an
XML based Suite? And I thought it
was weak to give in to the Dark side?
Sincerely,
NisquallyPauli