OK let's assume that this is correct (of course it isn't, they could just hire one guy to install some Linux distro and then make HD-images.), but OK let's assume.
(rhetoric pause)
Why do they have to ** FORCE ** you to buy Windows?
I can also buy a computer from Dell without monitor why shouldn't I be able to buy one without OS?
However, it's easy peasy for those Win98 users to upgrade to more stable Windows versions. Their old software works and the OS is pretty similar to use.
I've seen an XP-user unsuccessfully trying to run Worms Armageddon, so it's not that "easy peasy".
If they upgrade to Linux, there's a lot more to learn and new software to buy/find to replace their current Windows apps. When you think about it, the licence costs are not that bad compared to the loss of time.
If that were true why is Microsoft fighting so desperately to prevent an open marketplace where computers are sold with or without OS just like they are sold with or without monitor?
Face it: The majority of people only want a browser, email and a.doc-compatible Word-processor. KDE/Linux and StarOffice can provide that easily. They will just use what is preinstalled, will not upgrade and will install few if any updates and software.
And of course there are also power-users who prefer KDE over the minimalistic Windows-GUI.
I see no reason why those people should not be allowed to choose between a Linux-machine and a Windows-machine which is 10 to 15% more expensive.
And: No I don't think the majority will choose Linux. No, I don't think Linux is the best solution for the majority, yet. But for about 30 to 40% it is the best solution right NOW and forcing them to use and pay for another solution is just plain communism. (to use a word that Microsoft-fans like to use)
2/3 of Windows users are still running Win98, a 4 year onld OS, which is just a minor step up from Win95, a 7 year old OS.
People are not interested in paying for updates and they sure won't be delighted when their "ultra-stable" (LOL) WinXP box dies and they find out they won't get any activation code anymore. (Microsoft didn't guarantee that they will send out codes in 5 years, did they? - Hell they didn't even make a worthless promise.)
PC-makers are not interested in sending an ever increasing share of their revenue directly to Microsoft. 10 years ago, DOS made up less than 2% of a computer's total price, today that number is over 10% and rising every year.
First they quietly introduce Linux on desktops so that even their own salespeople don't know about it. Of course they only sell to the U.S. and not to Germany where Linux marketshare is several times higher.
Then instead of quietly removing Linux-support, all online-newspapers are running a story about Dell dicontinuing Linux on the desktop.
SuSE seems happier on a more proprietary road, and some things like their X drivers occasionally shine for this approach.
Huh?
SuSE never released any proprietary X drivers.
The only thing SuSE develops that is not under the GPL is YaST and SaX, configuartion tools. Those are put under the YaST license which is identical to the GPL with the exception that you are not allowed to sell it for money (giving away is OK, modifying is OK, source-code is available, installing on one gazillion machines is OK)
The main reason why I prefer Konqueror is because it has far superior bookmark-handling (creating bookmark-directories is much much less painful), and more importantly, it respawns all windows when I relogin.
So when I read slashdot or other forums, I just leave the windows open and they will be loaded just like they were the next day. - No more need for temporary bookmarks.
4) Scope. Konqueror is just a web browser/file manager. Mozilla has a mail client and an HTML composer. Some people may not want them, but others do. I think the mail part of Mozilla kicks KMail all the way to next Tuesday.
Funny, I think that Netscape 4.7 is still a better newsreader/emailer than Mozilla.
Why you ask?
Simple: Because it doesn't force you to use the very, very moronic layout where you have to have the message occupying the lower half of the window. This is moronic because messages are usually truncated at 80 chars (which is moronic too, but that's another thread) so you have lots of empty space in the message area, yet it is not tall enough.
Netscape4 allowed you to open messages in another window so you could put this window beside the main window to be as tall as the screen.
Yes I know Mozilla can also open it in another window, but that's 100% useless because it doesn't reuse your perfectly arranged window and takes too long to open the new window.
KNode is the only newsreader I know that let's you choose a sane layout. This makes it IMO the best newsreader available. Unfortunately KMail can't do it (yet?)
Ironically Mozilla lets you choose between two perfectly useless layouts but misses the obvious.
(which is folders on top-right, message overview bottom-right and message left - you get the idea, I would not mind if the message is on the right side as long as I can have it as tall as the screen)
Each of these may have version specific bugs that may or may not influence other packages. It's nearly impossible to test for all possible combinations.
Oh, come on, this is like saying "each PC has components from so many different vendors it's impossible to test all possible combinations."
A standard X11-app will work on almost any Linux-system.
Just for the fun of it I tried this site with Mozilla 0.9.8
No problems, everything's fine.
But this "AOL will fail switching to Mozilla because my site doesn't render well in Opera" - thread is becoming so incredibly stupid that I feel embarassed that I post to it.
P.S.: Newer versions of Mozilla also support tabbed browsing, so you don't have to clutter your desktop with browser windows.
It's well known that Opera isn't really good at Javascript.
Maybe, just maybe you should try out the browser in question before you start spewing FUD. In case you didn't notice, it's Gecko (aka Mozilla) and not Opera.
I use Konqueror all the time and Mozilla as a fallback.
Maybe I find 3 or 4 sites per year (of daily use) that don't work in neither browser, but that's about it.
And usually those sites are targeted for the eyecandy-loving AOL crowd anyway, so they'll make sure it will work with Mozilla LONG BEFORE the beta-stage is completed and Mozilla is introduced into production use.
Is it just me, or does this smack of a company that really, really, wants to protect its future interests?
Is it just me, or hasen't anybody else started thinking about how Microsoft's customer's money is wasted on marketing and promotion that don't make the product any better?
Maybe, just maybe there is a much more efficient way to develop software.
Slashdot Mirror
Also most people just use a browser, email and an office suite, any distribution can accomplish that.
(rhetoric pause)
Why do they have to ** FORCE ** you to buy Windows?
I can also buy a computer from Dell without monitor why shouldn't I be able to buy one without OS?
I've seen an XP-user unsuccessfully trying to run Worms Armageddon, so it's not that "easy peasy".
If they upgrade to Linux, there's a lot more to learn and new software to buy/find to replace their current Windows apps. When you think about it, the licence costs are not that bad compared to the loss of time.
If that were true why is Microsoft fighting so desperately to prevent an open marketplace where computers are sold with or without OS just like they are sold with or without monitor?
Face it: The majority of people only want a browser, email and a .doc-compatible Word-processor. KDE/Linux and StarOffice can provide that easily. They will just use what is preinstalled, will not upgrade and will install few if any updates and software.
And of course there are also power-users who prefer KDE over the minimalistic Windows-GUI.
I see no reason why those people should not be allowed to choose between a Linux-machine and a Windows-machine which is 10 to 15% more expensive.
And: No I don't think the majority will choose Linux. No, I don't think Linux is the best solution for the majority, yet. But for about 30 to 40% it is the best solution right NOW and forcing them to use and pay for another solution is just plain communism. (to use a word that Microsoft-fans like to use)
Some people don't realize that the incentive not to install Windows increases every year because Windows makes up a higher and higher share.
Eric Raymond is right, cheap PCs will kill Windows, it's just a matter of time.
People are not interested in paying for updates and they sure won't be delighted when their "ultra-stable" (LOL) WinXP box dies and they find out they won't get any activation code anymore. (Microsoft didn't guarantee that they will send out codes in 5 years, did they? - Hell they didn't even make a worthless promise.)
PC-makers are not interested in sending an ever increasing share of their revenue directly to Microsoft. 10 years ago, DOS made up less than 2% of a computer's total price, today that number is over 10% and rising every year.
It's just a matter of time, and the first signs are already observable.
Then instead of quietly removing Linux-support, all online-newspapers are running a story about Dell dicontinuing Linux on the desktop.
Am I the only one who thinks this is fishy?
That's exactly what I also thought. This is not overclocking.
You have worked for 6 years for AMD the same way I worked for NASA in the Apollo Project.
Maybe he's an AMD stockholder and tries to push up AMD's revenue ? ;-)
Well, "borgboy" if Windows is so great on servers why does it's marketshare go down the drain?
Only in American cars.
In Europe, where people are actually using seatbelts, airbags are set to a much softer setting.
Imagine 90% of car-makers forming a cartel and then putting a clause into the contract that you are only allowed to buy gas at for example Shell.
This is exactly what Microsoft is doing with their EULA and it's not innovation.
Don't worry, I'm sure the next version of Windows will include a feature which will prevent evil piraters (TM) from violating the EULA.
Isn't Windows used mainly on the desktop?
Isn't Windows a piece of shit on servers?
How often was MS sued?
Now it's "no big deal, VNC runs just fine".
In 2 years when the next version comes out and VNC won't run anymore it's "no big deal, VNC wasn't legal anyway, it should not run"
It's the same with WPA:
Now: "No big deal, it works fine"
In 2 years: "Subscription is great because you don't get any WPA-codes for unsupported versions anymore anyway."
It's that simple.
BTW, SuSE has vowed that YaST2 now supports 100% of YaST1 functionality.
Huh?
SuSE never released any proprietary X drivers.
The only thing SuSE develops that is not under the GPL is YaST and SaX, configuartion tools. Those are put under the YaST license which is identical to the GPL with the exception that you are not allowed to sell it for money (giving away is OK, modifying is OK, source-code is available, installing on one gazillion machines is OK)
The main reason why I prefer Konqueror is because it has far superior bookmark-handling (creating bookmark-directories is much much less painful), and more importantly, it respawns all windows when I relogin.
So when I read slashdot or other forums, I just leave the windows open and they will be loaded just like they were the next day. - No more need for temporary bookmarks.
Funny, I think that Netscape 4.7 is still a better newsreader/emailer than Mozilla.
Why you ask?
Simple: Because it doesn't force you to use the very, very moronic layout where you have to have the message occupying the lower half of the window. This is moronic because messages are usually truncated at 80 chars (which is moronic too, but that's another thread) so you have lots of empty space in the message area, yet it is not tall enough.
Netscape4 allowed you to open messages in another window so you could put this window beside the main window to be as tall as the screen.
Yes I know Mozilla can also open it in another window, but that's 100% useless because it doesn't reuse your perfectly arranged window and takes too long to open the new window.
KNode is the only newsreader I know that let's you choose a sane layout. This makes it IMO the best newsreader available. Unfortunately KMail can't do it (yet?)
Ironically Mozilla lets you choose between two perfectly useless layouts but misses the obvious. (which is folders on top-right, message overview bottom-right and message left - you get the idea, I would not mind if the message is on the right side as long as I can have it as tall as the screen)
Oh, come on, this is like saying "each PC has components from so many different vendors it's impossible to test all possible combinations."
A standard X11-app will work on almost any Linux-system.
No problems, everything's fine.
But this "AOL will fail switching to Mozilla because my site doesn't render well in Opera" - thread is becoming so incredibly stupid that I feel embarassed that I post to it.
P.S.: Newer versions of Mozilla also support tabbed browsing, so you don't have to clutter your desktop with browser windows.
Nothing at all, he was just trolling.
Maybe, just maybe you should try out the browser in question before you start spewing FUD. In case you didn't notice, it's Gecko (aka Mozilla) and not Opera.
I use Konqueror all the time and Mozilla as a fallback.
Maybe I find 3 or 4 sites per year (of daily use) that don't work in neither browser, but that's about it.
And usually those sites are targeted for the eyecandy-loving AOL crowd anyway, so they'll make sure it will work with Mozilla LONG BEFORE the beta-stage is completed and Mozilla is introduced into production use.
Is it just me, or hasen't anybody else started thinking about how Microsoft's customer's money is wasted on marketing and promotion that don't make the product any better?
Maybe, just maybe there is a much more efficient way to develop software.
Huh?
Please tell me why it would bring more money to me if I would use Windows/IIS instead of Apache/Linux.