The whole point of Linux as Unix replacement is unification.
That's what the customers want. They want Linux because you find people who know Linux easily. They want Linux because you can develop and test on cheap hardware. They want Linux because there is no customer lock-in.
Most startups use x86 Linux-servers. What will IBM tell them when they need a better architecture? Throw everything out and start from scratch? With Linux, IBM can give those a system that works just like their old one, only better, faster and hardware redundant.
Are there any *NEW* customers for AIX anyway? Is there any startup using it? I don't think so. AIX customers are getting fewer and fewer because there are no new customers to replace going customers. At some time, maintaining AIX will become unprofitable (and it's quite possible that that time has already come). Customer lock-in slows down customers leaving (but it does NOT stop it), but it also scares away new customers.
AIX is dead. And it would die with or without Linux.
To go back to your post: No, there will not be incompatible versions of Linux, because customers won't accept it. You would lose all the advantages of Linux with such incompatible versions, IBM could just stay by AIX and see their customer base erode slowly when they want a proprietary, incompatible OS.
What I cannot understand is why a company like IBM, that has invested millions of $ and hundreds of thousands of man hours developing a rock solid, mature, scalable, enterprise class system like AIX with a _relatively_ immature OS like LINUX.
I mean, to bring LINUX up to AIX's level of functionality will require that IBM re-implement, and retest all that code. It's almost like starting over from scratch.
Well, first of all, they don't have to maintain a whole Linux distribution (even if they would have to, it's not that expensive), just the features they are interested in.
Currently IBM maintains 4 different server lines: Linux and Windows servers on x86, AIX servers on PPC and Linux-OS/390 mainframes and Linux is the only OS that runs on all of them.
Without Linux, IBM can't even offer their customers an upgrade path. What if the x86 server doesn't cut it anymore? Throw everything out and implement a mainframe solution? The upgrade path without Linux would be: Windows -> AIX -> OS/390. See how ridiculous that is?
IBM has realized that Linux makes the life easier for everybody - their customers *and* IBM.
I mean, AIX does do everything LINUX does right? Am I missing something?
Yes, you miss tons of software on Linux that doesn't run on AIX (sure porting to AIX would be possible, but that takes time). AIX is so rare that even mainstream free software is usually NOT available for it.
You miss that you can find a Linux-expert very easily compared to an AIX expert.
You miss that Linux makes it possible to develop and test on cheap x86 systems and only use the expensive mainframe for one final test and production use.
So IBM will put these features into Linux, will save a lot of money because maintaining these features will be a lot cheaper than maintaining a whole OS, will raise their profit margin but also drop the price a little bit. Customers will pay less, get more software compatibility and everybody will be happy.
Now what exactly is wrong with that? Fragmentation was the big problem with Unix and Linux is about to solve it.
Maybe it will be like YaST is for SuSE, a closed source non-redistributable component.
In fact YaST is neither closed source nor non-redistributable.
The YaST license is pretty much the same as the GPL with the only exception that you are not allowed to resell it (= distribute it for money, distribution for free is allowed)
Heh nice trap there. If I say that MS is at fault, then you'll assume I'm conceding on a point that I don't agree with you on. If I say that it's a hardware issue, you'll accuse me of being an MS zealot, no matter what common sense dictates. Heh whatever.
Sure it's a trap. It illustrates the point: Your problems with X were probably some kind of hardware problem which only happens on some rare configuration. My harddisk is the very same thing (and probably happening much more often - it happened on my 2 very different PCs). And it doesn't matter whose fault it is.
Problems exist everywhere and will for quite some time. It's possible that Windows doesn't even install on a computer which runs Linux fine and vice versa. There are just so many different configurations and especially broken hardware that these problems are pretty much unavoidable. But I honestly believe that SuSE and Mandrake have closed the gap by now and is on par with Windows hardware compatibility. Where Windows still has a small edge is some peripherals, but it's a small edge and not nearly as bad as the FUD makes it out to be.
When installing a halfway modern Linux distro or a halfway modern version of Windows, my expectations are pretty much the same: Normally everything should work out fine and all hardware should be autodetected (again, most distros are more comfortable than Windows where you still have feed in driver CDs). But I wouldn't put my life on the line for it, no matter if it's Linux or Windows.
Just a few lines up it "wasn't Microsoft's fault", now it's 100% irrelevant? Wow.
Windows has nearly all functionality exposed through the UI.
So does SuSE
One can go nearly their entire lives without editing their registry.
Exactly like in SuSE/Mandrake
Me personally, I had Windows variants for 3 years before I touched the registry editor once. Linux, on the other hand.... *SmACk* You lose.
You want to throw around anectotal evidence?
OK, I have a 40GB WD harddrive I bought about a year ago which is not recognized by neither my Intel P2-350 nor my Athlon 650 (very, very different systems as you probably notice), so this harddrive could work in Windows only with a BIOS update, if at all.
In Linux, I just used it, because Linux doesn't care about the BIOS. (Sure I can't boot from it, but I didn't want to anyway.)
So in this case Linux (just using it) was much easier than Windows (BIOS update, then crossing fingers everything is OK, hoping the update solves the problem)
Of course according to your double-standard, that doesn't matter because "it's not Microsoft's fault", but it's terrible if some hardware isn't supported by Linux. sheesh.
Err okay. So you accuse me of a double standard, even though you cannot provide a rebuttal to my point. I think the likelyhood here is that I shot you down. *SmAcK 2*
I already provided 2 rebuttals.
Heh okay. So MS has all the config stuff in one Control Panel (unlike Redhat), but because they sort it alphabetically that's a bad thing?
That's a bad thing because the network settings and the user settings should be grouped together and not everything thrown into one folder. Just imagine a start-menu with all apps at the root-level and no folders. That's just like Windows' single unorganized config folder.
Ha! As for 'random utilities', I have no idea what you're talking about. I can only guess that you're lumping 'Accessories' in with 'Control Panel'. If that's the case, you're making absolutely no point. I guess I could bring up all the non-descript utilities that begin with K on KDE (and accessible through Gnome), but my 'double standard' would be showing because Linux can do no wrong, right?
You illiterate ignorant still equate Linux with RedHat.
I already covered that. Windows unorganized config system is maybe superior to RedHat's inconsistent but organized config system (depends on wether you think inconsistency or unorganization is worse) but it's clearly inferior to SuSE's. Of course you never tried anything else than RedHat.
If you say that RedHat sucks on the home desktop, we have an agreement. (on the corporate desktop RedHat's shortcomings are not that severe because you have hopefully good admins) But if you say that Linux sucks on the desktop you are just dead wrong.
[Anonvmous Coward mode start]
I tried Windows 3.11 so all versions and all derivates of Windows suck. It doesn't even support USB and looks terrible. I will behave like a retarded child and insult everyone names who dares to get into the way of my outdated, narrow experience.
[Anonvmous Coward mode stop]
This is exactly what you are doing. Saying Linux sucks just because RedHat sucks is like saying WindowsXP is unstable because WindowsME crashes all the time or Windows2K is ugly because Windows 3.11 is ugly.
If I would dare to do that you would call me names, start your childish, retarded "strike 1-2-3" games and say I'm a zealot. Yet it's exactly what you are doing.
Re:Is KDE everything?
on
KDE 3.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, KDE really stands out. KDE has gone from nothing in 1997 to KDE1, then a complete rewrite for KDE2 and now the refined, optimized and beautified KDE3.1 with a whole bunch of applications.
No other project has accomplished so much in such a short time span. Most server-centric products are mostly finished, the big developments happen on the desktop in the Linux-world. And that's KDE.
RedHat hates KDE and has laid off their only KDE-developer and crippled^W changed KDE in their distro. Of course they would have to cripple^W modify KDE3.1 too, so if they do it at all (which I doubt) it will take some time.
Use any non-RedHat distro and you will never look back. Even Debian which isn't really famous for having the latest-greatest already supports KDE3.1
I tried using Redhat 6.0 a year or two ago. I ran into configuration problems and had NO clue how to troubleshoot them.
Maybe you should stop equating RedHat with Linux. RedHat is a pretty crappy desktop and at least 1 year behind SuSE and Mandrake (may it rest in peace) in terms of desktop usability.
SuSE has everything in one place (the KDE control center) for about a year now, in RedHat you still have many different places to configure display manager, XFree and other hardware drivers.
It is no accident that in the USA, where RedHat is dominating Linux, Linux desktop penetration sucks and everywhere else, especially Europe it is flourishing.
Wanna know what's amusinng? A few months later I installed Redhat 7.... uh.. I think it was 7.1 on a laptop (different machine, the original one was retired) and it went pretty well. If those guys had taken a moment to address my issue instead of discrediting my complaints, I might have been a Linux user a lot sooner.
Yeah, right now, even RedHat is usable for the desktop. It took a lot longer than other distros and they are still lagging behind - but it's usable. Of course their bastardized KDE/GNOME mixture sucks, but the Windows-using average user doesn't use the advanced features anyway and Windows is the yardstick, so even RedHat finally reached the "good enough" attribute on the desktop.
Regarding addressing issues: If you want help, post to a support forum, not Slashdot. I did many times and got help in almost all cases. If you buy a boxed distro you can call the vendor by phone or send an email which is much more than the support you get for any OEM-Windows version.
My comment was very much called for. First off, your example is not relevant. The problem with Nvidia's card (assuming that problem ever existed, let's pretend it did) was not Microsoft's fault. Video support in Windows works very well. If it took a registry hack to make the Nvidia card work, then Nvidia fucked up pretty bad. Know what that means? It means that Linux is just as vulnerable to problems like that. Only, to fix a problem like that, you better know your way around shell.
First, editing self-documented config files (which can be done easily without knowing the shell) is several orders of magnitude easier than changing undocumented registry keys with strange names.
Secondly your double standard shows. If it's a Windows problem it is automatically "not Microsoft's fault". I've got news for you: It doesn't matter whose fault it is and if it did it isn't Linux' fault when the same thing happens on Linux.
Secondly, MS provides you with a UI to install, configure, and troubleshoot video card problems. If KDE or Gnome has something like that, I've yet to find it. Strike 2 against Linux.
So does SuSE - and it is integrated seamlessly in the KDE control center.
Also the KDE control center is much better to use because it's organized in a tree-like structure. Windows' config center is just a directory with random utilities thrown in which are sorted alphabetically (sheesh).
OK, since about 3 years the user DOES NOT HAVE TO EDIT ANY FILES TO CHANGE DISPLAY SETTINGS on SuSE and I bet even RedHat has it all graphically by now.
When will you get it through your head?
When?
Re:this world has plenty of really helpless out th
on
Adopt a KDE Geek
·
· Score: 1
adopt some poor asian or african kid, rather than adding more stuff and efforts in areas where people arent really poor compared to the huge problems in the rest of the world out there...
The sad (and cynical) truth is that adopting a 3rd world child will only make the problem worse because instead of the kid dying now, her/his 6 or more kids die later. (unless you triple your donations every generation)
Ethiopia went from 8 Million to 80 Million inhabitants from the 1920's to the 1990's.
Imagine the US going from about 150 Million to 1.5 Billion or western Europe going from 300 Million to 3 Billion in the same period.
Food donations won't solve Africa's problems, only postpone them.
Re:Better place sto donate
on
Adopt a KDE Geek
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If that poorly funded school would use KDE/Linux instead of Windows and would stop forcing its students to buy/pirate Office and Windows this would helt the students and their budget much more.
Both IIS and MSSQL are not dominating their fields yet they were the ones affected by mass-infections on a greater scale than any other mass-infection.
I'd give you reasons, but that'd just invite argument. Instead I'd suggest that if you're asking a question like that, it's because you've been reading Slashdot too long, as opposed to speaking from experience.
For one, IIS and Windows binds you to a single vendor. This is the most important problem.
Just like Sun/Apple is charging obscene amounts for closed single-vendor hardware, Microsoft does the same on the software side.
Interesting is that the Winlots seem to understand that on the hardware level, but have fallen to the delusion that software ought to be only from one single vendor. At least the Apple-fans are consistent in their views (although I don't share them) but the Winlots change their "opinion" from thread to thread.
Please note that this is completely unrelated to CSS vs. OSS. Chainging yourself to a single vendor is a big problem and should be avoided. It doesn't matter if that single vendor is Apple, Microsoft or Sun. (Slashdot is a big pro-Apple site BTW)
I speak from experience, and I can tell you IIS is not the nightmare people make it out to be. If it were I wouldn't have time to tinker around on Slashdot.
Well, that's great. Why whine about Apache/Windows, then when IIS is so great anyway?
And why was IIS so great again?
Alright, let's ignore the existence of the LGPL and pretend it didn't exist.
Asking "What happens to our software if we use GPL-software as base?" is like asking "What happens to my company when we don't pay licensing fees to MS?"
It's just part of the rules. And be assured, it's a lot easier to make sure not to use GPLed code in in-house apps than to make sure no employee has somewhere installed some unlicensed software. (Which can cost the company hundreds of thousands)
Also, all the GPL violations have been solved by either removing the code (rewriting it) or opening up the whole. So if you don't want to open up you just need to do what you should have done from the beginning: Write it yourself. The risks involved in breaking the GPL are minimal, especially because there won't be any damages claims. Also, when it is about an in-house app anyway, what's the big deal in opening it up?
Micorosft's license, on the other hand, is enforced, there are audits and huge fines.
Anybody asking "What happens to our software if we use GPL-software as base" is either:
An idiot still not understanding the GPL, the difference between GPL and LGPL and in this case also not understanding licneses in general
A MCSE, MSFT-stockholder or somebody else who will lose very much with the decline of Microsoft, happily willing to spread any FUD about any non-Microsoft product.
I've run into OpenOfficeMS Office export and import problems even with plain Word letters,
Really? The only problem I had once was with pictures. "plain letters" always worked fine.
And 3 years ago when I was still using MS Office I had my share of problems between the different versions of WinWord (hell, often even between the same version on different computers), so I'd say that both MS Office and OpenOffice does NOT work perfectly but usually good enough.
so I can't imagine a complex spreadsheet with macros will work very well.
Sure, but why should you want to send/receive a spreadsheet with a macro to/from a client?
To spread a virus?
I don't know any other application, sorry. But maybe you can.
Your statement is so dumb and stupid, I don't know where to begin debunking it.
Almost every statement is a generalization.
"The sky is blue" - but not when it's cloudy or at night.
"This item costs x$" - but not if you add in taxes, transportation to get to the store.
"My table is flat" - but not if you take into account the small inperfections on the wodden surface and the tiny tilt it sure has.
"Windows is a security nightmare" - but not if you spend day and night securing the computer, maintaining virus-scanners and install and test all patches.
The ability to generalize is a basic ability of a thinking being.
P.S.: Seriously, why should anybody want to use Windows as a webserver? The only reason I can think of is when you are locked into MS-only technology like ASP which rules out Apache anyway. So why? Just because the computer came with Windows? Because Bill Gates tells you?
All of Microsoft's growth markets are already stopped by Linux:
On servers Windows should have been the Unix-replacement (and in the mid-90's it was), but now Unix-shops migrate to Linux and Windows-shop also start to migrate away....
WinCE should have been the hot embedded OS for the 21st century. But with the noticable exception of PDAs, it isn't doing too well and can't even replace DOS. While DOS ran on about half of embedded systems in the mid-90's less than 1/4 of todays projects are using WinCE. (I'm working in embedded systems BTW.)
Microsoft is currently in the phase of being stripped of all their growth opportunities and is reduced to their core markets. Those will be the next to go.
First, 70% to 80% of Windows/Office is profit margin.
Then we have sales and marketing.
Then we have factories making CDs, packaging them up and sending them around the world where they are further distributed physically.
Then we have all those "features" like WPA, Palladium, copy protection, purposely breaking formats to force people to upgrade, etc. which are not really needed in an OSS product.
I'd be surprised if the cost to maintain Windows or Office is more than 2 or 3% of the retail price.
Just one single developer can maintain even a larger project (hell, Linus still maintains the Linux kernel mostly himself - in his spare time) and the same or (if the project is really huge) another one can add the features you want.
As a treo-owner I couldn't disagree more. I don't want to carry around a phone and a PDA (have no need for GPS, MP3 may be nice but isn't essential either).
Also, it makes much sense:
Before I had the treo, I had an ordinary cell-phone and a PSION. Well, most telephone numbers were on my phone, some adresses were on the PSION (but usually I didn't bother to carry it around) and some was on the PC. The treo is perfect for that kind of stuff, it increases usability quite a lot because I no longer have to transfer (often manually - yuck!) numbers between phone and PDA.
When you are supporting business users in a large environment (~20K desktops), "basically the same" isn't the same as "identical". And anything other than "identical" costs money.
Different MS Office versions are not identical either, so there is practically no difference when upgrading. This was the whole point, genius.
Of course if you were stupid enough to get trapped in a single-vendor technology (like AD, ASP, NTLM,.NET etc.) then you will have to migrate to a multi-vendor technology first.
Essentially your (modded as insightful - shrug) post sais: "Use IE because it is from Microsoft"
No other reasons are given.
The FACT that applying the constant flow of security patches for IE is way harder and time consuming than using Mozilla doesn't seem important for you. IE is from Microsoft, go with IE. That's all what seems to matter to you.
Also IE being integrated in Windows is kinda problematic. IE updates may affect the rest of the system - Mozilla is independent from Windows, therefore much better to control and maintain. On top of that, you can EASILY have as many different Mozilla installations on your PC. (which can be useful on upgrading - if you don't want to take any risks just add the new version instead of replacing the old version). Also you can also downgrade Mozilla, but last time I checked, the only way to downgrade IE is to reinstall Windows... Mozilla is easier to integrate and support than IE and upgrading is much safer.
And most importantly, Mozilla does not chain you to a vendor. Microsoft may raise license prices anytime - again. It happened before, it can happen again.
When you use a product every day for several hours you will pick up motor-memory and remember menu positions etc. - Because of repetitive work.
But please. No student has built up motor-memory and "that button is 2 places to the right of the other button" because of a CS class. First because repetitive work will be pretty uncommon in a CS-class second because motor-memory evaporates so quickly it is gone in just a few months.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of Linux as Unix replacement is unification.
That's what the customers want. They want Linux because you find people who know Linux easily. They want Linux because you can develop and test on cheap hardware. They want Linux because there is no customer lock-in.
Most startups use x86 Linux-servers. What will IBM tell them when they need a better architecture? Throw everything out and start from scratch? With Linux, IBM can give those a system that works just like their old one, only better, faster and hardware redundant.
Are there any *NEW* customers for AIX anyway? Is there any startup using it? I don't think so. AIX customers are getting fewer and fewer because there are no new customers to replace going customers. At some time, maintaining AIX will become unprofitable (and it's quite possible that that time has already come). Customer lock-in slows down customers leaving (but it does NOT stop it), but it also scares away new customers.
AIX is dead. And it would die with or without Linux.
To go back to your post: No, there will not be incompatible versions of Linux, because customers won't accept it. You would lose all the advantages of Linux with such incompatible versions, IBM could just stay by AIX and see their customer base erode slowly when they want a proprietary, incompatible OS.
I mean, to bring LINUX up to AIX's level of functionality will require that IBM re-implement, and retest all that code. It's almost like starting over from scratch.
Well, first of all, they don't have to maintain a whole Linux distribution (even if they would have to, it's not that expensive), just the features they are interested in.
Currently IBM maintains 4 different server lines: Linux and Windows servers on x86, AIX servers on PPC and Linux-OS/390 mainframes and Linux is the only OS that runs on all of them.
Without Linux, IBM can't even offer their customers an upgrade path. What if the x86 server doesn't cut it anymore? Throw everything out and implement a mainframe solution? The upgrade path without Linux would be: Windows -> AIX -> OS/390. See how ridiculous that is?
IBM has realized that Linux makes the life easier for everybody - their customers *and* IBM.
I mean, AIX does do everything LINUX does right? Am I missing something?
Yes, you miss tons of software on Linux that doesn't run on AIX (sure porting to AIX would be possible, but that takes time). AIX is so rare that even mainstream free software is usually NOT available for it.
You miss that you can find a Linux-expert very easily compared to an AIX expert.
You miss that Linux makes it possible to develop and test on cheap x86 systems and only use the expensive mainframe for one final test and production use.
Now what exactly is wrong with that? Fragmentation was the big problem with Unix and Linux is about to solve it.
In fact YaST is neither closed source nor non-redistributable.
The YaST license is pretty much the same as the GPL with the only exception that you are not allowed to resell it (= distribute it for money, distribution for free is allowed)
Sure it's a trap. It illustrates the point: Your problems with X were probably some kind of hardware problem which only happens on some rare configuration. My harddisk is the very same thing (and probably happening much more often - it happened on my 2 very different PCs). And it doesn't matter whose fault it is.
Problems exist everywhere and will for quite some time. It's possible that Windows doesn't even install on a computer which runs Linux fine and vice versa. There are just so many different configurations and especially broken hardware that these problems are pretty much unavoidable. But I honestly believe that SuSE and Mandrake have closed the gap by now and is on par with Windows hardware compatibility. Where Windows still has a small edge is some peripherals, but it's a small edge and not nearly as bad as the FUD makes it out to be.
When installing a halfway modern Linux distro or a halfway modern version of Windows, my expectations are pretty much the same: Normally everything should work out fine and all hardware should be autodetected (again, most distros are more comfortable than Windows where you still have feed in driver CDs). But I wouldn't put my life on the line for it, no matter if it's Linux or Windows.
Just a few lines up it "wasn't Microsoft's fault", now it's 100% irrelevant? Wow.
Windows has nearly all functionality exposed through the UI.
So does SuSE
One can go nearly their entire lives without editing their registry.
Exactly like in SuSE/Mandrake
Me personally, I had Windows variants for 3 years before I touched the registry editor once. Linux, on the other hand.... *SmACk* You lose.
You want to throw around anectotal evidence?
OK, I have a 40GB WD harddrive I bought about a year ago which is not recognized by neither my Intel P2-350 nor my Athlon 650 (very, very different systems as you probably notice), so this harddrive could work in Windows only with a BIOS update, if at all.
In Linux, I just used it, because Linux doesn't care about the BIOS. (Sure I can't boot from it, but I didn't want to anyway.)
So in this case Linux (just using it) was much easier than Windows (BIOS update, then crossing fingers everything is OK, hoping the update solves the problem)
Of course according to your double-standard, that doesn't matter because "it's not Microsoft's fault", but it's terrible if some hardware isn't supported by Linux. sheesh.
Err okay. So you accuse me of a double standard, even though you cannot provide a rebuttal to my point. I think the likelyhood here is that I shot you down. *SmAcK 2*
I already provided 2 rebuttals.
Heh okay. So MS has all the config stuff in one Control Panel (unlike Redhat), but because they sort it alphabetically that's a bad thing?
That's a bad thing because the network settings and the user settings should be grouped together and not everything thrown into one folder. Just imagine a start-menu with all apps at the root-level and no folders. That's just like Windows' single unorganized config folder.
Ha! As for 'random utilities', I have no idea what you're talking about. I can only guess that you're lumping 'Accessories' in with 'Control Panel'. If that's the case, you're making absolutely no point. I guess I could bring up all the non-descript utilities that begin with K on KDE (and accessible through Gnome), but my 'double standard' would be showing because Linux can do no wrong, right?
You illiterate ignorant still equate Linux with RedHat.
I already covered that. Windows unorganized config system is maybe superior to RedHat's inconsistent but organized config system (depends on wether you think inconsistency or unorganization is worse) but it's clearly inferior to SuSE's. Of course you never tried anything else than RedHat.
If you say that RedHat sucks on the home desktop, we have an agreement. (on the corporate desktop RedHat's shortcomings are not that severe because you have hopefully good admins) But if you say that Linux sucks on the desktop you are just dead wrong.
[Anonvmous Coward mode start]
I tried Windows 3.11 so all versions and all derivates of Windows suck. It doesn't even support USB and looks terrible. I will behave like a retarded child and insult everyone names who dares to get into the way of my outdated, narrow experience.
[Anonvmous Coward mode stop]
This is exactly what you are doing. Saying Linux sucks just because RedHat sucks is like saying WindowsXP is unstable because WindowsME crashes all the time or Windows2K is ugly because Windows 3.11 is ugly.
If I would dare to do that you would call me names, start your childish, retarded "strike 1-2-3" games and say I'm a zealot. Yet it's exactly what you are doing.
No other project has accomplished so much in such a short time span. Most server-centric products are mostly finished, the big developments happen on the desktop in the Linux-world. And that's KDE.
Use any non-RedHat distro and you will never look back. Even Debian which isn't really famous for having the latest-greatest already supports KDE3.1
Maybe you should stop equating RedHat with Linux. RedHat is a pretty crappy desktop and at least 1 year behind SuSE and Mandrake (may it rest in peace) in terms of desktop usability.
SuSE has everything in one place (the KDE control center) for about a year now, in RedHat you still have many different places to configure display manager, XFree and other hardware drivers.
It is no accident that in the USA, where RedHat is dominating Linux, Linux desktop penetration sucks and everywhere else, especially Europe it is flourishing.
Wanna know what's amusinng? A few months later I installed Redhat 7. ... uh.. I think it was 7.1 on a laptop (different machine, the original one was retired) and it went pretty well. If those guys had taken a moment to address my issue instead of discrediting my complaints, I might have been a Linux user a lot sooner.
Yeah, right now, even RedHat is usable for the desktop. It took a lot longer than other distros and they are still lagging behind - but it's usable. Of course their bastardized KDE/GNOME mixture sucks, but the Windows-using average user doesn't use the advanced features anyway and Windows is the yardstick, so even RedHat finally reached the "good enough" attribute on the desktop.
Regarding addressing issues: If you want help, post to a support forum, not Slashdot. I did many times and got help in almost all cases. If you buy a boxed distro you can call the vendor by phone or send an email which is much more than the support you get for any OEM-Windows version.
First, editing self-documented config files (which can be done easily without knowing the shell) is several orders of magnitude easier than changing undocumented registry keys with strange names.
Secondly your double standard shows. If it's a Windows problem it is automatically "not Microsoft's fault". I've got news for you: It doesn't matter whose fault it is and if it did it isn't Linux' fault when the same thing happens on Linux.
Secondly, MS provides you with a UI to install, configure, and troubleshoot video card problems. If KDE or Gnome has something like that, I've yet to find it. Strike 2 against Linux.
So does SuSE - and it is integrated seamlessly in the KDE control center.
Also the KDE control center is much better to use because it's organized in a tree-like structure. Windows' config center is just a directory with random utilities thrown in which are sorted alphabetically (sheesh).
When will you get it through your head?
When?
The sad (and cynical) truth is that adopting a 3rd world child will only make the problem worse because instead of the kid dying now, her/his 6 or more kids die later. (unless you triple your donations every generation)
Ethiopia went from 8 Million to 80 Million inhabitants from the 1920's to the 1990's.
Imagine the US going from about 150 Million to 1.5 Billion or western Europe going from 300 Million to 3 Billion in the same period.
Food donations won't solve Africa's problems, only postpone them.
Both IIS and MSSQL are not dominating their fields yet they were the ones affected by mass-infections on a greater scale than any other mass-infection.
For one, IIS and Windows binds you to a single vendor. This is the most important problem.
Just like Sun/Apple is charging obscene amounts for closed single-vendor hardware, Microsoft does the same on the software side.
Interesting is that the Winlots seem to understand that on the hardware level, but have fallen to the delusion that software ought to be only from one single vendor. At least the Apple-fans are consistent in their views (although I don't share them) but the Winlots change their "opinion" from thread to thread.
Please note that this is completely unrelated to CSS vs. OSS. Chainging yourself to a single vendor is a big problem and should be avoided. It doesn't matter if that single vendor is Apple, Microsoft or Sun. (Slashdot is a big pro-Apple site BTW)
I speak from experience, and I can tell you IIS is not the nightmare people make it out to be. If it were I wouldn't have time to tinker around on Slashdot.
Well, that's great. Why whine about Apache/Windows, then when IIS is so great anyway? And why was IIS so great again?
Asking "What happens to our software if we use GPL-software as base?" is like asking "What happens to my company when we don't pay licensing fees to MS?"
It's just part of the rules. And be assured, it's a lot easier to make sure not to use GPLed code in in-house apps than to make sure no employee has somewhere installed some unlicensed software. (Which can cost the company hundreds of thousands)
Also, all the GPL violations have been solved by either removing the code (rewriting it) or opening up the whole. So if you don't want to open up you just need to do what you should have done from the beginning: Write it yourself. The risks involved in breaking the GPL are minimal, especially because there won't be any damages claims. Also, when it is about an in-house app anyway, what's the big deal in opening it up?
Micorosft's license, on the other hand, is enforced, there are audits and huge fines.
Anybody asking "What happens to our software if we use GPL-software as base" is either:
Really? The only problem I had once was with pictures. "plain letters" always worked fine.
And 3 years ago when I was still using MS Office I had my share of problems between the different versions of WinWord (hell, often even between the same version on different computers), so I'd say that both MS Office and OpenOffice does NOT work perfectly but usually good enough.
so I can't imagine a complex spreadsheet with macros will work very well.
Sure, but why should you want to send/receive a spreadsheet with a macro to/from a client?
To spread a virus?
I don't know any other application, sorry. But maybe you can.
Your statement is so dumb and stupid, I don't know where to begin debunking it.
Almost every statement is a generalization.
"The sky is blue" - but not when it's cloudy or at night.
"This item costs x$" - but not if you add in taxes, transportation to get to the store.
"My table is flat" - but not if you take into account the small inperfections on the wodden surface and the tiny tilt it sure has.
"Windows is a security nightmare" - but not if you spend day and night securing the computer, maintaining virus-scanners and install and test all patches.
The ability to generalize is a basic ability of a thinking being.
P.S.: Seriously, why should anybody want to use Windows as a webserver? The only reason I can think of is when you are locked into MS-only technology like ASP which rules out Apache anyway. So why? Just because the computer came with Windows? Because Bill Gates tells you?
Wow, that has everything. Ignorance, arrogance and even pointing somebody to a (worthless) source.
Windows and Office are essentially repackaging the same product, not much more.
On servers Windows should have been the Unix-replacement (and in the mid-90's it was), but now Unix-shops migrate to Linux and Windows-shop also start to migrate away....
WinCE should have been the hot embedded OS for the 21st century. But with the noticable exception of PDAs, it isn't doing too well and can't even replace DOS. While DOS ran on about half of embedded systems in the mid-90's less than 1/4 of todays projects are using WinCE. (I'm working in embedded systems BTW.)
Microsoft is currently in the phase of being stripped of all their growth opportunities and is reduced to their core markets. Those will be the next to go.
You know why Microsoft's software is expensive?
First, 70% to 80% of Windows/Office is profit margin.
Then we have sales and marketing.
Then we have factories making CDs, packaging them up and sending them around the world where they are further distributed physically.
Then we have all those "features" like WPA, Palladium, copy protection, purposely breaking formats to force people to upgrade, etc. which are not really needed in an OSS product.
I'd be surprised if the cost to maintain Windows or Office is more than 2 or 3% of the retail price.
Just one single developer can maintain even a larger project (hell, Linus still maintains the Linux kernel mostly himself - in his spare time) and the same or (if the project is really huge) another one can add the features you want.
Also, it makes much sense:
Before I had the treo, I had an ordinary cell-phone and a PSION. Well, most telephone numbers were on my phone, some adresses were on the PSION (but usually I didn't bother to carry it around) and some was on the PC. The treo is perfect for that kind of stuff, it increases usability quite a lot because I no longer have to transfer (often manually - yuck!) numbers between phone and PDA.
Different MS Office versions are not identical either, so there is practically no difference when upgrading. This was the whole point, genius.
Of course if you were stupid enough to get trapped in a single-vendor technology (like AD, ASP, NTLM, .NET etc.) then you will have to migrate to a multi-vendor technology first.
No other reasons are given.
The FACT that applying the constant flow of security patches for IE is way harder and time consuming than using Mozilla doesn't seem important for you. IE is from Microsoft, go with IE. That's all what seems to matter to you.
Also IE being integrated in Windows is kinda problematic. IE updates may affect the rest of the system - Mozilla is independent from Windows, therefore much better to control and maintain. On top of that, you can EASILY have as many different Mozilla installations on your PC. (which can be useful on upgrading - if you don't want to take any risks just add the new version instead of replacing the old version). Also you can also downgrade Mozilla, but last time I checked, the only way to downgrade IE is to reinstall Windows... Mozilla is easier to integrate and support than IE and upgrading is much safer.
And most importantly, Mozilla does not chain you to a vendor. Microsoft may raise license prices anytime - again. It happened before, it can happen again.
When you use a product every day for several hours you will pick up motor-memory and remember menu positions etc. - Because of repetitive work.
But please. No student has built up motor-memory and "that button is 2 places to the right of the other button" because of a CS class. First because repetitive work will be pretty uncommon in a CS-class second because motor-memory evaporates so quickly it is gone in just a few months.