I am relatively certain (though not absolutely) that if you have a license, to Windows XXXX that you can install from that CD, but can't copy it to other machines, even if your license count is correct. I could be wrong here. If you are doing this I suggest you check your license agreements just to make sure.
" Yes, I've use The Gimp - but as I said, for most people, they don't even know what most of those things are. "
Actually, most people are starting to get pretty hard-core into photo manipulation.
"Terminal emu ? Still not big deal for MOST people. "
For _businesses_ running Linux, it is a big deal.
"Price ? See yesterday's comparison of the 12 month Lindows price with the no-limit Windows XP Home price. And Bill's had to write and test every line of code for that money. Compare Red Hat's annual software budget with Microsoft's."
Why compare Lindows? Why not Red Hat? Or Mandrake? Or Cheap Bytes? And no, Bill did not write all that code. A lot of it is from BSD. There is also some speculation that a large part of DCOM is stolen outright for DCE.
"Yes, the hardware does have to be uniform. I wouldn't argue with that. But, where's this evidence of software license infringements ? And what's that (poor argument) got to do with Microsoft anyway"
If it makes it harder to manage, that would be a point against Microsoft, don't you think? About the license infringements -- without special licensing, you are not allowed to copy installations of Windows from one computer to another without deleting it on the original computer. If I have 5 XP licenses, I can't take an image from 1 and burn it to the other 4 machines without getting one of Microsoft's special license agreements. In addition, you have to make sure that you have site licenses for everything in your installation, and that it is allowed to be copied in that way. Did you pay for all those copies of WinZip? Are you sure?
"Windows Terminal Services, based on Citrix technology, works perfectly fine with Windows-type terminals - no moving parts and will run high volumes."
All of the Citrix/WTS systems I've seen have a WinCE installation on the hard drive of the terminal. Having a hard drive causes maintenance problems. There may be ways around it, but all of the installations I've seen do it the WinCE hard drive way. In addition, I've never had one run as good as X11.
"MS Performance Monitor, etc, let you look into the system to a very detailed level and there are many cool free utilities from Sys Internals, etc. Let's not forget the ResKits too."
that's what I'm talking about, they are all external and have to be installed separately.
"And don't mention games. As a keen FPS fan I'd be stuck without being able to run Windows. The titles just aren't there for Linux like they are for Windows."
Doesn't matter for a business desktop.
"What does irritate many people though is the stream of silly comments coming from people who hate MS for the sake of it. The comments are often wrong and childish to the nth degree. The use of terms such as Micro$oft, Microshaft, etc, add nothing to the Linux cause and just throw doubts on the integrity and sensibilities of those that do it."
What does that have to do with the present discussion?
"Also, I challenge the Linux fans to say some positive things about Bill."
He's very generous with his money. I don't think anyone has denied that. In fact, most Linux people (including myself) see very positive things in Windows. However, those of us who look at the requirements of a business desktop usually see that Linux fits the bill just fine and at a lower cost.
Do I think Linux fits the bill for the home desktop? Only for the extremely simple user (like my parents). People who buy and install off-the-shelf software probably wouldn't like it and would be better off with a Mac or Windows box. And I tell them as much.
I think you are looking for someone to have blind hatred, when in fact the conclusions have been arrived at by logic, not emotion, even if not everyone agrees with the conclusions.
"Why don't the Linux fans have a go at Scott and Larry ? They're hardly having to beg for a living."
You need to read Slash more often. We do this every day. PostgreSQL doesn't have all of the ultra-high-end stuff that Oracle has, but for the mid-size down it kicks ultra-butt.
And almost every day there's a story about Linux taking away marketshare from Sun - why pay the high toll?
"The Gimp ? Yes, and there's Paint with Windows. Not an awesome program but for MOST people it's fine for what they need to do."
Obviously you've never used the GIMP. Does paint have support for:
* Multiple layers
* Layer masks
* Full alpha channel
* RGB and HSV modes
* Advanced Filters
* Numerous, numerous plugins
* The ability to write your own plugins with ~ 15 lines of code
* Numerous brushes, textures, and gradients
* Ability to work with animated images
* Ability to import/export almost every graphic type
I didn't think so.
"Diagramming ? Gee whiz - we all do that all the time !"
Many people do. ORG charts, customer presentations, processes, all require diagramming. At my company, I've had to install Dia on a number of people's Win boxes.
"FTP programs - out of the Windows box too, not that many people need to FTP when they can drag and drop."
IE is not a true FTP program. Real FTP has lots more options. I'm also not talking command-line, I'm talking GUI drag-and-drop.
"CD burning software - XP can write to discs ok thanks."
Can it write VideoCDs? Can it do Disk-At-Once?
"Terminal emulation ? Yet again, how many regular users need it ? But there's Hyperterminal for some emulations if you need them."
Hyperterminal doesn't do 3270. 3270 is a HIGHLY-used terminal emulation. It's used by just about anyone whose got an AS/400 - including churches, banks, department stores, governmental offices, and tons of other places.
"PDF ? Like the Acrobat reader for Windows costs ??" I didn't say it costs. I said it costs time for installation.
"Development software - yet again, who needs that ? We're talking about the desktop here !"
There are many classes of users that use development software. In most companies, the ones who have the know-how can't because licensing is so expensive. On Linux, the tools come with it to do simple GUIs w/ Python to automate tasks. You only have to have one person with a little experience to get leaps and bounds of productivity.
"MS could add loads of extra software in the price but then certain camps would be bleating just like they did with the bundled IE."
See my other post on this topic. Also note that if they could do this within the given price, why don't they lower the price they have now?
"As another poster reports, major corps don't build every machine on it's own ! Wake up - they use Ghost or similar ? At our site it takes TWO minutes to download the build and the scripts add another five minutes to configure the names and IPs, mostly unattended."
Again, read my other posts. Most corporations may use GHOST, but are usually violating a large number of license agreements in the process. That can mean big problems later. Also, to use GHOST, you have to have a _very_ uniform hardware platform.
"And people in-house who can code ? Who's REALLY going to modify their OS ? Version control, in depth knowledge of the source code, testing, documentation, etc. It's just not worth it for most people."
There are many parts that _are_ worth it to people. Depending on what you're modifying, it really doesn't take that much effort. I'd say any company with > 300 people has the tools to do this if they wanted to without much hassle. It's really not any more intrusive than customizing registry entries.
"Linux systems are NOT easier to manage. Read up about Windows GPOs and see how easy it is to apply settings, install software, configure security, etc, to a few or many machines at once."
When I say "manage", I mean update and fix. The need to manage people's desktops in the Windows sense comes from how easy it is to screw up your PC in Windows. With Linux, it's much harder for an end-user to screw up their computer, so you don't need to do as much high-handed "managing". With Linux, you get the ability to do full termina
Same problem as with GHOST - you are copying a drive of an already-setup machine. Linux handles this better than windows when the hardware conf changes, but it is still better to install new.
Most Linux email software is developed with security in mind. Thus, they prevent users from using executable content without making sure they know what they are doing. Most of them require you to save the file to the disk, change the executable permission to "on", and _then_ run the programs.
Macros in documents _may_ come to be problematic, but that's yet to be seen.
"An unpatched Linux machine is as vulnerable as an unpatched Windows machine. Security is to do with administration, not the operating system."
Partially, but not fully true.
You forgot about two things: ease of lockdown and isolation.
Let's say two vulnerabilities come out on the same day - one for Apache and one for IIS. Both allow you to completely blow through the application. Well, with Apache they get -- access to user nobody. Big deal. To do _any_ damage, they would have to find _another_ exploit to take advantage of. In the IIS case, the attacker has complete access immediately.
Now, Microsoft _could_ build their services to run under unprivileged users, but they don't. Therefore, if you use Microsoft's services, you're at greater risk.
Linux also has the ability to chroot(), which allows further isolation. Most Linux services are set up both chrooted and under unprivileged users.
In addition, ACLs make locking down the system VERY difficult. Trying to find out any broken directory security is easy using find, ls, and the proper switches. With ACLs finding bad permissions is extremely difficult. I am saddened that people are trying so hard to add these to Linux (in all honesty, they aren't bad for user data, but they _are_ bad for system files).
Also, Linux is easier to lockdown, because it's easier to identify and turn off the unneeded services.
"And as far as installations, especially in the corporate world, ghost images are the rule of the day."
Are you sure that your application licensing allows you to do that? Are you sure your Microsoft licensing allows you to do that?
In addition, ghost images don't work that well with dramatically different hardware setups. However, setting up a custom RHAT _installation_ disk is just as easy and, since it's an installation disk, works on a wider range of hardware.
"Windows comes with a LOT more than just Wordpad and IE."
Like?
"I thought that was a main gripe about Windows...too much bundling."
You miss _why_ that is the problem. Bundling with Windows is a problem because only Microsoft can control what is bundled and what isn't. If Microsoft has decreed that IE will ship with Windows, no matter if I go to Dell or HP, I will still get IE bundled. If Red Hat says that Mozilla will be always bundled with Linux - well, if you like it great, if you don't someone down the street will have unbundled it in about 30seconds and come out with a version that only supports Konqueror. One way is anti-competitive, and the other way is very competitive. That's what Linux/Free Software offers - a completely open marketplace.
Actually your position puts it _more_ in favor of Linux on the desktop. Why? Because Linux _isn't_ just an operating system, at least how most people come by it.
Let's say you install Windows and Red Hat Linux on a PC. Windows comes with:
* Wordpad
* IE
And that's pretty much it. Red Hat, on the other hand, comes with:
That doesn't even count the server software it comes with. Other distributions pack even more in. Now, it usually takes ~ 30 minutes to an hour to install Linux. Probably about the same for Windows. However, after you are done installing Windows, you have to spend 10 minutes to several hours (like for Visual Studio) to install each application individually. You can save some money by using Linux applications on Windows, but you still have to download them each individually. How much time have we wasted? And that's assuming that all of your applications play nicely together.
In addition, with the "workspaces" concept on the desktop, it creates better productivity for workers. The entire experience can be customized by the IT department if they wish. This _can_ be done to a lesser extent with Windows, if you have the right licensing agreements, however, getting all of the licensing together to do a full install of all the software you would need would be a ton of work, assuming all of your vendors wanted to play nicely together.
Then you have upgrades. With Linux, as long as you have someone in-house who can code, you can keep your setup as long as you desire - no need to follow your vendor. If you don't like that road, you can play follow-your-vendor on Linux, too. In addition, with Linux, you get to pick your vendor, so you can choose one which works like your company works (fast-paced, traditional, etc).
I would say there are two things that may cause you to have problems with Linux. Those are:
* specialized software packages
* technically-savvy users
Yes, that's right, your technically-savvy users are going to be the ones who notice the change, not your "where's my desktop" type users. The ones who don't know technology at all will simply click on whatever you put in front of them in whatever sequence you tell them. Trust me, they are lost on whatever technology you put in front of them, you just have to give them a sequence of clicks and they will obey and do just fine. It's the medium-technically-savvy users that are difficult, because they've taken the time to learn Windows inside-out, and know how to get around all of it's quirks. They may not want to learn a new system with new quirks.
Also, Linux systems are easier to manage. It's more obvious what causes processes to start up, which ones are messing with what resources. In reality, NT has a bunch of tools available for this kind of thing, but, as usual, you have to install them separately - ON EVERY WORKSTATION. Linux comes ready-to-manage locally or remotely.
Add LDAP and Directory Administrator and you are set to go for large installations.
That's not the point. The point is that overspending in Washington has nothing to do with Oregon's schools. If you want to fix the Oregon schools problem, talk to your governor. It's not that national waste isn't a problem, it's that it's a _separate_ problem.
There are several reasons that the people I know in the military are right-wing:
* They know that in order for a military to be effective, it has to operate on distinct objectives - something that many left-wingers often forget (let's just fire a few missiles because we're mad)
* They want to be led by someone who does not hold them in contempt
* They believe in America (many left-wingers do not)
Basically, most people on the right know how wars are won. It's not that they _want_ war, but if they are going to fight one, it should be done with proper objectives so that it is winnable.
If they need the training, why not allow them to buy a cheap leather jacket while they're at it? If they need the hours, why not? Are you morally against airplane pilots getting inexpensive clothes?
I think it was the first _real_ computer typesetting system. At least the first professional-quality typesetting system. Knuth actually bothered to go back and learn the history of movable type, as well as all of the tricks used to implement it, and used those to implement TeX.
Most font technologies today (Postscript fonts, TrueType fonts, etc) descended from TeX, and still do not have all of the features (partially because those features take longer to calculate & display).
TeX is a beatiful system. I wish it were available as a library that we could plug our apps into easily.
"Dickie Stallman's utopian view of a technology industry entirely peopled by unpaid labor is coming true."
That is not RMS's view. In fact, RMS _wants_ people to charge for both software and software services. In fact, that is the way the FSF was initially funded.
The software business in its current model deserves to die because the _last_ thing it does is service the customer, instead of the first thing. It is a testament to computing power that people have benefitted at all over the past several years - the software industry seems to be trying to dig it's own grave.
Free Software gives the power back to the users. It doesn't mean that people will stop getting paid, it means that the ones doing the paying will actually be in control. In the current model, the end-users pay heavily but have no control. That is changing dramatically.
This is the big point most people miss. With open-source, you usually have _direct_ access to the top developers. In a paid standpoint, you have even closer relationships with them. They are your _partner_, not your adversary.
The problem with talking about _LINUX_ innovation is that Linux is just a kernel. When talking about Linux innovation, KDE and GNOME don't even count, because they aren't part of Linux - they are add-ons.
Now if you are talking about free software innovations, well, you've got the entire Internet infrastructure. You've got GUILE, which is really cool. Emacs, which is amazing. Anyway, I could go on if I had the time, but you get the point.
Of course there's a general problem of determining the "newness" or "innovativeness" of an idea, but that's another topic...
"Mac is not as innovative with respect to the GUI as they claim."
Yes they are. It is true that the research wasn't their own, but if you look at the comparison between the research system and the original MacOS, well, there really isn't a comparison. On the other hand, Microsoft still hasn't reached MacOS's usability. It _is_ a cheap knock-off.
Let's do a real comparison. Compare the _original_ MacOS to Xerox's system. I think it's pretty obvious that MacOS was very innovative, even if they didn't originate the ideas.
Now, let's compare Windows 1.0 to MacOS (whatever version it was at then). In this case YES, it was a cheap knock-off.
When you put out a better product than what's out there, that's innovation. Putting out a lesser product than what's out there and choking off the supply channels of your competitor is not.
Having been involved in Internet marketing myself, let me say that most business don't want to send you email that you don't want to receive. That includes the mail houses that send them. The ones I have worked with get between a 10% and 30% _click_ rate. Why? Because send very targetted emails.
Few people are advocating any longer sending mass emails to everyone they can find an address for. Most people have found that using legitimate sources of addresses (such as your customer list, trade-show lists, and small targetted lists) get great results that customers are willing to pay for.
These people are usually sending out up to 10,000 emails at a time.
The professionals involved _want_ email marketing to be legitimate - because it gets higher-dollar business for them.
Why do people think that writing documentation is so difficult or something that noone would want to do? Many people enjoy it, and do so when they have time. There is an abundance of great documentation for free software.
"For instance, if I write a book with a dedication to Martin Luther King, I don't want someone else to come along and release a version where it appears that I've dedicated it to Adolf Hitler. Duh!"
I think the solution is simpler. You can either include all of the invariant sections or none of them.
The current method makes it very easy to make a GNU non-free book. If I had as an invariant section an essay about "death to America", and why we should kill innocent citizens, anyone who wanted to extend my documentation would have to reproduce my maniacal rantings as well. This is not _free_.
I think, though, that the all-or-none approach would work. That way, the person won't be misrepresented, they just might be not-presented -- at least their non-technical ruminations (obviously they will still be in the copyright statement).
This is true for anyone else's licensing, too. If someone finds a hole in it, there's no way to prevent those who currently have it from exploiting that hole, and if that hole includes distribution, withdrawing it from the market or not giving new licenses won't help you there, either.
Slashdot Mirror
I am relatively certain (though not absolutely) that if you have a license, to Windows XXXX that you can install from that CD, but can't copy it to other machines, even if your license count is correct. I could be wrong here. If you are doing this I suggest you check your license agreements just to make sure.
" Yes, I've use The Gimp - but as I said, for most people, they don't even know what most of those things are. "
Actually, most people are starting to get pretty hard-core into photo manipulation.
"Terminal emu ? Still not big deal for MOST people.
"
For _businesses_ running Linux, it is a big deal.
"Price ? See yesterday's comparison of the 12 month Lindows price with the no-limit Windows XP Home price. And Bill's had to write and test every line of code for that money. Compare Red Hat's annual software budget with Microsoft's."
Why compare Lindows? Why not Red Hat? Or Mandrake? Or Cheap Bytes? And no, Bill did not write all that code. A lot of it is from BSD. There is also some speculation that a large part of DCOM is stolen outright for DCE.
"Yes, the hardware does have to be uniform. I wouldn't argue with that. But, where's this evidence of software license infringements ? And what's that (poor argument) got to do with Microsoft anyway"
If it makes it harder to manage, that would be a point against Microsoft, don't you think? About the license infringements -- without special licensing, you are not allowed to copy installations of Windows from one computer to another without deleting it on the original computer. If I have 5 XP licenses, I can't take an image from 1 and burn it to the other 4 machines without getting one of Microsoft's special license agreements. In addition, you have to make sure that you have site licenses for everything in your installation, and that it is allowed to be copied in that way. Did you pay for all those copies of WinZip? Are you sure?
"Windows Terminal Services, based on Citrix technology, works perfectly fine with Windows-type terminals - no moving parts and will run high volumes."
All of the Citrix/WTS systems I've seen have a WinCE installation on the hard drive of the terminal. Having a hard drive causes maintenance problems. There may be ways around it, but all of the installations I've seen do it the WinCE hard drive way. In addition, I've never had one run as good as X11.
"MS Performance Monitor, etc, let you look into the system to a very detailed level and there are many cool free utilities from Sys Internals, etc. Let's not forget the ResKits too."
that's what I'm talking about, they are all external and have to be installed separately.
"And don't mention games. As a keen FPS fan I'd be stuck without being able to run Windows. The titles just aren't there for Linux like they are for Windows."
Doesn't matter for a business desktop.
"What does irritate many people though is the stream of silly comments coming from people who hate MS for the sake of it. The comments are often wrong and childish to the nth degree. The use of terms such as Micro$oft, Microshaft, etc, add nothing to the Linux cause and just throw doubts on the integrity and sensibilities of those that do it."
What does that have to do with the present discussion?
"Also, I challenge the Linux fans to say some positive things about Bill."
He's very generous with his money. I don't think anyone has denied that. In fact, most Linux people (including myself) see very positive things in Windows. However, those of us who look at the requirements of a business desktop usually see that Linux fits the bill just fine and at a lower cost.
Do I think Linux fits the bill for the home desktop? Only for the extremely simple user (like my parents). People who buy and install off-the-shelf software probably wouldn't like it and would be better off with a Mac or Windows box. And I tell them as much.
I think you are looking for someone to have blind hatred, when in fact the conclusions have been arrived at by logic, not emotion, even if not everyone agrees with the conclusions.
"Why don't the Linux fans have a go at Scott and Larry ? They're hardly having to beg for a living."
You need to read Slash more often. We do this every day. PostgreSQL doesn't have all of the ultra-high-end stuff that Oracle has, but for the mid-size down it kicks ultra-butt.
And almost every day there's a story about Linux taking away marketshare from Sun - why pay the high toll?
"I guess the Opera installation on my home PC is not really there. Or Mozilla."
Again, the OEMs are not allowed to decide to package them for you, or remove IE. That's the whole point.
"The Gimp ? Yes, and there's Paint with Windows. Not an awesome program but for MOST people it's fine for what they need to do."
Obviously you've never used the GIMP. Does paint have support for:
* Multiple layers
* Layer masks
* Full alpha channel
* RGB and HSV modes
* Advanced Filters
* Numerous, numerous plugins
* The ability to write your own plugins with ~ 15 lines of code
* Numerous brushes, textures, and gradients
* Ability to work with animated images
* Ability to import/export almost every graphic type
I didn't think so.
"Diagramming ? Gee whiz - we all do that all the time !"
Many people do. ORG charts, customer presentations, processes, all require diagramming. At my company, I've had to install Dia on a number of people's Win boxes.
"FTP programs - out of the Windows box too, not that many people need to FTP when they can drag and drop."
IE is not a true FTP program. Real FTP has lots more options. I'm also not talking command-line, I'm talking GUI drag-and-drop.
"CD burning software - XP can write to discs ok thanks."
Can it write VideoCDs? Can it do Disk-At-Once?
"Terminal emulation ? Yet again, how many regular users need it ? But there's Hyperterminal for some emulations if you need them."
Hyperterminal doesn't do 3270. 3270 is a HIGHLY-used terminal emulation. It's used by just about anyone whose got an AS/400 - including churches, banks, department stores, governmental offices, and tons of other places.
"PDF ? Like the Acrobat reader for Windows costs ??" I didn't say it costs. I said it costs time for installation.
"Development software - yet again, who needs that ? We're talking about the desktop here !"
There are many classes of users that use development software. In most companies, the ones who have the know-how can't because licensing is so expensive. On Linux, the tools come with it to do simple GUIs w/ Python to automate tasks. You only have to have one person with a little experience to get leaps and bounds of productivity.
"MS could add loads of extra software in the price but then certain camps would be bleating just like they did with the bundled IE."
See my other post on this topic. Also note that if they could do this within the given price, why don't they lower the price they have now?
"As another poster reports, major corps don't build every machine on it's own ! Wake up - they use Ghost or similar ? At our site it takes TWO minutes to download the build and the scripts add another five minutes to configure the names and IPs, mostly unattended."
Again, read my other posts. Most corporations may use GHOST, but are usually violating a large number of license agreements in the process. That can mean big problems later. Also, to use GHOST, you have to have a _very_ uniform hardware platform.
"And people in-house who can code ? Who's REALLY going to modify their OS ? Version control, in depth knowledge of the source code, testing, documentation, etc. It's just not worth it for most people."
There are many parts that _are_ worth it to people. Depending on what you're modifying, it really doesn't take that much effort. I'd say any company with > 300 people has the tools to do this if they wanted to without much hassle. It's really not any more intrusive than customizing registry entries.
"Linux systems are NOT easier to manage. Read up about Windows GPOs and see how easy it is to apply settings, install software, configure security, etc, to a few or many machines at once."
When I say "manage", I mean update and fix. The need to manage people's desktops in the Windows sense comes from how easy it is to screw up your PC in Windows. With Linux, it's much harder for an end-user to screw up their computer, so you don't need to do as much high-handed "managing". With Linux, you get the ability to do full termina
Agreed, Microsoft is definitely moving in the right direction. Why? Linux is there and sucking away customers.
Capitalism is great!
Of course, eventually, Linux and Windows will probably be indistinguishable from each other. At that point, the choice will be easy!
Same problem as with GHOST - you are copying a drive of an already-setup machine. Linux handles this better than windows when the hardware conf changes, but it is still better to install new.
Most Linux email software is developed with security in mind. Thus, they prevent users from using executable content without making sure they know what they are doing. Most of them require you to save the file to the disk, change the executable permission to "on", and _then_ run the programs.
Macros in documents _may_ come to be problematic, but that's yet to be seen.
"An unpatched Linux machine is as vulnerable as an unpatched Windows machine. Security is to do with administration, not the operating system."
Partially, but not fully true.
You forgot about two things: ease of lockdown and isolation.
Let's say two vulnerabilities come out on the same day - one for Apache and one for IIS. Both allow you to completely blow through the application. Well, with Apache they get -- access to user nobody. Big deal. To do _any_ damage, they would have to find _another_ exploit to take advantage of. In the IIS case, the attacker has complete access immediately.
Now, Microsoft _could_ build their services to run under unprivileged users, but they don't. Therefore, if you use Microsoft's services, you're at greater risk.
Linux also has the ability to chroot(), which allows further isolation. Most Linux services are set up both chrooted and under unprivileged users.
In addition, ACLs make locking down the system VERY difficult. Trying to find out any broken directory security is easy using find, ls, and the proper switches. With ACLs finding bad permissions is extremely difficult. I am saddened that people are trying so hard to add these to Linux (in all honesty, they aren't bad for user data, but they _are_ bad for system files).
Also, Linux is easier to lockdown, because it's easier to identify and turn off the unneeded services.
"And as far as installations, especially in the corporate world, ghost images are the rule of the day."
Are you sure that your application licensing allows you to do that? Are you sure your Microsoft licensing allows you to do that?
In addition, ghost images don't work that well with dramatically different hardware setups. However, setting up a custom RHAT _installation_ disk is just as easy and, since it's an installation disk, works on a wider range of hardware.
"Windows comes with a LOT more than just Wordpad and IE."
Like?
"I thought that was a main gripe about Windows...too much bundling."
You miss _why_ that is the problem. Bundling with Windows is a problem because only Microsoft can control what is bundled and what isn't. If Microsoft has decreed that IE will ship with Windows, no matter if I go to Dell or HP, I will still get IE bundled. If Red Hat says that Mozilla will be always bundled with Linux - well, if you like it great, if you don't someone down the street will have unbundled it in about 30seconds and come out with a version that only supports Konqueror. One way is anti-competitive, and the other way is very competitive. That's what Linux/Free Software offers - a completely open marketplace.
Actually your position puts it _more_ in favor of Linux on the desktop. Why? Because Linux _isn't_ just an operating system, at least how most people come by it.
Let's say you install Windows and Red Hat Linux on a PC. Windows comes with:
* Wordpad
* IE
And that's pretty much it. Red Hat, on the other hand, comes with:
* Mozilla
* OpenOffice
* The GIMP
* Dia for diagramming
* FTP programs
* SFTP programs
* CD-Burning software
* Evolution
* 3720 terminal emulator (for AS/400 app connectivity)
* PDF viewing software
* Development software
That doesn't even count the server software it comes with. Other distributions pack even more in. Now, it usually takes ~ 30 minutes to an hour to install Linux. Probably about the same for Windows. However, after you are done installing Windows, you have to spend 10 minutes to several hours (like for Visual Studio) to install each application individually. You can save some money by using Linux applications on Windows, but you still have to download them each individually. How much time have we wasted? And that's assuming that all of your applications play nicely together.
In addition, with the "workspaces" concept on the desktop, it creates better productivity for workers. The entire experience can be customized by the IT department if they wish. This _can_ be done to a lesser extent with Windows, if you have the right licensing agreements, however, getting all of the licensing together to do a full install of all the software you would need would be a ton of work, assuming all of your vendors wanted to play nicely together.
Then you have upgrades. With Linux, as long as you have someone in-house who can code, you can keep your setup as long as you desire - no need to follow your vendor. If you don't like that road, you can play follow-your-vendor on Linux, too. In addition, with Linux, you get to pick your vendor, so you can choose one which works like your company works (fast-paced, traditional, etc).
I would say there are two things that may cause you to have problems with Linux. Those are:
* specialized software packages
* technically-savvy users
Yes, that's right, your technically-savvy users are going to be the ones who notice the change, not your "where's my desktop" type users. The ones who don't know technology at all will simply click on whatever you put in front of them in whatever sequence you tell them. Trust me, they are lost on whatever technology you put in front of them, you just have to give them a sequence of clicks and they will obey and do just fine. It's the medium-technically-savvy users that are difficult, because they've taken the time to learn Windows inside-out, and know how to get around all of it's quirks. They may not want to learn a new system with new quirks.
Also, Linux systems are easier to manage. It's more obvious what causes processes to start up, which ones are messing with what resources. In reality, NT has a bunch of tools available for this kind of thing, but, as usual, you have to install them separately - ON EVERY WORKSTATION. Linux comes ready-to-manage locally or remotely.
Add LDAP and Directory Administrator and you are set to go for large installations.
That's not the point. The point is that overspending in Washington has nothing to do with Oregon's schools. If you want to fix the Oregon schools problem, talk to your governor. It's not that national waste isn't a problem, it's that it's a _separate_ problem.
There are several reasons that the people I know in the military are right-wing:
* They know that in order for a military to be effective, it has to operate on distinct objectives - something that many left-wingers often forget (let's just fire a few missiles because we're mad)
* They want to be led by someone who does not hold them in contempt
* They believe in America (many left-wingers do not)
Basically, most people on the right know how wars are won. It's not that they _want_ war, but if they are going to fight one, it should be done with proper objectives so that it is winnable.
If they need the training, why not allow them to buy a cheap leather jacket while they're at it? If they need the hours, why not? Are you morally against airplane pilots getting inexpensive clothes?
That's assuming all locations are as densely populated as Japan, which is absurd.
We could kill everyone in the entire planet with a truck bomb if we got them all into a very tall building and just parked the bomb in the basement.
However, back in reality, people are spread out considerably. 20,000 nukes probably couldn't even take out all of America.
I think it was the first _real_ computer typesetting system. At least the first professional-quality typesetting system. Knuth actually bothered to go back and learn the history of movable type, as well as all of the tricks used to implement it, and used those to implement TeX.
Most font technologies today (Postscript fonts, TrueType fonts, etc) descended from TeX, and still do not have all of the features (partially because those features take longer to calculate & display).
TeX is a beatiful system. I wish it were available as a library that we could plug our apps into easily.
"Dickie Stallman's utopian view of a technology industry entirely peopled by unpaid labor is coming true."
That is not RMS's view. In fact, RMS _wants_ people to charge for both software and software services. In fact, that is the way the FSF was initially funded.
The software business in its current model deserves to die because the _last_ thing it does is service the customer, instead of the first thing. It is a testament to computing power that people have benefitted at all over the past several years - the software industry seems to be trying to dig it's own grave.
Free Software gives the power back to the users. It doesn't mean that people will stop getting paid, it means that the ones doing the paying will actually be in control. In the current model, the end-users pay heavily but have no control. That is changing dramatically.
This is the big point most people miss. With open-source, you usually have _direct_ access to the top developers. In a paid standpoint, you have even closer relationships with them. They are your _partner_, not your adversary.
The problem with talking about _LINUX_ innovation is that Linux is just a kernel. When talking about Linux innovation, KDE and GNOME don't even count, because they aren't part of Linux - they are add-ons.
Now if you are talking about free software innovations, well, you've got the entire Internet infrastructure. You've got GUILE, which is really cool. Emacs, which is amazing. Anyway, I could go on if I had the time, but you get the point.
Of course there's a general problem of determining the "newness" or "innovativeness" of an idea, but that's another topic...
"Mac is not as innovative with respect to the GUI as they claim."
Yes they are. It is true that the research wasn't their own, but if you look at the comparison between the research system and the original MacOS, well, there really isn't a comparison. On the other hand, Microsoft still hasn't reached MacOS's usability. It _is_ a cheap knock-off.
Let's do a real comparison. Compare the _original_ MacOS to Xerox's system. I think it's pretty obvious that MacOS was very innovative, even if they didn't originate the ideas.
Now, let's compare Windows 1.0 to MacOS (whatever version it was at then). In this case YES, it was a cheap knock-off.
When you put out a better product than what's out there, that's innovation. Putting out a lesser product than what's out there and choking off the supply channels of your competitor is not.
Having been involved in Internet marketing myself, let me say that most business don't want to send you email that you don't want to receive. That includes the mail houses that send them. The ones I have worked with get between a 10% and 30% _click_ rate. Why? Because send very targetted emails.
Few people are advocating any longer sending mass emails to everyone they can find an address for. Most people have found that using legitimate sources of addresses (such as your customer list, trade-show lists, and small targetted lists) get great results that customers are willing to pay for.
These people are usually sending out up to 10,000 emails at a time.
The professionals involved _want_ email marketing to be legitimate - because it gets higher-dollar business for them.
I usually find a problem that you've recently had and ask them how they would go about solving it.
Why do people think that writing documentation is so difficult or something that noone would want to do? Many people enjoy it, and do so when they have time. There is an abundance of great documentation for free software.
"The prohibition against discrimination against a field of endeavor"
what field of endeavor? I think the _method_ of endeavor is what it prohibits, not the field.
"the prohibition against discrimination against a group of people"
which group of people cannot use the GPL or GPL-covered works? Microsoft can and does. In fact, Microsoft sells GPL software (Interix).
"For instance, if I write a book with a dedication to Martin Luther King, I don't want someone else to come along and release a version where it appears that I've dedicated it to Adolf Hitler. Duh!"
I think the solution is simpler. You can either include all of the invariant sections or none of them.
The current method makes it very easy to make a GNU non-free book. If I had as an invariant section an essay about "death to America", and why we should kill innocent citizens, anyone who wanted to extend my documentation would have to reproduce my maniacal rantings as well. This is not _free_.
I think, though, that the all-or-none approach would work. That way, the person won't be misrepresented, they just might be not-presented -- at least their non-technical ruminations (obviously they will still be in the copyright statement).
This is true for anyone else's licensing, too. If someone finds a hole in it, there's no way to prevent those who currently have it from exploiting that hole, and if that hole includes distribution, withdrawing it from the market or not giving new licenses won't help you there, either.