"I figure that the reason that Windows apps won't run on it is because of binary compatibility"
You make a lot of assumptions about the internal design of Windows XP embedded. Binary compatibility may not be the only issue.
What would other reasons be? I only ask because you seem to know about it more than I do (really) and I'm curious to hear about those reasons - if only because Ballmer conveniently avoided the subject.
"Reading the transcripts of Ballmer's video testimony, it is quite clear that it's not that MS can't do it, it's just that they don't want to do it. To say otherwise is to be a) naive, or b) on MS's payroll."
So those are the only two possibilities? Sounds like an ad hominem argument to me.
Well, are you arguing that Microsoft does not have the financial and technical resources to produce an Windows OS-minus-browser? The richest company in the world? Which puts out a new version of Windows every year? I find it difficult to believe...I'm also at loss to understand why people who have no financial stake in Microsoft would argue that such a thing is impossible (when there is yet no proof that it is). If you're a regular Windows user, why would you care if MS is forced to offer a no-frills version of the OS? You don't have to switch, you can keep your old setup...I'm trying to understand your rationale, here.
A correction to your post: the fact is not simply that MS can produce a PDA OS, but that they have ported the core of Windows XP. I figure that the reason that Windows apps won't run on it is because of binary compatibility...i.e. the apps are designed to run on x86 hardware instead of StrongARM (or whatever they use on PocketPCs). In my mind, if you can port the core of an OS to a different architecture, it shouldn't be too hard (for a multi-billion company who has access to all the source code) to produce a version of the OS for the same architecture that has the browser, media player and other "add-on" programs taken out. I don't understand how you can leap from "removing the browser" to "application compatibility"...following your (and MS's) logic, it would be impossible to replace Internet Explorer with Netscape without breaking application compatibility. It seems to me that the only way that would be possible is if MS specifically designed it that way. If that is the case then tough luck: they'll only have themselves to blame if making the necessary changes proves to be difficult to do and costly.
Reading the transcripts of Ballmer's video testimony, it is quite clear that it's not that MS can't do it, it's just that they don't want to do it. To say otherwise is to be a) naive, or b) on MS's payroll.
"The Internet Browser shouldn't be a product bought and sold in the marketplace. It's a very basic product at its heart, and should be included with PCs to begin with."
you know what? That's just what I feel about operating systems.
Ditto. That's what I love about Linux: it doesn't belong to anyone in particular (except perhaps Linus, in a genealogical sense). I think proprietary OSes are a bad idea in general. It's as if someone still had a patent on paper and pencil, and you had to pay them a royalty every time you wanted to doodle or jot down a few ideas. Like public infrastructures, I believe that PC OSes should belong to the community, not private companies, because they are so essential in making PCs work.
You (and Glonk a little further) miss the point. The fact is, Microsoft was able to produce a stripped-down version of Windows XP (i.e. without the browser) for a PDA architecture. Of course it won't run all the regular Windows programs. It's not designed to. However, the fact that they could port a bare bones version of the OS for a different architecture should tell you a little bit about their technical capabilities...IMO, it should be easier, not harder, to produce a bare-bones version of the OS for the same architecture, don't you think?
Sure, it's going to take a lot of work - and I do mean really a lot of work. But guess what? MS was found guilty on being a monopoly and engaging in anti-competitive practices. You may or may not agree with this, but that won't change the verdict. Being found guilty doesn't mean that you get to get off easy - hence, the applied remedy may end up costing them a lot of money. Tough break. It's not as if they were lacking in cash anyway...
Except of course that Ballmer is telling a big, fat lie: Microsoft has already produced a stripped-down version of Windows. It's called Windows XP Embedded.
Also, look at it this way: if you can't take a browser away from the OS without breaking it, then you've got a pretty shitty product in the first place. Now, even I can't believe that MS Windows is that shitty, so IMHO Steve Ballmer is trying to pull a fast one here. It is feasible - it might cost a whole lot of money, but it is definitely feasible. Or, if it isn't, it is unavoidable proof that MS Windows was never a well-designed OS in the first place...so, which one is it going to be?
...how can you say that there's a lack of free speech on Slashdot. For what I can see, none of your emotional, biases (and I suspect Microsoft-funded) rants have been censored. Nobody keeps you from spewing your propaganda here. Or perhaps you are complaining because users aren't modding you up? But you're forgetting that many of them here already use Linux, so they are immune to your disinformation: they know that Linux is a solid, professionnal-level OS (and the proof that open source software can achieve great things). Some of us, like me, are forced to used Windows at work. While I admit that Win2k pro is the most stable Windows to date, it's still not as stable as my Linux box at home. Still, you won't be kicked out by this majority here, who knows you are telling nothing but lies: like everyone else, you are free to speak your mind and promote Microsoft all you want. In that sense, Slashdot is a wonderful example of the right to free speech, and you are totally wrong in upholding to opposite view. You're welcome have and share that view with us, mind you, just as I'm welcome to have and share the view that you are just another one of the countless "cover agents" that Microsoft has hired to go and spread their FUD on the Internet.
Lack of Multimedia? Netscape crashing every 10 minutes? When was the last time you tried Linux? You should give it another go, you might be surprised...as it is, the only multimedia format I couldn't play on my Linux box were.wma and.asf (I've had Crossover for Quicktime for a while, now - works beautifully). As for Netscape crashing, I ran Netscape 6.1 for four months and maybe the application unexpectedly quit two or three times (and it was on all the time...)
No, the only thing Linux lacks right now as far as multimedia goes is a strong competitor to Adobe Illustrator and a non-linear video editing program (like Avid, or even Premiere). The rest is all there, son.
Bah, you're just jealous because you couldn't think of a clever pun first!:-)
Seriously, man, don't get too excited about this. Lighten up! See? I'm back were I started, at 2 (because Karma>25, I guess), so all's well that ends well...though I am a bit hurt that you didn't think my pun was funny (I sure thought so).
These guys still don't get it. Now they want other industries to bend over backwards to suit their interests? I think it's clear these guys have way too much money already. Hey, Jack, you want to recoup your investments? Then how about not paying a star upwards of 20 millions for a single movie? I mean, I know they have talent and all, but that's just plain decadent. Nobody should be making that much money anyway.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: the music and movie industry need to rethink their business model: give away the media, make money of the showing (movie theatres, live venues) and merchadising (i.e. artifacts you want to own, because they are nice objects to have). Musicians should also consider the "shareware" business model. They could offer some free songs, saying: if you really like this song, send us a buck directly (not to any record exec).
So, some useless millionnaires and industry leeches (hi, Mr. Valenti) will lose their livelihoods...really, who gives a rat's ass?
That's true, but don't most AES/DES implementations depend on public-key encryption for key exchange? IIRC, the disadvantage of symmetric key schemes is that both parties need to have the same private key. While these can be easily exchanged using public-key encryption, that part might have suddenly become the weak link in the process...
Rereading my post, I realized that I could have been clearer: the "login as root" was a reference to LindowsOS, not Lycoris/LX. As I understand it, Lycoris/LX uses the traditional user scheme (as it should). Sorry about that.
I agree. There are all kinds of distros out there, for different kinds of people. That is the (sometimes overwhelming) beauty of Linux. I think Lycoris has achieved something that Lindows hasn't, with its attempt at creating a Windows/Linux hybrid: create a real Linux distro that will make Windows user feel at home, without compromising some basic principles (i.e. you have to login as Root: what the hell were they thinking?).
Now all Lycoris needs is a reasonable marketing budget, and it has the opportunity to chip away some of Windows' user base. Which is the important thing, folks...by any means necessary.
Re:this is an enterprise ready os?
on
Linux 2.4.18 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Come on, it's been enterprise-ready for a while, now. Businesses don't need the "latest kernel available", they want the most stable. There are a couple of extremely stable kernels out there...
When I say "we", I mean citizens of countries outside of the U.S. of A. who approve of the Kyoto accord, even though it isn't perfect. When I say "you", I mean citizens of the U.S. of A. who support Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto treaty because it would allegedly cost the U.S. more than it does China...
Never mind that, with a fifth of its population, the U.S. pollutes twice as much as China. Also, while China's economy has increased much faster than that of the U.S. over the past few years, CO2 emissions have actually decreased...Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
No wonder people outside of the U.S. often believe that you Americans have "set in you minds an evolutionary gulf that has somehow made you superior to the rest" of the world. Lord knows your government acts as if it had a "Darwinian right to rule" over the entire globe.
I agree. Themes that work on both distribution would be very sweet indeed! I was actually looking for a nice "Aqua" theme for Gnome, but it seems none of them work with the new theme engine...meanwhile, there are plenty of them for KDE...
I see no speed difference between Gnome and Windows 2000 on my machine. Both are fast enough for me (I have an Athlon 900 with 640MB of RAM).
If you have an older machine, Gnome and/or KDE may be slower than Windows - but you can always use something like IceWM or Sawfish (without Gnome). Both are very fast and require little memory.
...between GNOME and KDE. Despite what some Windows fans may claim, I don't think it's detrimental to have two leading desktop managers for Linux. As I see it, the competition is really pushing the two development teams to outdo themselves. Healthy competition -- as long as it does not translate into flame wars on the Internet -- is a good thing, and we're all the better for it. I mean, look at how the UI for Windows has evolved in the past five years (and I'm not talking about eye-candy here - yes, alpha channels are cool, but it does not add any kind of usability)...It seems obvious to me that MS could use a little competition on the desktop before its GUI stagnates further.
...but a bit daunting to setup for the first-time user (MySQL could have something to do with it...)
I just put together a personal weblog at home with Movable Type, and it was a breeze to set up. (Note: visitors are welcome, but right now there's not much on the site, and what is there is in french, mostly).
Of course, Movable Type is not as feature-rich as Slashcode (pretty hard to beat in that category), so it's not for everyone. But for a simple, perl-based personal weblog, it's quite alright.
Yes and no. The discussion veered to what happens when you become the extended family's resident Tech Support department. This can as easily happen with Windows as with Linux (actually, it is more likely to happen with Windows, since it is more common and it breaks more frequently...)
As for VNC vs. SSH, I did remember one advantage of using VNC (to access a Windows machine, anyway), is that the person at the other end gets to see the cursor moving to the appropriate places (Control panels, etc.) and thus learns a thing or two about their machine (if they're paying any attention, that is). For Linux, though, you need to use a different program, which you can get here. I haven't personally tried it on Linux, but I've been told it works really well.
The fact is, they really are misconceptions. I know, I work with both OSes every day.
A few facts: You can set up a Linux system so that the user never has to go under the hood if he doesn't want to. The ease of use of major applications is identical between the Windows and Linux. The Mandrake 8.1 installer is now officially easier to go through (and quicker, too) than the Windows one. Both KDE and GNOME offer way more cutomization options than the Windows GUI does...a bit too much for a newbie, in fact..
As of the past six months, the problem for Linux is no longer one of usability or availability of applications. It is simply one of marketing. You're totally off-mark here...perhaps you should try one of the newest distributions.
It's amazing to see how RPMs no longer suck when you use a good manager like Ximian's Red-Carpet. I'm beginning to like it better than installing programs under Windows.
Vast sweeping changes? For crying out loud! Listening to you guys, it's as if we were asking you to sacrifice your first-born. Listen, the U.S. is the number one polluter in the world, every other industrialized nation, France, Germany, Canada, etc., they have all agreed to make some sacrifices (which we probably won't even notice in daily life), and you're here tearing up your shirt because there might be a few flawed studies on global warming. Who cares if you're 5% less richer than the rest of the planet? Well, keep up burning those fossil fuels until there are none left.
It's true what they say: America is addicted to oil. And like a junkie looking for its next fix, it doesn't care about anything else...
Slashdot Mirror
"I figure that the reason that Windows apps won't run on it is because of binary compatibility"
You make a lot of assumptions about the internal design of Windows XP embedded. Binary compatibility may not be the only issue.
What would other reasons be? I only ask because you seem to know about it more than I do (really) and I'm curious to hear about those reasons - if only because Ballmer conveniently avoided the subject.
"Reading the transcripts of Ballmer's video testimony, it is quite clear that it's not that MS can't do it, it's just that they don't want to do it. To say otherwise is to be a) naive, or b) on MS's payroll."
So those are the only two possibilities? Sounds like an ad hominem argument to me.
Well, are you arguing that Microsoft does not have the financial and technical resources to produce an Windows OS-minus-browser? The richest company in the world? Which puts out a new version of Windows every year? I find it difficult to believe...I'm also at loss to understand why people who have no financial stake in Microsoft would argue that such a thing is impossible (when there is yet no proof that it is). If you're a regular Windows user, why would you care if MS is forced to offer a no-frills version of the OS? You don't have to switch, you can keep your old setup...I'm trying to understand your rationale, here.
A correction to your post: the fact is not simply that MS can produce a PDA OS, but that they have ported the core of Windows XP. I figure that the reason that Windows apps won't run on it is because of binary compatibility...i.e. the apps are designed to run on x86 hardware instead of StrongARM (or whatever they use on PocketPCs). In my mind, if you can port the core of an OS to a different architecture, it shouldn't be too hard (for a multi-billion company who has access to all the source code) to produce a version of the OS for the same architecture that has the browser, media player and other "add-on" programs taken out. I don't understand how you can leap from "removing the browser" to "application compatibility"...following your (and MS's) logic, it would be impossible to replace Internet Explorer with Netscape without breaking application compatibility. It seems to me that the only way that would be possible is if MS specifically designed it that way. If that is the case then tough luck: they'll only have themselves to blame if making the necessary changes proves to be difficult to do and costly.
Reading the transcripts of Ballmer's video testimony, it is quite clear that it's not that MS can't do it, it's just that they don't want to do it. To say otherwise is to be a) naive, or b) on MS's payroll.
"The Internet Browser shouldn't be a product bought and sold in the marketplace. It's a very basic product at its heart, and should be included with PCs to begin with."
you know what? That's just what I feel about operating systems.
Ditto. That's what I love about Linux: it doesn't belong to anyone in particular (except perhaps Linus, in a genealogical sense). I think proprietary OSes are a bad idea in general. It's as if someone still had a patent on paper and pencil, and you had to pay them a royalty every time you wanted to doodle or jot down a few ideas. Like public infrastructures, I believe that PC OSes should belong to the community, not private companies, because they are so essential in making PCs work.
But then again, I am partial to anarcho-syndicalism...let's just say that, to me, Friedman's "invisible hand" sounds more like that of Darth Vader crushing an underling's neck that that of YHWH predicting the decadent king's demise.
You (and Glonk a little further) miss the point. The fact is, Microsoft was able to produce a stripped-down version of Windows XP (i.e. without the browser) for a PDA architecture. Of course it won't run all the regular Windows programs. It's not designed to. However, the fact that they could port a bare bones version of the OS for a different architecture should tell you a little bit about their technical capabilities...IMO, it should be easier, not harder, to produce a bare-bones version of the OS for the same architecture, don't you think?
Sure, it's going to take a lot of work - and I do mean really a lot of work. But guess what? MS was found guilty on being a monopoly and engaging in anti-competitive practices. You may or may not agree with this, but that won't change the verdict. Being found guilty doesn't mean that you get to get off easy - hence, the applied remedy may end up costing them a lot of money. Tough break. It's not as if they were lacking in cash anyway...
Except of course that Ballmer is telling a big, fat lie: Microsoft has already produced a stripped-down version of Windows. It's called Windows XP Embedded.
Also, look at it this way: if you can't take a browser away from the OS without breaking it, then you've got a pretty shitty product in the first place. Now, even I can't believe that MS Windows is that shitty, so IMHO Steve Ballmer is trying to pull a fast one here. It is feasible - it might cost a whole lot of money, but it is definitely feasible. Or, if it isn't, it is unavoidable proof that MS Windows was never a well-designed OS in the first place...so, which one is it going to be?
...how can you say that there's a lack of free speech on Slashdot. For what I can see, none of your emotional, biases (and I suspect Microsoft-funded) rants have been censored. Nobody keeps you from spewing your propaganda here. Or perhaps you are complaining because users aren't modding you up? But you're forgetting that many of them here already use Linux, so they are immune to your disinformation: they know that Linux is a solid, professionnal-level OS (and the proof that open source software can achieve great things). Some of us, like me, are forced to used Windows at work. While I admit that Win2k pro is the most stable Windows to date, it's still not as stable as my Linux box at home. Still, you won't be kicked out by this majority here, who knows you are telling nothing but lies: like everyone else, you are free to speak your mind and promote Microsoft all you want. In that sense, Slashdot is a wonderful example of the right to free speech, and you are totally wrong in upholding to opposite view. You're welcome have and share that view with us, mind you, just as I'm welcome to have and share the view that you are just another one of the countless "cover agents" that Microsoft has hired to go and spread their FUD on the Internet.
Lack of Multimedia? Netscape crashing every 10 minutes? When was the last time you tried Linux? You should give it another go, you might be surprised...as it is, the only multimedia format I couldn't play on my Linux box were .wma and .asf (I've had Crossover for Quicktime for a while, now - works beautifully). As for Netscape crashing, I ran Netscape 6.1 for four months and maybe the application unexpectedly quit two or three times (and it was on all the time...)
No, the only thing Linux lacks right now as far as multimedia goes is a strong competitor to Adobe Illustrator and a non-linear video editing program (like Avid, or even Premiere). The rest is all there, son.
Bah, you're just jealous because you couldn't think of a clever pun first! :-)
Seriously, man, don't get too excited about this. Lighten up! See? I'm back were I started, at 2 (because Karma>25, I guess), so all's well that ends well...though I am a bit hurt that you didn't think my pun was funny (I sure thought so).
BTW I use Linux and Windows daily...
...that AMD knows which way the Winblows...er, I mean...which way the wind blows.
These guys still don't get it. Now they want other industries to bend over backwards to suit their interests? I think it's clear these guys have way too much money already. Hey, Jack, you want to recoup your investments? Then how about not paying a star upwards of 20 millions for a single movie? I mean, I know they have talent and all, but that's just plain decadent. Nobody should be making that much money anyway.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: the music and movie industry need to rethink their business model: give away the media, make money of the showing (movie theatres, live venues) and merchadising (i.e. artifacts you want to own, because they are nice objects to have). Musicians should also consider the "shareware" business model. They could offer some free songs, saying: if you really like this song, send us a buck directly (not to any record exec).
So, some useless millionnaires and industry leeches (hi, Mr. Valenti) will lose their livelihoods...really, who gives a rat's ass?
That's true, but don't most AES/DES implementations depend on public-key encryption for key exchange? IIRC, the disadvantage of symmetric key schemes is that both parties need to have the same private key. While these can be easily exchanged using public-key encryption, that part might have suddenly become the weak link in the process...
Rereading my post, I realized that I could have been clearer: the "login as root" was a reference to LindowsOS, not Lycoris/LX. As I understand it, Lycoris/LX uses the traditional user scheme (as it should). Sorry about that.
I agree. There are all kinds of distros out there, for different kinds of people. That is the (sometimes overwhelming) beauty of Linux. I think Lycoris has achieved something that Lindows hasn't, with its attempt at creating a Windows/Linux hybrid: create a real Linux distro that will make Windows user feel at home, without compromising some basic principles (i.e. you have to login as Root: what the hell were they thinking?).
Now all Lycoris needs is a reasonable marketing budget, and it has the opportunity to chip away some of Windows' user base. Which is the important thing, folks...by any means necessary.
Come on, it's been enterprise-ready for a while, now. Businesses don't need the "latest kernel available", they want the most stable. There are a couple of extremely stable kernels out there...
When I say "we", I mean citizens of countries outside of the U.S. of A. who approve of the Kyoto accord, even though it isn't perfect. When I say "you", I mean citizens of the U.S. of A. who support Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto treaty because it would allegedly cost the U.S. more than it does China...
Never mind that, with a fifth of its population, the U.S. pollutes twice as much as China. Also, while China's economy has increased much faster than that of the U.S. over the past few years, CO2 emissions have actually decreased...Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
No wonder people outside of the U.S. often believe that you Americans have "set in you minds an evolutionary gulf that has somehow made you superior to the rest" of the world. Lord knows your government acts as if it had a "Darwinian right to rule" over the entire globe.
I agree. Themes that work on both distribution would be very sweet indeed! I was actually looking for a nice "Aqua" theme for Gnome, but it seems none of them work with the new theme engine...meanwhile, there are plenty of them for KDE...
I see no speed difference between Gnome and Windows 2000 on my machine. Both are fast enough for me (I have an Athlon 900 with 640MB of RAM).
If you have an older machine, Gnome and/or KDE may be slower than Windows - but you can always use something like IceWM or Sawfish (without Gnome). Both are very fast and require little memory.
...between GNOME and KDE. Despite what some Windows fans may claim, I don't think it's detrimental to have two leading desktop managers for Linux. As I see it, the competition is really pushing the two development teams to outdo themselves. Healthy competition -- as long as it does not translate into flame wars on the Internet -- is a good thing, and we're all the better for it. I mean, look at how the UI for Windows has evolved in the past five years (and I'm not talking about eye-candy here - yes, alpha channels are cool, but it does not add any kind of usability)...It seems obvious to me that MS could use a little competition on the desktop before its GUI stagnates further.
(Hmm..."stagnate further"...is that an oxymoron?)
...but a bit daunting to setup for the first-time user (MySQL could have something to do with it...)
I just put together a personal weblog at home with Movable Type, and it was a breeze to set up. (Note: visitors are welcome, but right now there's not much on the site, and what is there is in french, mostly).
Of course, Movable Type is not as feature-rich as Slashcode (pretty hard to beat in that category), so it's not for everyone. But for a simple, perl-based personal weblog, it's quite alright.
Basically, OpenOffice is equivalent to StarOffice 6.0...which means it is much better than SO 5.2.
Both versions (OO 641c and SO 6) work very well, despite what some Anonymous Cowards might be saying...
Yes and no. The discussion veered to what happens when you become the extended family's resident Tech Support department. This can as easily happen with Windows as with Linux (actually, it is more likely to happen with Windows, since it is more common and it breaks more frequently...)
As for VNC vs. SSH, I did remember one advantage of using VNC (to access a Windows machine, anyway), is that the person at the other end gets to see the cursor moving to the appropriate places (Control panels, etc.) and thus learns a thing or two about their machine (if they're paying any attention, that is). For Linux, though, you need to use a different program, which you can get here. I haven't personally tried it on Linux, but I've been told it works really well.
The fact is, they really are misconceptions. I know, I work with both OSes every day.
A few facts: You can set up a Linux system so that the user never has to go under the hood if he doesn't want to. The ease of use of major applications is identical between the Windows and Linux. The Mandrake 8.1 installer is now officially easier to go through (and quicker, too) than the Windows one. Both KDE and GNOME offer way more cutomization options than the Windows GUI does...a bit too much for a newbie, in fact..
As of the past six months, the problem for Linux is no longer one of usability or availability of applications. It is simply one of marketing. You're totally off-mark here...perhaps you should try one of the newest distributions.
It's amazing to see how RPMs no longer suck when you use a good manager like Ximian's Red-Carpet. I'm beginning to like it better than installing programs under Windows.
Yeah, that's also a good way to do it...though it's not really useful for Windows.
Vast sweeping changes? For crying out loud! Listening to you guys, it's as if we were asking you to sacrifice your first-born. Listen, the U.S. is the number one polluter in the world, every other industrialized nation, France, Germany, Canada, etc., they have all agreed to make some sacrifices (which we probably won't even notice in daily life), and you're here tearing up your shirt because there might be a few flawed studies on global warming. Who cares if you're 5% less richer than the rest of the planet? Well, keep up burning those fossil fuels until there are none left.
It's true what they say: America is addicted to oil. And like a junkie looking for its next fix, it doesn't care about anything else...