(Assuming you aren't just trolling) Al Gore sponsored the bill that allowed commercial firms to connect to the Internet, thus creating the modern net as we know it. Regardless of your opinion of him, he probably was the only guy in Congress at the time that could even spell Internet, much less understand the potential of the thing.
I would say that if consumers really could save $120B per year by using Open Source software, they would be doing it without a government program kicking them in the butt.
As per usual, these estimates of vast open source savings negect compatibility costs, migration costs, and training costs. Businesses and consumers aren't stupid -- if open source really was a cost saver, they would use it. But unfortunately, for much of the market, the numbers don't add up.
If the govt would have shut DARPANet down in 1985, nobody would have cared. The Internet basically grew into what it because it was a perk for university students and Silicon Valley engineers. It was never any sort of official government pogrom until Al Gore did what he did and the political establishment decided to deregulated telecommunications.
Because we are talking about marketing, Cost is not an argument in Linux's favor. If you look at the distros that actually have marketing and support behind them (RedHat, SUSE), Windows is usually cheaper to buy on the desktop.
And Firefox and OpenOffice are primarily deployed on Windows -- not an argument in Linux's favor.
Name 5 reasons the ordinary PC user would want to use Linux -- that don't involve negative comparisons with Windows, and don't involve Unix oogware such as latex or emacs.
Their entire Developer Relations program is top-notch. They've got a deal for solution partners where you can get a copy of pretty much everything for $200. I'm somewhat familiar of the more purchaser-oriented direct stuff, but since I'm not in the target markets, I can't really say how good it is.
In terms of actual $$, Dell does R&D than Apple, at least last time I checked. Of course Dell is supporting a huge line of hardware, while Apple only has about 6 models.
The theory is that by going with Intel, Apple can offer a broader range of models without spending additional money on R&D.
Most of Microsoft's marketing is in carefully determined verticals. If you aren't in the right purchasing position, you'd probably never see it. Anyway, the silly feelgood tv commercials are probably a drop in the marketing bucket.
OEMs -- Is supporting Linux on an "equal footing" going to be cheaper for OEMs? Does Linux do anything to sell OEM computers? Does it make it easier for consumers to rip MP3s or download video from the internet? Is it flashier or easier to use?
Business -- Is there anything about Linux that makes it easier to setup a filesharing network than Windows? Single logins? Calendar and 'knowledge' sharing? How about developers? Are there good RAD development tools? Is it easier or cheaper to build Linux apps?
See, the answer to all these questions is basically NO. You can blame other people's biases and intertia all you like, but until Linux provides some obvious upside to those customers, the intertia will continue.
It seems that the Linux world decided that the Linux Desktop was inevitable without ever bothering to figure out why it would be or even should be.
At one time, many years ago, there was a type of programmer who was both knowledgeable and worked in VB.
The problem was the environment was quickly stereotyped as a ghetto for bad and/or amateur programmers, and that tended to limit people's career possibilities and salaries. So those people soon figured out that they better move on to C++ or Java, or at least ASP or other web programming, which they did. The side-effect is that the VB world tended to left with the worst of the worst, and almost everything done in the last 5-7 years is pretty poor.
Why is this a problem? There's tons of Open Source which exists solely to interact with propertary libraries. (See VirtualDub and most Windows video open source software.)
There's a lot of misinformation on this thread. Microsoft actually wasn't convicted of "dumping" or "bundling", at least in the US. They were mainly busted for exploiting their contracts with OEMs.
Furthermore, all of their anti-trust problems were in the desktop market. As long as virtualization was positioned as a server feature, and as long as MS didn't threaten any VMWare supporters, I don't think they would have any legal problems.
Well, it hasn't always been free... Only "Free with purchase of SQL Server CAL", or "Free with purchase of Office Professional". In fact, I'm still not sure if its totally free for use.
IIRC, the whole OS/2 WP shell operated in an alternate universe from the filesystem, and "shadows" only existed in some binary database file somewhere.
Microsoft's defence of "innovation" was really based around one specific innovation -- the integration of web browsing libraries into the shell (without the government and courts stopping them... a battle they won, BTW).
Anyway, the crowd here is more than happy to jump on Microsoft over symlinks, but looks the other way while KDE and Apple copy Microsoft's approach for building a web browser.
It's also a somewhat ironic position from Linux Advocates, considering that Linux is the least innovative OS ever produced.
The problem with saying "Deal with it blind people!" is that it's illegal and will get you sued. Unlike the other feature deficiencies in OpenOfice, this isn't one you can wibble-wobble out of.
Me Too. I was just trying to solve a Windows ACL conundrum, and it seemed like 90% of google's results were related to Samba, not Windows.
OTOH, Linux does have 10000 forums and maillists on the net where people post problems. Given enough googling, you almost always can find someone with the exact same issue as you and someone else with an answer.
The problem is the answer is usually something along the lines of "Just add BLAH to the BLAHBLAHBLAH file!", and then you need to spend another half-hour figuring out what your distro renamed the BLAHBLAHBLAH file to, and what the syntax of the file is so that you can add BLAH into it properly.
Well, as stupid and incompetant as it may be, you really ought to be able to have a blank password if you want to or need to. I could care less if you need to type "IAMSTUPID" into regedt32 in order to do it, but it should still be possible.
Key word being "little". I highly doubt that OS X makes the difference between a virtual and a real disk totally invisible to the enviornment. On Windows these things are usually implemented as device drivers and therefore can easily see the implementation details.
I suspect that the CD Checks on Macs are half-assed because the developers are already shipping the product many months late(r) and are simply treating it as a checkbox feature per the whims of the original developer.
Re:Children, grow up and admit that OSS isn't perf
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 1
Two reasons near the top are that Windows is slower and more bloated. These reasons are sited often and are part of the OSS mantra.
I would say this *was* part of the OSS mantra, but was quiety dropped for obvious reasons when OSS desktops got to the same level of functionality as Windows.
To compound matters, they couldn't agree on API standards, essentially forcing users to keep three or four entirely unique frameworks in core to accomplish the same objective as Win32. Thus bloat went from an advocacy point to something that is nearly an order of magnitude worse on the OSS desktop.
The current OSS mantra is "security", but once again it looks like this talking point might turn around and bite them in the ass.
Slashdot Mirror
(Assuming you aren't just trolling) Al Gore sponsored the bill that allowed commercial firms to connect to the Internet, thus creating the modern net as we know it. Regardless of your opinion of him, he probably was the only guy in Congress at the time that could even spell Internet, much less understand the potential of the thing.
I would say that if consumers really could save $120B per year by using Open Source software, they would be doing it without a government program kicking them in the butt.
As per usual, these estimates of vast open source savings negect compatibility costs, migration costs, and training costs. Businesses and consumers aren't stupid -- if open source really was a cost saver, they would use it. But unfortunately, for much of the market, the numbers don't add up.
If the govt would have shut DARPANet down in 1985, nobody would have cared. The Internet basically grew into what it because it was a perk for university students and Silicon Valley engineers. It was never any sort of official government pogrom until Al Gore did what he did and the political establishment decided to deregulated telecommunications.
"Ubuntu will always be free of charge" ... because they will never run out of VC and their company runs on magic fairy dust. Sucker.
Because we are talking about marketing, Cost is not an argument in Linux's favor. If you look at the distros that actually have marketing and support behind them (RedHat, SUSE), Windows is usually cheaper to buy on the desktop.
And Firefox and OpenOffice are primarily deployed on Windows -- not an argument in Linux's favor.
Linux Marketing Quiz:
Name 5 reasons the ordinary PC user would want to use Linux -- that don't involve negative comparisons with Windows, and don't involve Unix oogware such as latex or emacs.
(...)
Their entire Developer Relations program is top-notch. They've got a deal for solution partners where you can get a copy of pretty much everything for $200. I'm somewhat familiar of the more purchaser-oriented direct stuff, but since I'm not in the target markets, I can't really say how good it is.
> or (surprisingly enough) a 2000+ Hyundai.
That's what I heard too, but then someone I know bought one, and it's the biggest piece of crap ever.
In terms of actual $$, Dell does R&D than Apple, at least last time I checked. Of course Dell is supporting a huge line of hardware, while Apple only has about 6 models.
The theory is that by going with Intel, Apple can offer a broader range of models without spending additional money on R&D.
Most of Microsoft's marketing is in carefully determined verticals. If you aren't in the right purchasing position, you'd probably never see it. Anyway, the silly feelgood tv commercials are probably a drop in the marketing bucket.
OK, let's take these one by one:
OEMs -- Is supporting Linux on an "equal footing" going to be cheaper for OEMs? Does Linux do anything to sell OEM computers? Does it make it easier for consumers to rip MP3s or download video from the internet? Is it flashier or easier to use?
Business -- Is there anything about Linux that makes it easier to setup a filesharing network than Windows? Single logins? Calendar and 'knowledge' sharing? How about developers? Are there good RAD development tools? Is it easier or cheaper to build Linux apps?
See, the answer to all these questions is basically NO. You can blame other people's biases and intertia all you like, but until Linux provides some obvious upside to those customers, the intertia will continue.
It seems that the Linux world decided that the Linux Desktop was inevitable without ever bothering to figure out why it would be or even should be.
At one time, many years ago, there was a type of programmer who was both knowledgeable and worked in VB.
The problem was the environment was quickly stereotyped as a ghetto for bad and/or amateur programmers, and that tended to limit people's career possibilities and salaries. So those people soon figured out that they better move on to C++ or Java, or at least ASP or other web programming, which they did. The side-effect is that the VB world tended to left with the worst of the worst, and almost everything done in the last 5-7 years is pretty poor.
Linux already has it's "VB" ... it's PHP, or in some cases, Python.
If your argument is that Linux shouldn't have easy-to-use, easy-to-abuse tools, well, that battle has already been lost.
Why is this a problem? There's tons of Open Source which exists solely to interact with propertary libraries. (See VirtualDub and most Windows video open source software.)
There's a lot of misinformation on this thread. Microsoft actually wasn't convicted of "dumping" or "bundling", at least in the US. They were mainly busted for exploiting their contracts with OEMs.
Furthermore, all of their anti-trust problems were in the desktop market. As long as virtualization was positioned as a server feature, and as long as MS didn't threaten any VMWare supporters, I don't think they would have any legal problems.
Well, it hasn't always been free ... Only "Free with purchase of SQL Server CAL", or "Free with purchase of Office Professional". In fact, I'm still not sure if its totally free for use.
I did provide a clear example, jerk.
IIRC, the whole OS/2 WP shell operated in an alternate universe from the filesystem, and "shadows" only existed in some binary database file somewhere.
Microsoft's defence of "innovation" was really based around one specific innovation -- the integration of web browsing libraries into the shell (without the government and courts stopping them ... a battle they won, BTW).
Anyway, the crowd here is more than happy to jump on Microsoft over symlinks, but looks the other way while KDE and Apple copy Microsoft's approach for building a web browser.
It's also a somewhat ironic position from Linux Advocates, considering that Linux is the least innovative OS ever produced.
> Can you name a useful and widespread application for the multiple streams feature in NTFS?
Network filesharing for Macintosh clients.
The problem with saying "Deal with it blind people!" is that it's illegal and will get you sued. Unlike the other feature deficiencies in OpenOfice, this isn't one you can wibble-wobble out of.
Me Too. I was just trying to solve a Windows ACL conundrum, and it seemed like 90% of google's results were related to Samba, not Windows.
OTOH, Linux does have 10000 forums and maillists on the net where people post problems. Given enough googling, you almost always can find someone with the exact same issue as you and someone else with an answer.
The problem is the answer is usually something along the lines of "Just add BLAH to the BLAHBLAHBLAH file!", and then you need to spend another half-hour figuring out what your distro renamed the BLAHBLAHBLAH file to, and what the syntax of the file is so that you can add BLAH into it properly.
Well, as stupid and incompetant as it may be, you really ought to be able to have a blank password if you want to or need to. I could care less if you need to type "IAMSTUPID" into regedt32 in order to do it, but it should still be possible.
> it's a little harder to do that
Key word being "little". I highly doubt that OS X makes the difference between a virtual and a real disk totally invisible to the enviornment. On Windows these things are usually implemented as device drivers and therefore can easily see the implementation details.
I suspect that the CD Checks on Macs are half-assed because the developers are already shipping the product many months late(r) and are simply treating it as a checkbox feature per the whims of the original developer.
Two reasons near the top are that Windows is slower and more bloated. These reasons are sited often and are part of the OSS mantra.
I would say this *was* part of the OSS mantra, but was quiety dropped for obvious reasons when OSS desktops got to the same level of functionality as Windows.
To compound matters, they couldn't agree on API standards, essentially forcing users to keep three or four entirely unique frameworks in core to accomplish the same objective as Win32. Thus bloat went from an advocacy point to something that is nearly an order of magnitude worse on the OSS desktop.
The current OSS mantra is "security", but once again it looks like this talking point might turn around and bite them in the ass.