Actually SuSE is easier to configure than Windows, because the configuration stuff is organized in a TREE structure in kcontrol and not just thrown without any order into a directory.
Automatic popular? Only in the states I guess.. I like control over my car when I drive thankyouverymuch, and I don't know anyone with automatic transmission... (I'm in Sweden)
And Microsoft, well, whatever, they'll probably just release the next version of office only for xbox so all their corporate customers have to buy them, so they're ensured of success.
I know this was meant as a joke, but I'll comment anyway:
Microsoft absolutely has to make sure that retail Windows and any WinPC programs do NOT run on XBox. Not (only) because they are losing money on the XBox, but more importantly, they would piss off PC-makers if they would start to become a competitor.
Remember OS/2?
Although the myths and sayings tell otherwise, the MAIN REASON for OS/2 failing was that PC-makers did not like the idea of being dependent on a direct competitor (IBM).
Do you or do you not think that Windows will be around in the future?
That was answered in the first post of mine.
More specificly, proprietary software platforms will become niche players, just like proprietary hardware platforms are becoming right now.
You assume that I am Linux basher.
You NEVER bring examples and just spread FUD. If you are no Linux basher, you surely post like one.
You said it would be terrible if Wine can't emulate the latest-greatest, I pointed out that a 2 year-lag would be more than enough - no response.
You said that in Linux you have to use the CLI all the time but even after several times I could not get an example from you.
What exactly is the difference between you and a Linux-basher?
I merely contend that your assement that Linux will somehow quickly destroy Windows if only apps would run and OEM's are allowed to distribute it is wrong. The DOJ settlement will end MS's ability to retaliate against OEM's.
I hope so, but I doubt it. Maybe the EU will be more effective, though.
Lindows will soon be released. Wine gets better all the time. Care to make a wager about when the end of Windows will be?
OK, that's a difficult question.
I would guess that within 5 or 6 years a lot of OEMs will preinstall Linux and Linux will reach a significant desktop marketshare (> 25%)
After that, the process will accelerate and Windows will be a legacy system within another 5 years.
Microsoft has not the manpower to write drivers for all peripherals like OSS can easily do.
Microsoft-fans always point out how powerful and great Microsoft is. In the real world their huge development capacities are DWARFED by the OSS community.
Once the iron grip on the OEMs is broken, they will never get it back.
Care to wager how long it will take for hundreds of millions of computers to migrate to a non-Windows OS?
As I've already pointed out, it will be on new PCs.
You are wrong. Your premise is wrong.
It's pretty lame. I bring examples and arguments all the time and the best you come up with is this.
Fact is that IN THE WHOLE THREAD you did not bring one single real world example to reinforce your arguments.
1. Within days 300,000 people had purchased Windows XP.
So what?
In 24 hours 80,000 people had purchased SuSE 7.0 last year.
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/axv-25.08.00-0 02/
2. I have a machine with a spottly supported sound card. I had to download some source, extract it, compile it, and build it into my kernel.
Because you choose not to mention what soundcard, this cannot be verified.
Unlike you I do mention my hardware:
- A ASUS K7V mobo with VIA KX133 chipset with onboard sound
- A Netgear networking card
- A Matrox G400
SuSE 7.1 and 7.3 detected all of the above, Windows 98 and ME detected none of the above. (Had to feed driver CDs/floppies)
And in Linux all works flawlessly, in Windows I had a Bluescreen (in 98, 98SE and ME) before shutdown (so that checkdisk ran on every bootup).
I had to install a new chipset driver off the net to get rid of the bluescreens.
Since your problem with this strange nameless soundcard seems to be related to the kernel and there was a patch, it should work with the standard kernel by now.
No OS will work with unuspported hardware and no PC-maker will sell unsupported hardware. (And BTW, Linux has better hardware-support than WinXP because they changed the driver-model again)
3. You mention that in real-life that it is easier to setup a workplace with Linux. I disagree strongly. A good IT person with some Windows experience can easily automate the deployment of any number of machines - complete with applications, patches, and every setting pre-customized for the end user.
You are switching topics. First you talk about the poor poor end users, then all of the sudden you talk about mass-deployment.
You Linux-bashers should make up your mind.
But OK, I'll comment on this other topic, too:
Debian can be adequately mass-deployed via apt-get and SuSE has recently released a tool for it (ALICE).
4. You mention that Wine isn't very useful today. I agree. However, it is useful for a number of applications. My original point was that it is possible to make Win32 applications run under Linux.
Possible does not mean usable for a large group of users.
I consider Wine ready for the masses as soon as it runs all apps with some rare exceptions and when it is integrated with the distributions.
To compete on the OEM level, Linux/Non-MS OS's will have to (a) save them the bulk of that 10%-20%, (b) provide all the same features, (c) provide excellent compatibility, and (d) provide opportunity for additional and continuing revenue to the OEM.
a: Yes.
b: Yes.
c: No. That's why we need Wine.
d: Don't know what you mean.
Linux can save them money; however, the question is how much would Linux cost to distrubte?
The same as Windows (support, custimization) minus license costs.
On Windows, the PC-makers have to do the support, remember?
The main point is this: to get that 10% - 20% increase in revenue may well require more work, upfront cost, and risk than most OEMs are willing to accept.
It's not 10% to 20% more revenue, it's 10 to 20% less costs.
Anyway, it's only risky when they have to fear Microsoft, otherwise there is no risk in offering Linux (or no OS at all) as an option.
In Germany Vobis was the biggest PC-maker in the early 90s. Vobis decided to sell PCs with OS/2 preinstalled and was punished by Microsoft with "delivery problems" and higher license prices. That nearly drove them out of business.
Of course the PC-makers remember that and are afraid of Microsoft. That's why I think it will be smaller PC-makers first preinstalling Linux. Anyway, Linux becomes more and more tempting for PC-makers, it's just a matter of time.
applications I wrote against Windows 95 operate with 100% binary compatibility with Windows XP and everything in between. Applications written against KDE 1.0 and under are binary incompatible, and even require substantial rewrites, with newer versions of KDE. That's not a good feature.
Wrong, it's a good feature. Most if not all distributions provide the KDE1-libs so that KDE1 apps still run without any problems.
However this legacy support is easily dropped and is not slowing down the system forever.
Many apps will run. I didnt claim all will. But for a pretty substantial subset of apps, Linux compatibility is fully plausible either today or in the near future. Wine is a truly great project. Each day new apps are Wine friendly. Check out this link [codeweavers.com] for a complete list (454 verified apps last I checked).
The majority of those 454 apps don't run with all features.
While I agree that Wine looks very promising and already shows what WILL BE DONE, today it's only rarely useful.
So I think it is clearly a true statement when I said "apps can run". They can run under a non-Windows OS, and as time goes on, more will. However, it is irrelevant.
No it's not. It's the ONLY thing currently holding back Linux.
The reason it is irrelevant is that despite you're claims about KDE/Linux (btw, I DO run a *nix operating system, its FreeBSD - and barely a month goes by that I dont check out a new Linux distro) it is still a major shift in how most people think about their PC and how to use it. The level of understand of the average PC user is very low. This average level of understanding is very brutish - very "if I do this thing over here this other thing will work how I want". The level of comprehension is very low, even for Windows users. Quite frankly Linux isn't now (even with the easiest, most streamlined of distros) for these people and I can't honestly forsee how it ever could be for them.
Blah, blah, blah, fud, fud, fud.
I asked for an example and got useless blabbering as response.
In real life, with Linux it's easier to set up a workplace because so many things come with the distribution and don't have to be downloaded/installed from CD like in Windows.
The easiness-problem is pretty much solved. There are maybe some rough edges, just like in Windows (have you seen a newbie not knowing double-clicking? For a real newbie, KDE is easier because of that), but it's certainly good enough.
The problem is that when somebody switches, he misses all his apps he is used to.
That's why Wine is great for Linux.
However, what you are forgetting is that DOS didnt do ANYTHING. I mean really think about what DOS 6.22 did. The answer is nothing. It was a useless tool in terms of computing.
Now, THIS is irrelevant.
Or do you really suggest that an OEM happily pays more for Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer instead of just installing Realplayer and Mozilla/Netscape?
No, PC-makers have to look at their bottom-line.
Windows will not be dying anytime soon (unless MS just renames it, not likely). XP is a taste of where things are going. And like it or hate it; people look at an OS based on a command line and say: "ick, why would I want that?". Granted, a modern distro hides most of that; but when the tough gets going the command line is the place you really have to go.
Again, no example, just the usual FUD.
In SuSE you can do EVERYTHING desktop-related in the GUI and UNLIKE Windows, it's all organized in a tree-like structure and integrated in kcontrol, not just thrown in a directory without order.
If it's so terribly complicated, why can't you come up with just one lame example?
OK, since obviously you can't, I will: The only thing that is significantly more difficult in SuSE than in Windows is setting the screen resolution. (But you don't have to touch the CLI, neither, its all graphical)
But that's pretty much it. In other areas Linux is easier (I already mentioned that you don't have to download so much or kcontrol)
MS has the market. People stand in line on the first day of a new MS OS and gladly pay for it. Thats what really burns most Linux people I know. People, who are in way forced or co-erced into buy it, run out and buy it like its candy. People really like Microsoft. Thats a big deal.
Seems like you know different people. I know people who hate Microsoft but are forced to use it because of this or that app, I know a lot of people who simply don't care and will just use what is preinstalled, whatever it is.
First, the applications are not there and won't be there because developing for the Linux Desktop is difficult.
Again - as usual - no example.
All mainstream apps are there. But with Wine this will be irrelevant as you can run Win32 apps on Linux, right?
I'd really like to know what mainstream-app "isn't there" on Linux, but since you don't know much about desktop-Linux, you probably can't come up with an example.
Niche apps are missing like 3D-Studio Max and of course no matter how good a Linux counterpart is, if the user is used to the Windows app, he will prefer it (see Photoshop vs. Gimp) - That's why we need Wine.
And for games of course.
Second, fundamentally Linux has been designed and continues to focus around flexibility over ease of use.
Again, no example, just FUD.
Flexibility does not hurt ease of use. I can use up to 16 desktops in KDE, but I also can use just one like in Windows and will never know about the other 15 desktops.
I can recompile the kernel for better performance, but I don't have to.
And Third and Finally, Microsoft owns the desktop OS market, has a vast mindshare (how many newbies do you know think MS is the computer?) and continues to improve it's products.
I agree that they own the market. However they are squeezing more and more out of the market.
Of course they improve their products, but KDE/Linux improves much faster.
Unlike you, I give an example:
WinXP was the first major GUI-change (I can't write improvement with a straight face) since 6 years.
KDE was started in 1997, 1998 v1.0 was released , early 2001 v2.0, which is a rewrite from scratch, was released. Spring 2002 v3.0 will be released (not a rewrite, but a lot of improvements).
It's Microsoft which can't keep up with development.
maybe the comparison with OS/2 was not a good one, but the effect will be there: MS will continue to change their APIs their formats and at some point wine and other software will not be able to keep up with it.
OK, tell me just ONE damned program that is important to a reasonably large group of users and does not run on Windows 98.
Microsoft is currently phasing out Win95 and is breaking this and that not to work with it, but almost any 3rd party software will also work with Win95. (And most Microsoft-software except the most recent, too.)
If Wine trails the latest Microsoft "innovations" by 2 years, I don't see a problem. Can you come up with an example?
People: If you would post some examples along with your FUD (oh, yes: "Wine can't keep up, your apps will all break" is pure fear, uncertainity and doubt.) you would be much more credible.
You are entirely wrong. Linux is an alternative,
Not since very long. I still remember about 3 years ago I had to recompile a kernel for sound support.
and many Win32 apps can run on Linux.
All apps important for me did not work under Wine:
- Internet Explorer with DirectX (actually not important for me but a friend)
- WinHP (Connectivity to HP-calculators)
- VirtualDub
- NFS3
So no, Win32 apps don't run.
I've bought Crossover and I'm very happy with it and it clearly shows the possibilities. But Wine just is not there yet. It's getting better and better and it won't be long anymore, but right now it's not there yet.
Yet the market share of Linux hasn't caught up.
Actually it did, Linux is the fastest growing OS in servers and embedded systems. On the desktop it grows, too.
Even if all apps could run on Linux/Non-MS OS
First you claim that all apps can run, now you say "even if"?
, it still wont catch up. That's because at the fundamental level many if not all novice and business level users think that any OS where you have to type commands manually without error is a step backwards, not forwards.
It once was like that. But these times are over.
Now you tell me why I should consider KDE/Linux as such an OS? (Yes, I say KDE/Linux, in your face, RMS)
Just look at SuSE or Mandrake and tell me what GUI-tool you are missing.
Is it just me, or does it seem that the Linux-bashers never looked at a recent Linux-distribution?
It takes a lot of pressure and a lot of errors on MS's part to overcome that and induce a switch.
Oh, WPA and the constant price hike seems just like that kind of error.
15 years ago, DOS (retail) made up about 1 to 2 % of total system costs.
Now, Windows makes up about 10 to 20% of total system costs, if you add in Office, it is as high as 50%.
Of course OEMs get discounts, but that's not the point. The point is that Microsoft's share becomes higher and higher and that the pressure for OEMs to switch to alternatives becomes higher and higher.
At the same time, Linux is becoming easier and Wine will soon be usable for real-world usage.
For an PC-maker, Wine/Linux could double or even triple the margin. Not bad, eh?
Right or wrong, MS isn't going anywhere. They will be here in 5 years, they will be here in 10 years, and they will be here in 20 years.
That's correct.
Reread my post please, I said that Windows won't last long. Of course Microsoft won't go away, but Windows will.
No OS can run Windows apps better than Windows itself.
While this is true now there is no reason why it should stay that way.
Does MS Windows serve files via Microsoft's SMB-protocol really better and faster than Linux?
I don't think so
Does Intel-chips run apps using Intel's IA32-ISA really better and faster than AMD? I don't think so.
Is an IBM-PC really running better than the clones like Dell, Compaq or HP?
There is absolutely no reason why Wine shouldn't be able to run Windows-applications better/faster than Windows itself one day. Of course the Win32 API is much more complex than the SMB-protocol, but it the same kind of problem.
The problem of Microsoft's monopoly will not be solved by making Windows emulating layers over Linux. Their monopoly is based on the "double" monopoly they have on Office and on Windows. If Office runs on Lindows or on Wine, you can trust Microsoft will find ways to make it runeable only on Windows, as complete compatibility is unpossible with all the undocumented features there is in Windows.
AFAIK according to Microsoft's own numbers over 80% of MS Office users use Office 97 or 2K, so whether the newest Office doesn't runs on Wine or not is not that important.
To break the dominance of Windows, there is no need to convert 100% of users.
IMHO the only way to break Microsoft's Monopoly is to break it on the 'Office' Apps, not on the OS layer.
Summarized, in a market with network effects, the value of a product INCREASES with the number of people using it.
That's why network effects benefit the biggest player in the field and kill off the smaller players.
If Lindows succeeds, this would greatly benefit Linux, because the userbase that can run Linux apps would increase (see above: this means more Linux-users and also more native Linux-apps) and the playingfield would be just a bit more leveled.
EVERYTHING that increases interoperability with Windows and decreases incompatibility is helping Linux and Linux-users.
Of course if Lindows remains too closed, their chances are slim.
The open-source community has created drivers for most hardware, supports most CPUs and has created an almost complete set of applications. No company can achieve something like this. That's why all commercial OSes were quickly killed off, but Linux gained marketshare. In a leveled playing field (= PC-makers are no longer threatened by MS to preinstall Windows and another reasonable Win32-compatible alternative exists (Lindows or Linux with Wine, or something else)) Windows would not last long.
Kind of makes you think about the price of software.
The 339$ you spend in 2001 for Word (or Office) are not going into development. There are much more important things to do:
- Make shareholders happy with 40% net profit margin
- Pay huge marketing campaign which dwarf development costs.
- Pay bloated management, lawers and a lot of other people not related to the actual development.
and most importantly:
- Pay for loss-leaders like XBox, MSN, WebTV, the "Otto" project, the "HomeR" project, Penwindows, Modular Windows, COOl, Microsoft Bob, MMOSA and Internet Explorer.
People, let's face it: MS Office is a pretty much finished product. (and is so for a couple of years)
I think XBox was Microsoft's biggest mistake so far, the chances of success are extremely low and unlike software, a mistake in hardware costs really a lot of money. And most importantly, Microsoft will lose their winner's "they set the standards" image.
You have one very strange idea of free. But if that's free to you, I think I'll put ads in the paper that say "free tires" and when you talk to me I'll tell you that you have to buy the car to get the free tires.
Thanks for this paragraph, it's really hitting the nail on the head. (And gave me a good laugh, too)
Your computer is open if you stumble across a specially constructed site. If you browse/. the news, stock quotes etc. then you're prett much safe.
Pretty much, yes.
Depends if "pretty much" is good enough for you. With Code-Red, Code-Red2 and Nimda, Millions of webservers were infected and Nimda already did something to infect clients via IE.
All the user sees as a prompt is "Open" or "Save Target As" using the menu options OR again "Open, Save, Cancel" by clicking on the link.
For an inexperienced user, the appropriate option will probably not be obvious. This is because many users have a lot of trouble navigating the file system to find files that have been saved by applications and enjoy the shortcut of having the windows decide how the file should be 'opened'.
I agree that an experienced user would never choose open because they know this is very risky. But, in my mother's case, she has trouble deciding when to click and doubleclick.
I can't believe how fast every design flaw in IE/Outlook/Windows is becoming "the user's fault".
There is a lot of non-html content on the net and when I encounter a.pdf I press "open" without a second thought, I do it all the time.
Is it really asking too much that Internet Explorer and Outlook tell me the *real* file type? What's the big advantage in hiding file extensions and messed up concepts like this?
This is not just another bug, it is a DESIGN flaw.
Before you ask: No I don't use Outlook/IE and those security flaws are one of the reasons. I don't consider people stupid who were fooled by Outlook. (it was Outlook and not ILOVEYOU who made the users believe it was just a textfile. I don't consider a user stupid because he believed Outlook. You can't expect a newbie to know that you can't trust Microsoft's programs) But I do consider people stupid who recommend Outlook and Internet Explorer to newbies.
You're right - it's a scary thought that one day XP could become unusuable when Microsoft decides to stop supporting it and handing out registration codes. That's a great reason to avoid using a version of XP that requires registration.
However, we're talking about Win95 here...
Don't you see that Microsoft is limiting the user's freedom and on step after another?
Crippling DirectX not to work with Win95 is just one step in the series of steps from relative freedom (DOS) to total Microsoft-control (1 or 2 versons after WinXP).
For example "planned obsolescense" or "product activation" would have been obcsene with DOS. The people who say that those are not "that bad" just miss the part that it's just to get used to the real hard stuff like forced subscription.
I'm sorry, but this is totally ridiculous. How are they deciding what the user can't use? It's not like Win95 is not going to work anymore
Rule #1 for defending Microsoft:
Be so narrowminded and shortsighted to fail to see any future developments. And call everybody ridiculous who does.
It's correct that Win95 continues to work, but for WinXP you will need Microsoft's good will (aka WPA). Of course they will grant you gracefully to use XP, so that people like you can tell how nice Microsoft is and nothing changes. However the version after WinXP, will have WPA that works and will be enforced so people like you will tell us that nothing changes, MS just enforces what they did not before. BTW, they force XP on new PCs and inflate XP-selling numbers to proclaim XP as "the standard" and abandon older versions earlier.
Is Microsoft evil? No, they just don't care about laws and can get away with it. (BTW: Didn't Bill Gates lie under oath? Wouldn't mere mortals go to jail or at least be fined?)
Slashdot Mirror
I second that. And because the codebase does not change, it should be a lot more stable than KDE2.0.
I know a lot of people who have tried KDE2.0 and left it because it was quite buggy.
KDE3.0 will (hopefully) be stable from version.0 on, so the large audience trying the .0 version won't be scared away from it.
I think KDE3 will make inroads in the desktop-market.
I've been waiting for that for a LONG time...
Unfortunately it's still in the "TODO" group, but I think this feature is worth waiting for.
Double standard ahead.
If you - gasp - buy the SuSE package you can just pop in the DVD and have a working system in less than an hour.
Actually SuSE is easier to configure than Windows, because the configuration stuff is organized in a TREE structure in kcontrol and not just thrown without any order into a directory.
What great features were added after Excel 97 ?
I couldn't have said it better.
If I want automatic I'll just go by bus ;-)
I know this was meant as a joke, but I'll comment anyway:
Microsoft absolutely has to make sure that retail Windows and any WinPC programs do NOT run on XBox. Not (only) because they are losing money on the XBox, but more importantly, they would piss off PC-makers if they would start to become a competitor.
Remember OS/2?
Although the myths and sayings tell otherwise, the MAIN REASON for OS/2 failing was that PC-makers did not like the idea of being dependent on a direct competitor (IBM).
Do you or do you not think that Windows will be around in the future?
That was answered in the first post of mine.
More specificly, proprietary software platforms will become niche players, just like proprietary hardware platforms are becoming right now.
You assume that I am Linux basher.
You NEVER bring examples and just spread FUD. If you are no Linux basher, you surely post like one.
You said it would be terrible if Wine can't emulate the latest-greatest, I pointed out that a 2 year-lag would be more than enough - no response.
You said that in Linux you have to use the CLI all the time but even after several times I could not get an example from you.
What exactly is the difference between you and a Linux-basher?
I merely contend that your assement that Linux will somehow quickly destroy Windows if only apps would run and OEM's are allowed to distribute it is wrong. The DOJ settlement will end MS's ability to retaliate against OEM's.
I hope so, but I doubt it. Maybe the EU will be more effective, though.
Lindows will soon be released. Wine gets better all the time. Care to make a wager about when the end of Windows will be?
OK, that's a difficult question.
I would guess that within 5 or 6 years a lot of OEMs will preinstall Linux and Linux will reach a significant desktop marketshare (> 25%)
After that, the process will accelerate and Windows will be a legacy system within another 5 years.
Microsoft has not the manpower to write drivers for all peripherals like OSS can easily do.
Microsoft-fans always point out how powerful and great Microsoft is. In the real world their huge development capacities are DWARFED by the OSS community.
Once the iron grip on the OEMs is broken, they will never get it back.
Care to wager how long it will take for hundreds of millions of computers to migrate to a non-Windows OS?
As I've already pointed out, it will be on new PCs.
You are wrong. Your premise is wrong.
It's pretty lame. I bring examples and arguments all the time and the best you come up with is this.
Fact is that IN THE WHOLE THREAD you did not bring one single real world example to reinforce your arguments.
So what? In 24 hours 80,000 people had purchased SuSE 7.0 last year. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/axv-25.08.00-0 02/
2. I have a machine with a spottly supported sound card. I had to download some source, extract it, compile it, and build it into my kernel.
Because you choose not to mention what soundcard, this cannot be verified.
Unlike you I do mention my hardware: - A ASUS K7V mobo with VIA KX133 chipset with onboard sound
- A Netgear networking card - A Matrox G400
SuSE 7.1 and 7.3 detected all of the above, Windows 98 and ME detected none of the above. (Had to feed driver CDs/floppies)
And in Linux all works flawlessly, in Windows I had a Bluescreen (in 98, 98SE and ME) before shutdown (so that checkdisk ran on every bootup). I had to install a new chipset driver off the net to get rid of the bluescreens.
Since your problem with this strange nameless soundcard seems to be related to the kernel and there was a patch, it should work with the standard kernel by now.
No OS will work with unuspported hardware and no PC-maker will sell unsupported hardware. (And BTW, Linux has better hardware-support than WinXP because they changed the driver-model again)
3. You mention that in real-life that it is easier to setup a workplace with Linux. I disagree strongly. A good IT person with some Windows experience can easily automate the deployment of any number of machines - complete with applications, patches, and every setting pre-customized for the end user.
You are switching topics. First you talk about the poor poor end users, then all of the sudden you talk about mass-deployment.
You Linux-bashers should make up your mind.
But OK, I'll comment on this other topic, too:
Debian can be adequately mass-deployed via apt-get and SuSE has recently released a tool for it (ALICE).
4. You mention that Wine isn't very useful today. I agree. However, it is useful for a number of applications. My original point was that it is possible to make Win32 applications run under Linux.
Possible does not mean usable for a large group of users.
I consider Wine ready for the masses as soon as it runs all apps with some rare exceptions and when it is integrated with the distributions.
To compete on the OEM level, Linux/Non-MS OS's will have to (a) save them the bulk of that 10%-20%, (b) provide all the same features, (c) provide excellent compatibility, and (d) provide opportunity for additional and continuing revenue to the OEM.
a: Yes.
b: Yes.
c: No. That's why we need Wine.
d: Don't know what you mean.
Linux can save them money; however, the question is how much would Linux cost to distrubte?
The same as Windows (support, custimization) minus license costs.
On Windows, the PC-makers have to do the support, remember?
The main point is this: to get that 10% - 20% increase in revenue may well require more work, upfront cost, and risk than most OEMs are willing to accept.
It's not 10% to 20% more revenue, it's 10 to 20% less costs.
Anyway, it's only risky when they have to fear Microsoft, otherwise there is no risk in offering Linux (or no OS at all) as an option.
In Germany Vobis was the biggest PC-maker in the early 90s. Vobis decided to sell PCs with OS/2 preinstalled and was punished by Microsoft with "delivery problems" and higher license prices. That nearly drove them out of business.
Of course the PC-makers remember that and are afraid of Microsoft. That's why I think it will be smaller PC-makers first preinstalling Linux. Anyway, Linux becomes more and more tempting for PC-makers, it's just a matter of time.
applications I wrote against Windows 95 operate with 100% binary compatibility with Windows XP and everything in between. Applications written against KDE 1.0 and under are binary incompatible, and even require substantial rewrites, with newer versions of KDE. That's not a good feature.
Wrong, it's a good feature. Most if not all distributions provide the KDE1-libs so that KDE1 apps still run without any problems.
However this legacy support is easily dropped and is not slowing down the system forever.
The majority of those 454 apps don't run with all features.
While I agree that Wine looks very promising and already shows what WILL BE DONE, today it's only rarely useful.
So I think it is clearly a true statement when I said "apps can run". They can run under a non-Windows OS, and as time goes on, more will. However, it is irrelevant.
No it's not. It's the ONLY thing currently holding back Linux.
The reason it is irrelevant is that despite you're claims about KDE/Linux (btw, I DO run a *nix operating system, its FreeBSD - and barely a month goes by that I dont check out a new Linux distro) it is still a major shift in how most people think about their PC and how to use it. The level of understand of the average PC user is very low. This average level of understanding is very brutish - very "if I do this thing over here this other thing will work how I want". The level of comprehension is very low, even for Windows users. Quite frankly Linux isn't now (even with the easiest, most streamlined of distros) for these people and I can't honestly forsee how it ever could be for them.
Blah, blah, blah, fud, fud, fud.
I asked for an example and got useless blabbering as response.
In real life, with Linux it's easier to set up a workplace because so many things come with the distribution and don't have to be downloaded/installed from CD like in Windows.
The easiness-problem is pretty much solved. There are maybe some rough edges, just like in Windows (have you seen a newbie not knowing double-clicking? For a real newbie, KDE is easier because of that), but it's certainly good enough.
The problem is that when somebody switches, he misses all his apps he is used to.
That's why Wine is great for Linux.
However, what you are forgetting is that DOS didnt do ANYTHING. I mean really think about what DOS 6.22 did. The answer is nothing. It was a useless tool in terms of computing.
Now, THIS is irrelevant.
Or do you really suggest that an OEM happily pays more for Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer instead of just installing Realplayer and Mozilla/Netscape?
No, PC-makers have to look at their bottom-line.
Windows will not be dying anytime soon (unless MS just renames it, not likely). XP is a taste of where things are going. And like it or hate it; people look at an OS based on a command line and say: "ick, why would I want that?". Granted, a modern distro hides most of that; but when the tough gets going the command line is the place you really have to go.
Again, no example, just the usual FUD. In SuSE you can do EVERYTHING desktop-related in the GUI and UNLIKE Windows, it's all organized in a tree-like structure and integrated in kcontrol, not just thrown in a directory without order.
If it's so terribly complicated, why can't you come up with just one lame example?
OK, since obviously you can't, I will: The only thing that is significantly more difficult in SuSE than in Windows is setting the screen resolution. (But you don't have to touch the CLI, neither, its all graphical)
But that's pretty much it. In other areas Linux is easier (I already mentioned that you don't have to download so much or kcontrol)
MS has the market. People stand in line on the first day of a new MS OS and gladly pay for it. Thats what really burns most Linux people I know. People, who are in way forced or co-erced into buy it, run out and buy it like its candy. People really like Microsoft. Thats a big deal.
Seems like you know different people. I know people who hate Microsoft but are forced to use it because of this or that app, I know a lot of people who simply don't care and will just use what is preinstalled, whatever it is.
First, the applications are not there and won't be there because developing for the Linux Desktop is difficult.
Again - as usual - no example.
All mainstream apps are there. But with Wine this will be irrelevant as you can run Win32 apps on Linux, right?
I'd really like to know what mainstream-app "isn't there" on Linux, but since you don't know much about desktop-Linux, you probably can't come up with an example.
Niche apps are missing like 3D-Studio Max and of course no matter how good a Linux counterpart is, if the user is used to the Windows app, he will prefer it (see Photoshop vs. Gimp) - That's why we need Wine.
And for games of course.
Second, fundamentally Linux has been designed and continues to focus around flexibility over ease of use.
Again, no example, just FUD.
Flexibility does not hurt ease of use. I can use up to 16 desktops in KDE, but I also can use just one like in Windows and will never know about the other 15 desktops.
I can recompile the kernel for better performance, but I don't have to.
And Third and Finally, Microsoft owns the desktop OS market, has a vast mindshare (how many newbies do you know think MS is the computer?) and continues to improve it's products.
I agree that they own the market. However they are squeezing more and more out of the market.
Of course they improve their products, but KDE/Linux improves much faster.
Unlike you, I give an example:
WinXP was the first major GUI-change (I can't write improvement with a straight face) since 6 years.
KDE was started in 1997, 1998 v1.0 was released , early 2001 v2.0, which is a rewrite from scratch, was released. Spring 2002 v3.0 will be released (not a rewrite, but a lot of improvements).
It's Microsoft which can't keep up with development.
OK, tell me just ONE damned program that is important to a reasonably large group of users and does not run on Windows 98.
Microsoft is currently phasing out Win95 and is breaking this and that not to work with it, but almost any 3rd party software will also work with Win95. (And most Microsoft-software except the most recent, too.)
If Wine trails the latest Microsoft "innovations" by 2 years, I don't see a problem. Can you come up with an example?
People: If you would post some examples along with your FUD (oh, yes: "Wine can't keep up, your apps will all break" is pure fear, uncertainity and doubt.) you would be much more credible.
All apps important for me did not work under Wine:
- Internet Explorer with DirectX (actually not important for me but a friend)
- WinHP (Connectivity to HP-calculators)
- VirtualDub
- NFS3
So no, Win32 apps don't run.
I've bought Crossover and I'm very happy with it and it clearly shows the possibilities. But Wine just is not there yet. It's getting better and better and it won't be long anymore, but right now it's not there yet.
Yet the market share of Linux hasn't caught up.
Actually it did, Linux is the fastest growing OS in servers and embedded systems. On the desktop it grows, too.
Even if all apps could run on Linux/Non-MS OS
First you claim that all apps can run, now you say "even if"?
, it still wont catch up. That's because at the fundamental level many if not all novice and business level users think that any OS where you have to type commands manually without error is a step backwards, not forwards.
It once was like that. But these times are over.
Now you tell me why I should consider KDE/Linux as such an OS? (Yes, I say KDE/Linux, in your face, RMS)
Just look at SuSE or Mandrake and tell me what GUI-tool you are missing.
Is it just me, or does it seem that the Linux-bashers never looked at a recent Linux-distribution?
It takes a lot of pressure and a lot of errors on MS's part to overcome that and induce a switch. Oh, WPA and the constant price hike seems just like that kind of error.
15 years ago, DOS (retail) made up about 1 to 2 % of total system costs.
Now, Windows makes up about 10 to 20% of total system costs, if you add in Office, it is as high as 50%.
Of course OEMs get discounts, but that's not the point. The point is that Microsoft's share becomes higher and higher and that the pressure for OEMs to switch to alternatives becomes higher and higher.
At the same time, Linux is becoming easier and Wine will soon be usable for real-world usage.
For an PC-maker, Wine/Linux could double or even triple the margin. Not bad, eh?
Right or wrong, MS isn't going anywhere. They will be here in 5 years, they will be here in 10 years, and they will be here in 20 years.
That's correct.
Reread my post please, I said that Windows won't last long. Of course Microsoft won't go away, but Windows will.
Nonsense. OS/2 was killed because PC-makers didn't like it because IBM is a competitor and Microsoft is not.
Think about it: The main reason XBox uses messed-up incompatible USB-ports is so that PC-makers don't see it as a threat.
No OS can run Windows apps better than Windows itself.
While this is true now there is no reason why it should stay that way.
Does MS Windows serve files via Microsoft's SMB-protocol really better and faster than Linux? I don't think so
Does Intel-chips run apps using Intel's IA32-ISA really better and faster than AMD? I don't think so.
Is an IBM-PC really running better than the clones like Dell, Compaq or HP?
There is absolutely no reason why Wine shouldn't be able to run Windows-applications better/faster than Windows itself one day. Of course the Win32 API is much more complex than the SMB-protocol, but it the same kind of problem.
AFAIK according to Microsoft's own numbers over 80% of MS Office users use Office 97 or 2K, so whether the newest Office doesn't runs on Wine or not is not that important.
To break the dominance of Windows, there is no need to convert 100% of users.
IMHO the only way to break Microsoft's Monopoly is to break it on the 'Office' Apps, not on the OS layer.
Well, StarOffice 6 looks very promising.
That's why network effects benefit the biggest player in the field and kill off the smaller players.
If Lindows succeeds, this would greatly benefit Linux, because the userbase that can run Linux apps would increase (see above: this means more Linux-users and also more native Linux-apps) and the playingfield would be just a bit more leveled.
EVERYTHING that increases interoperability with Windows and decreases incompatibility is helping Linux and Linux-users.
Of course if Lindows remains too closed, their chances are slim.
The open-source community has created drivers for most hardware, supports most CPUs and has created an almost complete set of applications. No company can achieve something like this. That's why all commercial OSes were quickly killed off, but Linux gained marketshare. In a leveled playing field (= PC-makers are no longer threatened by MS to preinstall Windows and another reasonable Win32-compatible alternative exists (Lindows or Linux with Wine, or something else)) Windows would not last long.
The 339$ you spend in 2001 for Word (or Office) are not going into development. There are much more important things to do:
- Make shareholders happy with 40% net profit margin
- Pay huge marketing campaign which dwarf development costs.
- Pay bloated management, lawers and a lot of other people not related to the actual development.
and most importantly:
- Pay for loss-leaders like XBox, MSN, WebTV, the "Otto" project, the "HomeR" project, Penwindows, Modular Windows, COOl, Microsoft Bob, MMOSA and Internet Explorer.
People, let's face it: MS Office is a pretty much finished product. (and is so for a couple of years)
I think XBox was Microsoft's biggest mistake so far, the chances of success are extremely low and unlike software, a mistake in hardware costs really a lot of money. And most importantly, Microsoft will lose their winner's "they set the standards" image.
But this is getting offtopic...
Thanks for this paragraph, it's really hitting the nail on the head. (And gave me a good laugh, too)
(4) Mozilla is readily available.
Is the message I'm supposed to get out of this that I must upgrade all the Win95 machines I might contact in order to keep them safe?
If you can avoid the "Oh my god, it's not from Microsoft" scare, then no.
Well in this case it *IS* a fundamental design flaw because Windows/IE seems to handle file types inconsistently.
Pretty much, yes.
Depends if "pretty much" is good enough for you. With Code-Red, Code-Red2 and Nimda, Millions of webservers were infected and Nimda already did something to infect clients via IE.
For an inexperienced user, the appropriate option will probably not be obvious. This is because many users have a lot of trouble navigating the file system to find files that have been saved by applications and enjoy the shortcut of having the windows decide how the file should be 'opened'.
I agree that an experienced user would never choose open because they know this is very risky. But, in my mother's case, she has trouble deciding when to click and doubleclick.
I can't believe how fast every design flaw in IE/Outlook/Windows is becoming "the user's fault".
There is a lot of non-html content on the net and when I encounter a .pdf I press "open" without a second thought, I do it all the time.
Is it really asking too much that Internet Explorer and Outlook tell me the *real* file type? What's the big advantage in hiding file extensions and messed up concepts like this?
This is not just another bug, it is a DESIGN flaw.
Before you ask: No I don't use Outlook/IE and those security flaws are one of the reasons. I don't consider people stupid who were fooled by Outlook. (it was Outlook and not ILOVEYOU who made the users believe it was just a textfile. I don't consider a user stupid because he believed Outlook. You can't expect a newbie to know that you can't trust Microsoft's programs) But I do consider people stupid who recommend Outlook and Internet Explorer to newbies.
There are a lot of alternatives out there.
T1 was a great movie, T2 is (apart from the special effects which were good at the time, but look not that exciting today) mediocre.
But that's just my opinion of course.
However, we're talking about Win95 here...
Don't you see that Microsoft is limiting the user's freedom and on step after another? Crippling DirectX not to work with Win95 is just one step in the series of steps from relative freedom (DOS) to total Microsoft-control (1 or 2 versons after WinXP).
For example "planned obsolescense" or "product activation" would have been obcsene with DOS. The people who say that those are not "that bad" just miss the part that it's just to get used to the real hard stuff like forced subscription.
Rule #1 for defending Microsoft:
Be so narrowminded and shortsighted to fail to see any future developments. And call everybody ridiculous who does.
It's correct that Win95 continues to work, but for WinXP you will need Microsoft's good will (aka WPA). Of course they will grant you gracefully to use XP, so that people like you can tell how nice Microsoft is and nothing changes. However the version after WinXP, will have WPA that works and will be enforced so people like you will tell us that nothing changes, MS just enforces what they did not before. BTW, they force XP on new PCs and inflate
XP-selling numbers to proclaim XP as "the standard" and abandon older versions earlier.
Is Microsoft evil? No, they just don't care about laws and can get away with it. (BTW: Didn't Bill Gates lie under oath? Wouldn't mere mortals go to jail or at least be fined?)
Is Windows a safe investment? Only in short-term.