Why do people on Slashdot insist on knocking Microsoft just because they copied everyone else.
Who's knocking? He was simply pointing out that the Times wasn't reporting accurately when they said that MS created the first bunch of "killer apps".
What is Linux except a lame UNIX clone?
If Linux is lame, then how come it's better than everything else out there? What did you say? It's just better for me? Well it's just lame for you.
At least Microsoft copied software written in the 80s when we knew a little about usability.
Then why do you have to press the start button to stop using your computer?
So let's have a look at the Linux usability tools - KDE and Gnome. And what are they? Cheap, slow and buggy Windows 95 knock-offs.
Cheap? Yup. Exactly what is bad about that?
Slow? I can't speak for GNOME, but KDE is getting quicker with each release. Is Windows?
Buggy? I get less crashes with a KDE prerelease than I did with any Microsoft software I have ever used. Seriously.
Win95 knock-off? If it's a Win95 knock-off, then they are very usable according to your previous statements. But they aren't trying to copy Win95. Take a look at their published goals before you start spouting off. Their goals are to produce a good, free, easy-to-use desktop environment, taking the best from current systems and retaining a few of the not-so-good design features for the default to make it easy to migrate.
...once they get out into the real world ("oh, no, I have to get my rent somehow, my parents won't bail me out any more") they realize that getting paid for time and effort is the crux of the issue.
Yes, but that's the difference. When a person buys a copy of the software, they don't get the time and effort. They get the software. A better model would be where people pay for improvements to existing, free software. That way they actually get what they pay for.
Windows is a shitty OS because it is rushed into release and then SP'd to death. Windows is a shitty OS because it is written to make as many user decisions as possible...
I disagree. I think that Windows is a shitty OS because the primary intent is to make money, and not an operating system.
One famous saying that applies to Linux is this: too many cooks spoil the broth.
Do you know what that saying even means, or did you just stop thinking at the "too many" bit? Don't worry, I already know the answer.
With the thousands of driver modules, library modules, and executables, Linux is one big mob of code.
And you think that it would be less code if the drivers, libraries and programs were globbed into one giant 2GB file? And just as flexible? And just as maintainable?
It's surprising that it's as stable as it is;
Excuse me? Being split up into clearly-defined modules, each focused on a single task, is likely to make something less stable in your opinion?
it's not surprising that it's as hard to upgrade as it is.
Hard to upgrade? If you want just a couple of things installing, then it's not hard to click a few RPMs or just use apt or whatever. If you want to upgrade across the board, then just pop a CD in, boot from it, and most distributions will ask you if you want to upgrade. I don't see Windows being any better in this respect, yet I see it as being less flexible.
When I begin coding software
Oh, so you are new to writing software? I never would have guessed, I mean you show such a flair for good design.
I will keep modularity to a minimum
And reinvent the wheel every time you write a new program? Or do you think that if you link statically, your code isn't modular?
and I will never code for Linux or release my source code.
One word: gutted.
Since you are new to software development (assuming you aren't trolling), how about you accept that there just might be the slightest chance that people with more experience and skill have put more than a little thought into how both systems work. Then examine how each system works and learn from it. I'm pretty sure you'll find that Windows is a lot more modular than you think.
There are many windows installers. Some suck (mainly in a bloat sense), some are excellent. Most perform flawlessly.
Are you trolling? Have you used any at all? If, by "performing flawlessly", you mean "there isn't a chance of being able to remove it completely" and perhaps "it automagically fucks up whatever file associations you have set up", then perhaps I can agree.
RPM can only dream of being as good as some of the better ones.
Bzzt - way wrong. RPM isn't "an installer" - it's a package management system. This isn't just a way of getting your program onto millions of hapless desktops. It's a way of managing what's installed on your system. There isn't, as far as I am aware, a single package management system for Windows. Yes, you have a crippled little bunch of registry keys, and the defecto:) standard of installshield for installing/uninstalling, but that's it. No querying, no checksums, little to no versioning, etc, etc. The list goes on.
Nullsoft superPIMP installer is good - excellent compression, low overhead, totally free.
Really? So it has to do the archiving itself, it has to do the compression itself, and it has to be wrapped in executable code that does all this for every single application you want to install? Now that's really low overhead.
You can guarantee that it'll be the end users that'll find these bugs, and that they'll complain to whoever sold/provided them with the software. Remember, end users can be relied upon to use the software in the most convoluted, even stupid, ways, and when they're doing something in a manner the programmer didn't anticipate chances are they'll find bugs.
What? Since when do people complain when they buy shoddy software? Most of the people I know just sigh and reboot.
Another problem that introduces a lot of errors today is the increasing use of third-party components and applications within software projects. These introduce another point of failure, and one in which the programmers have less control over what goes on, and less knowledge about possible solutions. Even if you have the source for the component, it's still much more likely that using it will introduce problems, either in the interface between your app and the component, or in the component itself.
Code reuse decreases the amount of bugs and the cost of developing/maintaining software. Why? Somebody has already debugged the component - and with every application that uses the component, there is a greater chance of finding and fixing an obscure bug. Compare that to writing entirely new code, and I'm sure you'll find that there are more bugs in the new code.
What's illegal about their price discrimination? As long as they aren't discriminating based on a protected category (sex, age, race, etc..) they are more than free to charge you whatever they want.
But that's just it - you don't know that they aren't discriminating against protected categories - according to them, it's just a bug. BTW, in the UK at least, I think that there is a law that if somebody offers you a sale at a certain (reasonable) price, they have to honour it, for instance, mislabelled goods at the supermarket. Any UK "IAALs" in here want to clarify if this applies to Amazon.co.uk?
Unfortunatly, your compiled code and the compiled plug in code would likely be almost identical, and identifiable. Now, if you obfuscated the code somewhat before compiling, then you could cloud the issue a little.
I wasn't really talking about compiled code, but one of the advantages of plugins in general is that they can be compiled separately to the main executable, and distributed separately as well. The main executable wouldn't contain the "naughty" code.
CPHack/DeCSS and similar software have problems that revolve around a single issue: there is some sort of secret that needs to be protected/supressed, e.g. decryption code. This sort of functionality can sometimes be factored out, into a plugin of some sort. All the grunt work like a GUI, website, mailing lists, etc can be neutral (e.g. "a program to decrypt arbitrary blocking lists), which couldn't be touched. Then you can release the legally-dubious code by using an anonymous remailer/usenet gateway, in plugin format. Sure, it might be obvious that the same people wrote the plugin, but the laywers can't prove it, assuming you've done a decent job with the remailer.
When I sit down at my friend's Linux machine it's a bit wierd. Nothing works exactly like it should and I don't know where to find anything:) then I sit down at a Solaris box and the same disorientation follows. I prefer this to being in a monotonous environment but I want to ask if Windows users experience this same mild disorientation when they use other boxes than the ones they are normally on (do other unix users or am I am freak)? I am pretty sure Mac users do (again due to it's high configurability).
The only thing that bugs me when I'm using somebody else's Windows box is that I have to hunt through about two hundred submenus to find a program, because every damn program that they've installed has created a new group to put things like uninstall and readme, and they haven't cleaned up after installing it.
However, from a newbie point of view, I'd imagine Windows is better than most. For instance, if my mom sat down at my old Windows computer, she was unable to use it simply because auto-hide was switched on for the taskbar, and even if I was standing behind her, telling her what to do, she couldn't understand it. And my mom is better than most when it comes to computers. Imagine the difficulty she would have if she was used to KDE, and I had GNOME installed.
If you regularly use somebody else's machine, I suppose Linux would be better, since you can just tar up your dot files, and move them over to the other machine. If there's a network available, then it's even easier, since you can share home directories.
Ummm, I thought that if they decrypt your mother's new recipe then they have your private key, and then they can decrypt everything else you send without much force. Of course, I'm somewhat ignorant -- do people change their keys every message? Does the software exist to change the key for each packet that is sent?
Actually, I believe the way that it works in practice is that the actual message is usually encoded using a private key system (same key to encrypt/decrypt). Then, the private key is encoded with the public/private key system. This means that the relative length of the encryption key is longer, and so is stronger. But don't take my word for it, because I'm no cryptanalyst - do your own homework:)
...and more generally, this kind of line-by-line rebuttal has become standard whenever "The Community" responds to an viewpoint. To me, it comes across as a disrespectful, snotty cheap shot.
Really? It doesn't come across that way to me. Responding point by point often makes the core arguments clearer. Of course, there is also the side-effect of some people putting inane comments after a bit they don't really have an opinion about, instead of snipping.
The line-by-line format, which I guess is intended to create an impression of, "Not one single word of this makes sense!", disrupts the original statement's flow and development.
But the "flow and development" aren't the important parts of an argument. It doesn't matter if they are disrupted, in fact it sometimes reveals just how absurd some things really are.
However, I do think that Taco should have posted the letter normally, and replied to it with a comment, just like everyone else, if only in good faith to the company.
The only potential flamebait I can see is, " If Netscape used Qt, they would have release a modern cross-platform browser two years ago.
Actually, I seem to remember that some people at Trolltech ported the Mozilla codebase to QT in a couple of days, not long after the code was released. When you realise that there was already a stable, cross-platform toolkit available, you do start to wonder why all the xp stuff was written especially for Mozilla. It would definitely have cut down on the bugs and speeded things up if they had just gone with an establihed toolkit.
There is a big difference between Linux and the Mac. Macs are aimed at people who are uninterested in computers, who don't want to learn much in order to get the work done. Linux isn't aimed, whoever wants it can pick it up.*
What does this mean for games? Think about it. On the one hand, you have a group of people who don't want much to do with computers. On the other hand, you have a group of people that actively go out of their way to learn new things about computers. Which group do you think will be the most passionate about computer games?
* Yes, I'm aware these are stereotypes, and not all people fall into these categories.
Sigh. How many times does it need to be said that 99.999% of users don't know or care that the tool they use is "open"?
Talk about missing the point. Nobody is claiming that open-source will become popular because people think "wow, it's open, so it must be good!". The idea behind open-source software is that being open brings certain benefits, and those benefits attract users.
As of now, most "open" tools suck big time compared to "closed" from the user's perspective, and this doesn't seem to change too fast.
What? This only makes sense if you include every single crappy little program that's released under an open license. Anyone can release open software. You could just as easily say that most sportsmen are incredibly unfit, because it makes sense if you count everybody who has booted a football about once in their life.
How about you just count the maintained, useful projects instead? Things like Apache, BIND, KDE, etc.
Now, users might care if "open" = "free" as opposed to hundreds of dollars for M$, but according to some evangelists it's not the case either, and as "open" market matures I expect more companies hide behind this principle to charge money to make profit.
Not sure what you are getting at here. Are you claiming that because RMS says that Free software isn't about price, and that it's OK to charge for Free software, that companies can use this as a leverage to charge hundreds of dollars for things, and that the end-users will still get shafted? You do realise that the person who buys it is free to sell copies at half-price?
Speaking more generally, why would any real professional who spent years mastering their art want to give it away is beyond me.
Just because you can't understand it, it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Or are you claiming that anybody involved in OSS isn't a "real professional"?
I don't see lawyers or doctors offering their often much needed help for free
Freedom is less useful in these professions. Can somebody take a prescription, and rewrite it so that you get better more quickly? Of course not. By the way, have you checked out openlaw.org yet?
I don't honestly think that the average user would even care if Linux came with source code or not. Think about it here for a second. What good is the source code to someone who doesn't have a programming background? Sure, the code is neat to poke through, and may give you an inkling of an idea about how the system runs, but what good is it to the average user? We have to remember that not every Linux user is a programmer.
And you have to remember that it doesn't matter whether every user is a programmer. Not every user needs to contribute for the system, as a whole, to work. I'm certain you don't believe that everybody who uses Linux has contributed code for the kernel. But has every user benefited from the stability that comes from code and bugfixes contributed by others because it was free? Of course. Likewise, you don't need to convince most end-users that free software is good - you just need to convince them that people are actively contributing to development. Point them towards the kernel development mailing list. Show them the Sun press releases. Tell them about the contributions IBM is making. Explain how this came about because anybody can contribute freely. They don't need to contribute at all.
Most software has to be installed as root, especially if it's going to be of any use to its participents.
Where did you get this idea? Virtually all software I have used in unix-like systems can be installed in home directories just fine. If it's autoconf/automaked, then./configure --prefix=/home/user. RPM also provides relocation, and I assume Debian has a way, too.
With a file disk quota of 5 megs standard on most machines, do you think most users will be able to install Office (or StarOffice, or anything for that matter?)
5 meg standard? We're talking desktop systems here. If an entire organisation is using it, then individual users won't have to install it themselves. Home users probably won't be using quotas.
What I think the OP was trying to say was that it would require root privs to run, i.e. it would have to be installed suid root. Isn't this the case with their Frontpage extentions for unix? There is absolutely no need for either to be suid root, assuming good design. However, MS aren't exactly consistent when it comes to good design:)
Oh FFS, read the damn article. They aren't making a distribution for games. They are making a distribution for games consoles. This has a completely different set of requirements to a general-purpose-run-on-your-pc distro.
Making a system good for beginners does not mean crippling it for advanced users.
Yes, in a perfect world you could design an interface that would be intuitive to beginners but flexible and powerful for advanced users...
No! The person you are replying to didn't mention interface. The word was system. I agree that it's damn difficult to create an interface that will be ultra-easy for newbies and ultra-powerful for experts. That's why a choice of interfaces is good!
No more legacy 8 and 16 bit processes should mean more stability.
Removing the DOS layer does nothing for stability. If you want stability on Windows in this respect, you just don't run old apps. However, if you have got a legacy app, you should be able to trade stability for it. MS is just removing that option.
Frankly if you remove the main system files of any operating system (eg, delete the windows directory as was suggested), it will probably crash. Try removing/bin from un*x, and see what happens.
In previous version of Windows, there was a DOS layer underneath that was fully functional (for DOS, anyway). It is no longer there - this was more like removing/usr/bin instead - which still leaves unix functional. Take a look at the FHS, it specifically refers to/bin and/sbin as being for critical files, and a system should work with only those present.
this seems like a totally legitimate effort by microsoft to prepare people for the fact that they are going to expect them to move over to the NT platform in the near future.
How on EARTH can anything like that be legitimate? So what if they expect people to switch over? Surely people should switch over if there is good enough reason?
If they want to "prepare" people for switching over, then they should just tell people. Oh wait, they did - over and over again.
They use then because we are safe in the knowledge that they have been strenuosly tested for deployment in large scale organisations.
Really? I would have thought that the first priority would be to get something that does the job. I'm not saying that Windows doesn't do this (although in many cases, it's debatable), but you seem to be deliberately choosing one relatively small consideration, in which Windows is clearly the winner (due to it's market share), and blowing it up out of proportion.
I for one, would not even consider using Linux at work for the following reasons:
Users : Most office people are stupid with computers. It is difficult enough to set up a printer with Windows and I know what I am doing. It would be a nightmare with RedHat.
Which is completely irrelevent. "Most office people" won't be setting up printers, that's what support technicians like you are for.
Support : Most people do not have RedHat skills, it would be more difficult to find them.
Likewise, "most people" don't need Redhat skills - all they need to be able to do is use KDE or GNOME, which are both very similar to Windows.
Qualifications : How would I be able to determine the suitability of an applicant if
they do not have something like an MCSE ? I see that you can have a RedHat certificate. So before everyone jumps up and down with delight I think that you should stop and think about the above points, as this helps no one.
Congratulations, you have completely lost me. First you say that not having the equivelant of an MCSE is awful, then you say that there is the equivelant, but it "helps no one"?
And please stop using your percieved flaws in Redhat as arguments against using Linux - Redhat is not Linux
Slashdot Mirror
By then kfm or the Konqueror will be out in 2.x or 3.x fashion with full flash, JavaScript and Java support..
It already has all that.
Why do people on Slashdot insist on knocking Microsoft just because they copied everyone else.
Who's knocking? He was simply pointing out that the Times wasn't reporting accurately when they said that MS created the first bunch of "killer apps".
What is Linux except a lame UNIX clone?
If Linux is lame, then how come it's better than everything else out there? What did you say? It's just better for me? Well it's just lame for you.
At least Microsoft copied software written in the 80s when we knew a little about usability.
Then why do you have to press the start button to stop using your computer?
So let's have a look at the Linux usability tools - KDE and Gnome. And what are they? Cheap, slow and buggy Windows 95 knock-offs.
Cheap? Yup. Exactly what is bad about that?
Slow? I can't speak for GNOME, but KDE is getting quicker with each release. Is Windows?
Buggy? I get less crashes with a KDE prerelease than I did with any Microsoft software I have ever used. Seriously.
Win95 knock-off? If it's a Win95 knock-off, then they are very usable according to your previous statements. But they aren't trying to copy Win95. Take a look at their published goals before you start spouting off. Their goals are to produce a good, free, easy-to-use desktop environment, taking the best from current systems and retaining a few of the not-so-good design features for the default to make it easy to migrate.
Microsoft are the market leaders
But they aren't the technology leaders.
Yes, but that's the difference. When a person buys a copy of the software, they don't get the time and effort. They get the software. A better model would be where people pay for improvements to existing, free software. That way they actually get what they pay for.
And don't be too condescending, will you?
Windows is a shitty OS because it is rushed into release and then SP'd to death. Windows is a shitty OS because it is written to make as many user decisions as possible...
I disagree. I think that Windows is a shitty OS because the primary intent is to make money, and not an operating system.
One famous saying that applies to Linux is this: too many cooks spoil the broth.
Do you know what that saying even means, or did you just stop thinking at the "too many" bit? Don't worry, I already know the answer.
With the thousands of driver modules, library modules, and executables, Linux is one big mob of code.
And you think that it would be less code if the drivers, libraries and programs were globbed into one giant 2GB file? And just as flexible? And just as maintainable?
It's surprising that it's as stable as it is;
Excuse me? Being split up into clearly-defined modules, each focused on a single task, is likely to make something less stable in your opinion?it's not surprising that it's as hard to upgrade as it is.
Hard to upgrade? If you want just a couple of things installing, then it's not hard to click a few RPMs or just use apt or whatever. If you want to upgrade across the board, then just pop a CD in, boot from it, and most distributions will ask you if you want to upgrade. I don't see Windows being any better in this respect, yet I see it as being less flexible.
When I begin coding software
Oh, so you are new to writing software? I never would have guessed, I mean you show such a flair for good design.
I will keep modularity to a minimum
And reinvent the wheel every time you write a new program? Or do you think that if you link statically, your code isn't modular?
and I will never code for Linux or release my source code.
One word: gutted.
Since you are new to software development (assuming you aren't trolling), how about you accept that there just might be the slightest chance that people with more experience and skill have put more than a little thought into how both systems work. Then examine how each system works and learn from it. I'm pretty sure you'll find that Windows is a lot more modular than you think.
There are many windows installers. Some suck (mainly in a bloat sense), some are excellent. Most perform flawlessly.
Are you trolling? Have you used any at all? If, by "performing flawlessly", you mean "there isn't a chance of being able to remove it completely" and perhaps "it automagically fucks up whatever file associations you have set up", then perhaps I can agree.
RPM can only dream of being as good as some of the better ones.
Bzzt - way wrong. RPM isn't "an installer" - it's a package management system. This isn't just a way of getting your program onto millions of hapless desktops. It's a way of managing what's installed on your system. There isn't, as far as I am aware, a single package management system for Windows. Yes, you have a crippled little bunch of registry keys, and the defecto :) standard of installshield for installing/uninstalling, but that's it. No querying, no checksums, little to no versioning, etc, etc. The list goes on.
Nullsoft superPIMP installer is good - excellent compression, low overhead, totally free.
Really? So it has to do the archiving itself, it has to do the compression itself, and it has to be wrapped in executable code that does all this for every single application you want to install? Now that's really low overhead.
Soldering irons aren't illegal under the DMCA...because it wasn't manufactured or marketed with the intent to be used for copyright infringement.
Neither are televisions without copy-protection.
You can guarantee that it'll be the end users that'll find these bugs, and that they'll complain to whoever sold/provided them with the software. Remember, end users can be relied upon to use the software in the most convoluted, even stupid, ways, and when they're doing something in a manner the programmer didn't anticipate chances are they'll find bugs.
What? Since when do people complain when they buy shoddy software? Most of the people I know just sigh and reboot.
Another problem that introduces a lot of errors today is the increasing use of third-party components and applications within software projects. These introduce another point of failure, and one in which the programmers have less control over what goes on, and less knowledge about possible solutions. Even if you have the source for the component, it's still much more likely that using it will introduce problems, either in the interface between your app and the component, or in the component itself.
Code reuse decreases the amount of bugs and the cost of developing/maintaining software. Why? Somebody has already debugged the component - and with every application that uses the component, there is a greater chance of finding and fixing an obscure bug. Compare that to writing entirely new code, and I'm sure you'll find that there are more bugs in the new code.
What's illegal about their price discrimination? As long as they aren't discriminating based on a protected category (sex, age, race, etc..) they are more than free to charge you whatever they want.
But that's just it - you don't know that they aren't discriminating against protected categories - according to them, it's just a bug. BTW, in the UK at least, I think that there is a law that if somebody offers you a sale at a certain (reasonable) price, they have to honour it, for instance, mislabelled goods at the supermarket. Any UK "IAALs" in here want to clarify if this applies to Amazon.co.uk?
Unfortunatly, your compiled code and the compiled plug in code would likely be almost identical, and identifiable. Now, if you obfuscated the code somewhat before compiling, then you could cloud the issue a little.
I wasn't really talking about compiled code, but one of the advantages of plugins in general is that they can be compiled separately to the main executable, and distributed separately as well. The main executable wouldn't contain the "naughty" code.
CPHack/DeCSS and similar software have problems that revolve around a single issue: there is some sort of secret that needs to be protected/supressed, e.g. decryption code. This sort of functionality can sometimes be factored out, into a plugin of some sort. All the grunt work like a GUI, website, mailing lists, etc can be neutral (e.g. "a program to decrypt arbitrary blocking lists), which couldn't be touched. Then you can release the legally-dubious code by using an anonymous remailer/usenet gateway, in plugin format. Sure, it might be obvious that the same people wrote the plugin, but the laywers can't prove it, assuming you've done a decent job with the remailer.
When I sit down at my friend's Linux machine it's a bit wierd. Nothing works exactly like it should and I don't know where to find anything :) then I sit down at a Solaris box and the same disorientation follows. I prefer this to being in a monotonous environment but I want to ask if Windows users experience this same mild disorientation when they use other boxes than the ones they are normally on (do other unix users or am I am freak)? I am pretty sure Mac users do (again due to it's high configurability).
The only thing that bugs me when I'm using somebody else's Windows box is that I have to hunt through about two hundred submenus to find a program, because every damn program that they've installed has created a new group to put things like uninstall and readme, and they haven't cleaned up after installing it.
However, from a newbie point of view, I'd imagine Windows is better than most. For instance, if my mom sat down at my old Windows computer, she was unable to use it simply because auto-hide was switched on for the taskbar, and even if I was standing behind her, telling her what to do, she couldn't understand it. And my mom is better than most when it comes to computers. Imagine the difficulty she would have if she was used to KDE, and I had GNOME installed.
If you regularly use somebody else's machine, I suppose Linux would be better, since you can just tar up your dot files, and move them over to the other machine. If there's a network available, then it's even easier, since you can share home directories.
Ummm, I thought that if they decrypt your mother's new recipe then they have your private key, and then they can decrypt everything else you send without much force. Of course, I'm somewhat ignorant -- do people change their keys every message? Does the software exist to change the key for each packet that is sent?
Actually, I believe the way that it works in practice is that the actual message is usually encoded using a private key system (same key to encrypt/decrypt). Then, the private key is encoded with the public/private key system. This means that the relative length of the encryption key is longer, and so is stronger. But don't take my word for it, because I'm no cryptanalyst - do your own homework :)
Really? It doesn't come across that way to me. Responding point by point often makes the core arguments clearer. Of course, there is also the side-effect of some people putting inane comments after a bit they don't really have an opinion about, instead of snipping.
The line-by-line format, which I guess is intended to create an impression of, "Not one single word of this makes sense!", disrupts the original statement's flow and development.
But the "flow and development" aren't the important parts of an argument. It doesn't matter if they are disrupted, in fact it sometimes reveals just how absurd some things really are.
However, I do think that Taco should have posted the letter normally, and replied to it with a comment, just like everyone else, if only in good faith to the company.
The only potential flamebait I can see is, " If Netscape used Qt, they would have release a modern cross-platform browser two years ago.
Actually, I seem to remember that some people at Trolltech ported the Mozilla codebase to QT in a couple of days, not long after the code was released. When you realise that there was already a stable, cross-platform toolkit available, you do start to wonder why all the xp stuff was written especially for Mozilla. It would definitely have cut down on the bugs and speeded things up if they had just gone with an establihed toolkit.
There is a big difference between Linux and the Mac. Macs are aimed at people who are uninterested in computers, who don't want to learn much in order to get the work done. Linux isn't aimed, whoever wants it can pick it up.*
What does this mean for games? Think about it. On the one hand, you have a group of people who don't want much to do with computers. On the other hand, you have a group of people that actively go out of their way to learn new things about computers. Which group do you think will be the most passionate about computer games?
* Yes, I'm aware these are stereotypes, and not all people fall into these categories.
Sigh. How many times does it need to be said that 99.999% of users don't know or care that the tool they use is "open"?
Talk about missing the point. Nobody is claiming that open-source will become popular because people think "wow, it's open, so it must be good!". The idea behind open-source software is that being open brings certain benefits, and those benefits attract users.
As of now, most "open" tools suck big time compared to "closed" from the user's perspective, and this doesn't seem to change too fast.
What? This only makes sense if you include every single crappy little program that's released under an open license. Anyone can release open software. You could just as easily say that most sportsmen are incredibly unfit, because it makes sense if you count everybody who has booted a football about once in their life.
How about you just count the maintained, useful projects instead? Things like Apache, BIND, KDE, etc.
Now, users might care if "open" = "free" as opposed to hundreds of dollars for M$, but according to some evangelists it's not the case either, and as "open" market matures I expect more companies hide behind this principle to charge money to make profit.
Not sure what you are getting at here. Are you claiming that because RMS says that Free software isn't about price, and that it's OK to charge for Free software, that companies can use this as a leverage to charge hundreds of dollars for things, and that the end-users will still get shafted? You do realise that the person who buys it is free to sell copies at half-price?
Speaking more generally, why would any real professional who spent years mastering their art want to give it away is beyond me.
Just because you can't understand it, it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Or are you claiming that anybody involved in OSS isn't a "real professional"?
I don't see lawyers or doctors offering their often much needed help for free
Freedom is less useful in these professions. Can somebody take a prescription, and rewrite it so that you get better more quickly? Of course not. By the way, have you checked out openlaw.org yet?
I don't honestly think that the average user would even care if Linux came with source code or not. Think about it here for a second. What good is the source code to someone who doesn't have a programming background? Sure, the code is neat to poke through, and may give you an inkling of an idea about how the system runs, but what good is it to the average user? We have to remember that not every Linux user is a programmer.
And you have to remember that it doesn't matter whether every user is a programmer. Not every user needs to contribute for the system, as a whole, to work. I'm certain you don't believe that everybody who uses Linux has contributed code for the kernel. But has every user benefited from the stability that comes from code and bugfixes contributed by others because it was free? Of course. Likewise, you don't need to convince most end-users that free software is good - you just need to convince them that people are actively contributing to development. Point them towards the kernel development mailing list. Show them the Sun press releases. Tell them about the contributions IBM is making. Explain how this came about because anybody can contribute freely. They don't need to contribute at all.
Most software has to be installed as root, especially if it's going to be of any use to its participents.
Where did you get this idea? Virtually all software I have used in unix-like systems can be installed in home directories just fine. If it's autoconf/automaked, then ./configure --prefix=/home/user. RPM also provides relocation, and I assume Debian has a way, too.
With a file disk quota of 5 megs standard on most machines, do you think most users will be able to install Office (or StarOffice, or anything for that matter?)
5 meg standard? We're talking desktop systems here. If an entire organisation is using it, then individual users won't have to install it themselves. Home users probably won't be using quotas.
What I think the OP was trying to say was that it would require root privs to run, i.e. it would have to be installed suid root. Isn't this the case with their Frontpage extentions for unix? There is absolutely no need for either to be suid root, assuming good design. However, MS aren't exactly consistent when it comes to good design :)
Oh FFS, read the damn article. They aren't making a distribution for games. They are making a distribution for games consoles. This has a completely different set of requirements to a general-purpose-run-on-your-pc distro.
Making a system good for beginners does not mean crippling it for advanced users.
Yes, in a perfect world you could design an interface that would be intuitive to beginners but flexible and powerful for advanced users...
No! The person you are replying to didn't mention interface. The word was system. I agree that it's damn difficult to create an interface that will be ultra-easy for newbies and ultra-powerful for experts. That's why a choice of interfaces is good!
No more legacy 8 and 16 bit processes should mean more stability.
Removing the DOS layer does nothing for stability. If you want stability on Windows in this respect, you just don't run old apps. However, if you have got a legacy app, you should be able to trade stability for it. MS is just removing that option.
Frankly if you remove the main system files of any operating system (eg, delete the windows directory as was suggested), it will probably crash. Try removing /bin from un*x, and see what happens.
In previous version of Windows, there was a DOS layer underneath that was fully functional (for DOS, anyway). It is no longer there - this was more like removing /usr/bin instead - which still leaves unix functional. Take a look at the FHS, it specifically refers to /bin and /sbin as being for critical files, and a system should work with only those present.
this seems like a totally legitimate effort by microsoft to prepare people for the fact that they are going to expect them to move over to the NT platform in the near future.
How on EARTH can anything like that be legitimate? So what if they expect people to switch over? Surely people should switch over if there is good enough reason?
If they want to "prepare" people for switching over, then they should just tell people. Oh wait, they did - over and over again.
A good browser can handle bad HTML.
What, you mean like if you forget to close a table, the table doesn't end up invisible?
They use then because we are safe in the knowledge that they have been strenuosly tested for deployment in large scale organisations.
Really? I would have thought that the first priority would be to get something that does the job. I'm not saying that Windows doesn't do this (although in many cases, it's debatable), but you seem to be deliberately choosing one relatively small consideration, in which Windows is clearly the winner (due to it's market share), and blowing it up out of proportion.
I for one, would not even consider using Linux at work for the following reasons :
Users : Most office people are stupid with computers. It is difficult enough to set up a printer with Windows and I know what I am doing. It would be a nightmare with RedHat.
Which is completely irrelevent. "Most office people" won't be setting up printers, that's what support technicians like you are for.
Support : Most people do not have RedHat skills, it would be more difficult to find them.
Likewise, "most people" don't need Redhat skills - all they need to be able to do is use KDE or GNOME, which are both very similar to Windows.
Qualifications : How would I be able to determine the suitability of an applicant if they do not have something like an MCSE ? I see that you can have a RedHat certificate. So before everyone jumps up and down with delight I think that you should stop and think about the above points, as this helps no one.
Congratulations, you have completely lost me. First you say that not having the equivelant of an MCSE is awful, then you say that there is the equivelant, but it "helps no one"?
And please stop using your percieved flaws in Redhat as arguments against using Linux - Redhat is not Linux