Yep, and yet it's trumpeted around this place like the answer to all the questions of mankind. If you watch closely, it tends to be what is hauled out and dusted off when nothing else works to "win" an argument.
Obviously, I use the term "win" loosely.
It's like someone saying, "Here's a key." 99% of the known universe says, "What does it open?" Slashdot replies, "Who cares? You've got the key!"
How about two weeks? By that point, I'm sure I'd have to --
1) Use my digital camera that isn't supported by Linux.
2) Type up a research paper in a word processor that has basic functions like a fast, keystroke-operated word count or a non-retarded means of configuring page numbers (I'm looking at you, OpenOffice).
3) Use a graphics design package with a UI that was not designed by a GIMP (oops, Freudian slip).
4) Watch a video on a media player that features a UI that is even remotely usable (in other words, one that doesn't require I waste my time looking for 'skins' that were designed by adults).
5) View three consecutive web sites without having to dick around with font settings.
Oh, but it sure is pretty. Really. I like the appearance of KDE 3.1 much more than Windows 2000 (I haven't used XP enough to make any claims), but looks are only a piece of the pie when other aspects of it drive me crazy. I learned that when I dated the lingerie model with an ego the size of Jupiter.
Of course - plenty of buisnesses consist of people without any IT experience on any platform. These folks will either need training or hire help. And in this day and age, finding help with Linux is not so hard.
I am sure it's not hard to find, but I'll bet it's one hell of a lot more expensive than Windows help. The Slashdot hoards can say what they wish, but the setup of a basic Windows LAN with filesharing, network printing, backup and web access (the kind of arrangement one would find in a small ad firm, law office, etc) is less difficult than doing the same thing on Linux. There are just fewer steps.
So, I don't need some guru to come in and charge me $100 an hour to build me a Linux LAN when I can go to the classified ads and get some Windows jerk for $30 an hour to leave me with the same results. Before you furrow your brow and ask if I really want that guy building my network, consider the scenario. If it was a database build, a web development project or something hard, then no, but that guy is more than qualified to meet the needs of a vast, vast majority of true small businesses. From what I've seen, the ubiquitous that guy doesn't exist in the UNIX world.
OK, Charlie, let's examine this old chestnut of an argument that you've trotted out.
So, I'm going to start a business with 5 employees, including myself. I have a $5000 IT budget. I am the only one in the office with any computer experience, which is as follows:
- About 15 years of 'practical' computer experience.
- About 5 years professional experience as a desktop jockey and, later, as a Windows sysadmin.
- I've installed a half-dozen UNIX (mostly BSD) servers for very, very small web sites, but never as a file/application server.
- I've tried Linux on the desktop a few times, but gave up after a week of fighting with any number of typical desktop Linux problems (hardware support, package management, etc).
So, how am I going to spend that $5000? Should I become embroiled in trying in vain to set up FREE Linux/BSD desktop and server machines without any real experience? Network shares, proxies, client applications, network printing -- that would take weeks. Should I hire someone to do it for me at a ridiculous cost, not to mention the support costs for when something goes wrong in my 5 station LAN? How many operations that size have you seen that can afford IT support costs @ even a measly $70 an hour? Or, should I just eat the software costs of Windows, have the entire small LAN running in a weekend by myself, and essentially forget it all exists? True, buying Windows means I can't afford the same hardware horsepower, and I may be stuck using a PC as a server (instead of a 'real' one), but I can fix 95% of it myself.
This happened in countless scenarios that I've personally witnessed (after having been brought in to take over the maintenance once the business gets busy enough). This constant "linux is cheaper" chant is completely, yet unsurprisingly, ignorant of several factors above and beyond the actual purchase price.
Ever driven a Subaru? While I admit that the last new one I demoed was in 2000 (it was an Impreza RS 2.5), I have never seen a more plasticky, less refined vehicle for close to CDN$30,000. It had two speakers, a cassette deck and a non-folding rear seat, for heaven's sake! My friend, in the back seat, couldn't hear a word the salesman and I were saying over the buzz of the engine (at normal, city speeds).
I have nothing but respect for the performance of Subarus, but (based upon what I saw) they're precisely zero competition to the M3 if the perspective owner has any desire for refined driving at breakneck speed.
While I'm at it, I can trot out a hundred M3 owners who would embarrass you with their knowledge of cars and driving. I suppose all those WRC fanboys who are gobbling up the WRXs don't figure into your equation of who knows what about cars, too, right?
Re:Lets hope that the result is progress
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Who, outside of the Slashdot group, is going to follow a stupid boycott like this? Why would they? "I would prefer having less traffic in order to screw Microsoft"? Please. Outside of this place, Microsoft is just another company.
Also, and you can call this a hunch, I doubt that Microsoft is going to lose sleep over the lack of "M$ droolz, Linux roolz" type sites that will participate. As a user of search engines, I certainly wouldn't mind.
they still have typically created pages that are slow to load and so full of stuff as to make them difficult to use
When Microsoft makes the big push toward search engine dominance, I'll bet you a thousand bucks this problem vanishes. MSN is cluttered because the search is an "added feature," not the entire show. Yet.
Microsoft is also a household name and will get the same positive critiques from the same people as you mentioned if the search is just "better," either in results, usability or availability. Don't forget where you are; in the world outside the biases of Slashdot, people use what works the best or is the most easily available (probably the latter), so Google's "good guy" image won't be worth a hill o' beans, nor will its glowing reviews the week before.
How in the deep blue hell do you know what Microsoft understands? If you're basing anything upon the fact that they don't embrace open-source, etc., since when are 'agreement with' and 'understanding of' synonymous with each other? Microsoft probably understands those things just fine, thinks they're stupid, and goes in other directions.
So, this is basically you stating that, because they don't agree with the same things as you, they've "missed the clue-train". Let's see, they are worth tens of billions of dollars, are a household name and basically have a licence to print another X billion dollars. Meanwhile, you're posting to Slashdot. Who's missing what train?
Re:Lets hope that the result is progress
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
So, without any evidence, you've proclaimed Google the winner for all eternity because you like them? I need some extra money -- which jersey of the SuperBowl teams do you prefer?
If you don't like Microsoft, fine, but to call them "no competition" is brutally ridiculous. Microsoft is competition in any area they wish to persue, because although their actual product is not always the best in its class, their ability to sell it is above anyone else out there. Plus, in the "real world" outside Slashdot, the name alone will garner a ton of interest as they delve into the search biz.
As much as everyone likes to abuse the term "monopoly" in regards to Microsoft, they never would have been in a position to abuse power if not for some pretty impressive corporate skills in several areas. If Google ignores that and thinks like you, it's at their own peril.
I am 28, a nerd for the last 15 years and I've never read any Tolkien, nor have I seen any of the movies. I'm just not interested in fantasy or sci-fi, so I've naturally avoided it (and it was never required through school).
Don't assume that all nerds are the same -- some of us like football, women and beer in our non-nerd 'downtime' and wouldn't watch Star Trek on a bet. I've also never seen Star Wars. Holy smokes, obviously I'm trying to 'inflame'.
FreeDOS! Great! Now I can run Telix 3.15 on my new 7 Flabblehertz PC!
Back in the real world, FreeDOS is about as useful as a deep-freeze in the Arctic circle. Are people supposed to learn to install an OS on new computers? What is this, 1987?
The main problem I, and many other non-Americans, have with this shortsightedness that you're discussing is this -- the same Americans who care the least about looking past the tip of their noses are the ones who tend to be the most egotistical about their country. The fact is this -- America is certainly an economic superpower, but has never been known for producing "The Best" of anything (for a whole host of reasons). Need examples? Sure --
Let's go buy a sports car!
You want performance? You'll buy a Mustang.
You want the best performance? You'll buy a Ferrari or a Porsche.
Let's go buy some home theater speakers!
You want performance? You'll buy Bose.
You want the best performance? You'll buy B&W.
No, I want a luxury car.
You want performance? You'll buy a Cadillac.
You want the best performance? You'll buy a Benz or a BMW.
There are countless others.
Basically, those Americans who don't care to look outside that box should, logically, keep their mouths shut because they are woefully uninformed to what's actually out there. Instead, I get to hear about how "NASCAR is the most demanding auto-sport in the world," because the gum-flapper in question has never heard of Dakar, LeMans or WRC.
Frankly, I really believe that this is what gives rise to much of the US bashing that goes on in every country but the US. It's not the ego, it's the uninformed ego. In situations where the US has legitimately developed "The Best" of something (space exploration machines, for example), then, please, brag until the cows come home. Otherwise, have a look around before making any claims.
Now, since this comment is admittedly uncomplimentary to the US, despite being very honestly written, flame on.
Why is there still no consistent way of installing and removing applications through a GUI? For an OS that is supposedly "ready" (as it has been declared for the last four or five years as well) for the desktop, that's a pretty big missing piece.
It's also why this is just another wishful claim that will be repeated next year.
Pff. Just how long do you expect to live in order to see this happen? People, especially the "I am a smart consumer because I look like the guy they interviewed on 20/20" demographic, are idiots, and will happily follow the carrot wherever it may lead.
There are literally countless examples of a corporation screwing its clientele over without mercy and on purpose, while seeing no mass exodus as a result.
The "smart consumers" don't get mad, they get more passive.
And those are the ones from which one can get great deals on office furniture when they collapse like a house of cards after 36 months.
If you want morality, fire up a neighborhood shoe store. If you are a corporation (private or public) that intends to keep its shareholders happy, you better have the killer instinct or you're not long for this world.
I suspect this is directly related all of the noise that's been made lately about Linux-on-the-desktop
From IBM, I assume you mean. Please, count the number of people you personally know who have bought an IBM desktop PC in the last five years (not including mass corporate stupidity purchases, because anything can be 'proven' under that umbrella).
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the resulting number is awfully close to, if not, zero.
Although I haven't worked on an IBM desktop in many moons, the last ones I did see, in perhaps 1997 or so, were thee most proprietary machines I had (or have) ever worked on. Even luddites knew that an IBM PC purchase meant relying upon IBM parts. That is not considering the heroic added expense of it being an IBM to begin with.
Of course, all that may have changed since. If not, Microsoft has got to know that there's no reason for worry about the recent "noise," as that's all it is.
Slashdot Mirror
No -- Zoomplayer, Media Player Classic, or WMP 6.4 all make the same point.
Obviously, I use the term "win" loosely.
It's like someone saying, "Here's a key." 99% of the known universe says, "What does it open?" Slashdot replies, "Who cares? You've got the key!"
How about two weeks? By that point, I'm sure I'd have to --
1) Use my digital camera that isn't supported by Linux.
2) Type up a research paper in a word processor that has basic functions like a fast, keystroke-operated word count or a non-retarded means of configuring page numbers (I'm looking at you, OpenOffice).
3) Use a graphics design package with a UI that was not designed by a GIMP (oops, Freudian slip).
4) Watch a video on a media player that features a UI that is even remotely usable (in other words, one that doesn't require I waste my time looking for 'skins' that were designed by adults).
5) View three consecutive web sites without having to dick around with font settings.
Oh, but it sure is pretty. Really. I like the appearance of KDE 3.1 much more than Windows 2000 (I haven't used XP enough to make any claims), but looks are only a piece of the pie when other aspects of it drive me crazy. I learned that when I dated the lingerie model with an ego the size of Jupiter.
I am sure it's not hard to find, but I'll bet it's one hell of a lot more expensive than Windows help. The Slashdot hoards can say what they wish, but the setup of a basic Windows LAN with filesharing, network printing, backup and web access (the kind of arrangement one would find in a small ad firm, law office, etc) is less difficult than doing the same thing on Linux. There are just fewer steps.
So, I don't need some guru to come in and charge me $100 an hour to build me a Linux LAN when I can go to the classified ads and get some Windows jerk for $30 an hour to leave me with the same results. Before you furrow your brow and ask if I really want that guy building my network, consider the scenario. If it was a database build, a web development project or something hard, then no, but that guy is more than qualified to meet the needs of a vast, vast majority of true small businesses. From what I've seen, the ubiquitous that guy doesn't exist in the UNIX world.
So, I'm going to start a business with 5 employees, including myself. I have a $5000 IT budget. I am the only one in the office with any computer experience, which is as follows:
- About 15 years of 'practical' computer experience.
- About 5 years professional experience as a desktop jockey and, later, as a Windows sysadmin.
- I've installed a half-dozen UNIX (mostly BSD) servers for very, very small web sites, but never as a file/application server.
- I've tried Linux on the desktop a few times, but gave up after a week of fighting with any number of typical desktop Linux problems (hardware support, package management, etc).
So, how am I going to spend that $5000? Should I become embroiled in trying in vain to set up FREE Linux/BSD desktop and server machines without any real experience? Network shares, proxies, client applications, network printing -- that would take weeks. Should I hire someone to do it for me at a ridiculous cost, not to mention the support costs for when something goes wrong in my 5 station LAN? How many operations that size have you seen that can afford IT support costs @ even a measly $70 an hour? Or, should I just eat the software costs of Windows, have the entire small LAN running in a weekend by myself, and essentially forget it all exists? True, buying Windows means I can't afford the same hardware horsepower, and I may be stuck using a PC as a server (instead of a 'real' one), but I can fix 95% of it myself.
This happened in countless scenarios that I've personally witnessed (after having been brought in to take over the maintenance once the business gets busy enough). This constant "linux is cheaper" chant is completely, yet unsurprisingly, ignorant of several factors above and beyond the actual purchase price.
I have nothing but respect for the performance of Subarus, but (based upon what I saw) they're precisely zero competition to the M3 if the perspective owner has any desire for refined driving at breakneck speed.
While I'm at it, I can trot out a hundred M3 owners who would embarrass you with their knowledge of cars and driving. I suppose all those WRC fanboys who are gobbling up the WRXs don't figure into your equation of who knows what about cars, too, right?
Also, and you can call this a hunch, I doubt that Microsoft is going to lose sleep over the lack of "M$ droolz, Linux roolz" type sites that will participate. As a user of search engines, I certainly wouldn't mind.
When Microsoft makes the big push toward search engine dominance, I'll bet you a thousand bucks this problem vanishes. MSN is cluttered because the search is an "added feature," not the entire show. Yet.
Microsoft is also a household name and will get the same positive critiques from the same people as you mentioned if the search is just "better," either in results, usability or availability. Don't forget where you are; in the world outside the biases of Slashdot, people use what works the best or is the most easily available (probably the latter), so Google's "good guy" image won't be worth a hill o' beans, nor will its glowing reviews the week before.
How in the deep blue hell do you know what Microsoft understands? If you're basing anything upon the fact that they don't embrace open-source, etc., since when are 'agreement with' and 'understanding of' synonymous with each other? Microsoft probably understands those things just fine, thinks they're stupid, and goes in other directions.
So, this is basically you stating that, because they don't agree with the same things as you, they've "missed the clue-train". Let's see, they are worth tens of billions of dollars, are a household name and basically have a licence to print another X billion dollars. Meanwhile, you're posting to Slashdot. Who's missing what train?
If you don't like Microsoft, fine, but to call them "no competition" is brutally ridiculous. Microsoft is competition in any area they wish to persue, because although their actual product is not always the best in its class, their ability to sell it is above anyone else out there. Plus, in the "real world" outside Slashdot, the name alone will garner a ton of interest as they delve into the search biz.
As much as everyone likes to abuse the term "monopoly" in regards to Microsoft, they never would have been in a position to abuse power if not for some pretty impressive corporate skills in several areas. If Google ignores that and thinks like you, it's at their own peril.
I am 28, a nerd for the last 15 years and I've never read any Tolkien, nor have I seen any of the movies. I'm just not interested in fantasy or sci-fi, so I've naturally avoided it (and it was never required through school).
Don't assume that all nerds are the same -- some of us like football, women and beer in our non-nerd 'downtime' and wouldn't watch Star Trek on a bet. I've also never seen Star Wars. Holy smokes, obviously I'm trying to 'inflame'.
Thanks for the laugh, though.
You're here.
Back in the real world, FreeDOS is about as useful as a deep-freeze in the Arctic circle. Are people supposed to learn to install an OS on new computers? What is this, 1987?
Ever been to a "gamer" BBS? Those illiterate peons could misspell using the space-bar alone.
So, you mean it takes them 20 years to arrive?
Free stool... last chance.
Let's go buy a sports car!
You want performance? You'll buy a Mustang.
You want the best performance? You'll buy a Ferrari or a Porsche.
Let's go buy some home theater speakers!
You want performance? You'll buy Bose.
You want the best performance? You'll buy B&W.
No, I want a luxury car.
You want performance? You'll buy a Cadillac.
You want the best performance? You'll buy a Benz or a BMW.
There are countless others.
Basically, those Americans who don't care to look outside that box should, logically, keep their mouths shut because they are woefully uninformed to what's actually out there. Instead, I get to hear about how "NASCAR is the most demanding auto-sport in the world," because the gum-flapper in question has never heard of Dakar, LeMans or WRC.
Frankly, I really believe that this is what gives rise to much of the US bashing that goes on in every country but the US. It's not the ego, it's the uninformed ego. In situations where the US has legitimately developed "The Best" of something (space exploration machines, for example), then, please, brag until the cows come home. Otherwise, have a look around before making any claims.
Now, since this comment is admittedly uncomplimentary to the US, despite being very honestly written, flame on.
I'd much, much rather have a cop beside me on the phone than some child-factory in Noah's Ark with wheels.
Mac Dovoyenko, that is.
That's odd, I didn't know that "cynical" and "brutally retarded" were synonyms.
That's hardcore? Pff. I just read Slashdot on Monday and know what's going to be posted on Friday.
It's also why this is just another wishful claim that will be repeated next year.
Pff. Just how long do you expect to live in order to see this happen? People, especially the "I am a smart consumer because I look like the guy they interviewed on 20/20" demographic, are idiots, and will happily follow the carrot wherever it may lead.
There are literally countless examples of a corporation screwing its clientele over without mercy and on purpose, while seeing no mass exodus as a result.
The "smart consumers" don't get mad, they get more passive.
If you want morality, fire up a neighborhood shoe store. If you are a corporation (private or public) that intends to keep its shareholders happy, you better have the killer instinct or you're not long for this world.
From IBM, I assume you mean. Please, count the number of people you personally know who have bought an IBM desktop PC in the last five years (not including mass corporate stupidity purchases, because anything can be 'proven' under that umbrella).
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the resulting number is awfully close to, if not, zero.
Although I haven't worked on an IBM desktop in many moons, the last ones I did see, in perhaps 1997 or so, were thee most proprietary machines I had (or have) ever worked on. Even luddites knew that an IBM PC purchase meant relying upon IBM parts. That is not considering the heroic added expense of it being an IBM to begin with.
Of course, all that may have changed since. If not, Microsoft has got to know that there's no reason for worry about the recent "noise," as that's all it is.