So much fun. Out of all the posts, I liked yours best, so I felt compelled to reply.;)
First, your advantage is comparing apples to oranges and you also have a nonsenical arguments thrown in for good measure.
I am comparing how long it takes me to install the latest Fedora (or some other Linux distro) to the latest Windows and how long it takes to get to a point of being productive. I firmly believe it is faster and easier to setup the latest Linux distros. Straight forward, less hoops. Easy.
WinXP installing on a PC has 99.9% of the drivers for most people - maybe not your frankenstein setup, but most boxes are plug and play install.
If your referring to the WinXP disk INCLUDING those drivers, then I'll happily disagree. If your working with hardware thats OLDER than the WinXP disk, then I'd say that number is close to 80-85% of the time.. newer hardware is probably down to 40-50%, that is, half the time your going to have to get a driver from some other source for some hardware to make it function.
For a more fair comparison, maybe you should compare it to a preloaded software suite with a new box... at least then they tend to come with recovery cds. I'll bet it's really easy then!
Well if its preloaded (Linux or Windows) than we really don't have to install it, do we? So then the comparison is useless given it is about INSTALLING the system. jeez..
In fact, on new machines, you simply have to click activate and hit Next. If you purchase WinXP separately, yes, you must "hunt down" the string from the sleeve of your CD case. Wow, don't hurt your back in the process you lazy bastard. This same process applies to many other software packages, and it's pretty easy/fast - especially if it's a new box preloaded.
Duh. Again, we are not talking about preloaded systems. We are talking about installing the system on the computer. Sure if someone else installs and configures the software, the installation and configuration TO YOU the enduser is simple because umm.. you didn't do it.
Okay, so when Fedora Core 5 comes out, upgrade to it and let me know how that goes. You know, just update to the latest FC release. That should be easy since they don't test it or support it really.
I don't tend to run Linux -- I run FreeBSD and do the upgrade cycle quite frequently -- but if I end up setting a Fedora 4 system and upgrade to Fedora 5.. I'll be sure to post my results on my blog..
Also, with regards to Microsoft not updating the ISOs. SP2 is now distributed as the base version of Windows, and updates over Windows Update is pretty easy. Couple that with Automatic Updates and it's pretty mindless for the average user. Regardless of if you like that or not, it's not "tough"
Its annoying. If you purchased a WinXP disk when it came out, you don't have the option to download the updated WinXP with SP2 and service packs applied. So when you end up reinstalling the system, you have to install XP, SP2, Security Patches, updated drivers, yada yada yada.. thats where I like the distro model better.. get the latest, install it, copy over your user data and umm.. thats it.
As far as being "pretty mindless for the average user".. apparently you haven't done tech support.. this is far from mindless for the average user. Granted, I find it easy -- I find both platforms easy to install/use (once you understand their methodology). I find Linux/BSD easier when issues occur (it is much more logical/modular/open) but thats a different topic.
You have GOT to be kidding me. 10 times easier than windows XP?
Sure.. why not? After you install Windows you get umm.. Windows. After a Windows install (even from an SP2 disk) I generally have to go search around for device drivers and install them, do the Windows update, install software (Office suite, good instant messenger, graphics program, good CD burner app, etc..) and during hte process, hunt down a handful of real long alphanumeric strings that I get to enter to apparently show that I am worthy.
Now Fedora lets see.. install Fedora. Generally hardware detection is much better and my hardware is detected and configured properly (granted this could be due to the fact it is newer, but alias, Microsoft doesn't offer updated ISOs of WinXP for me to download.. so I think its fair.. latest release to latest release). Oh yah, it comes with the apps I need to use... so perhaps the quick step of updating *ALL* the software on my system to make sure its the latest versions (versus just Windows via Windows update and manually downloading for the rest..) I am pretty much done after installing Fedora.
I think the distros for quite a while have beat Windows for going from 0 to productive. I can do a full Linux install in well under an hour -- I'm lucky to get Windows installed in an hour before thinking about installing the apps that Linux comes with.
I think Windows XP installer asks for a grand total for 3 inputs. Computer Name, User Name, and Time Zone.
Try installing again and let me know how many prompts it takes until you get a useful system where you can get work done.
Apple have written their own SMB/CIFS server. They don't use Samba.
Are you sure??
[xserver:/usr/sbin] root# uname -a Darwin xserver 6.8 Darwin Kernel Version 6.8: Wed Sep 10 15:20:55 PDT 2003;
root:xnu/xnu-344.49.obj~2/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
[xserver:/usr/sbin] root# ps -ax | egrep "(smb|nmb)"
437 ?? Ss 0:04.35/usr/sbin/smbd -D -l/Library/Logs/WindowsServices/Wi
439 ?? Ss 1:18.42/usr/sbin/nmbd -D -l/Library/Logs/WindowsServices/Wi
[xserver:/usr/sbin] root# smbd -V Version 2.2.3a (build 26)
Doing a man smbd shows the following:
This program is part of the Samba suite.
Looks an awful lot like samba to me.. atleast that version of Mac OS X..
Thanks for the follow-up. Just a few additional questions if you don't mind.
You said you prefer not to use it (MSI? WinInstallLE?) if you can get away with it.. does that mean you do not use MSIs for software distribution? How do you manage software installs? Is there another process I should be looking into?
Is Kix32 = KiXtart? I did a search for Kix32 and didn't come up with much.
Thanks for the reply. I recently took on a Win2k3/WinXPPro admin job (coming from mainly Unix servers/thin clients) and many of my issues went unresolved with the MS-droids that assisted in the setup (one even going as far as "why not just give all users administrator access? it will solve your issues!!")
If you don't mind, I have some followup as it appears your a fellow Windows domain admin as well..
#5 -- I guess I don't understand. Sure, if you make a GPO to mandate IE/OE or some other combination should be the default, great, but if not, why have a default user policy outside of the user registry?
#8 -- I realize the "program files" and "windows" folders (among others) are RX and not RWX, but what annoys me is people able to save files to the root (instead of their user profile). Totally screws up my backup procedure (backup roaming profiles at server). I'm use to backing up/home and being done with it for user files.
#9 -- Its not a huge problem until I need to swap out a computer. It would be nice to plug in a new system and have all the users fonts available (or if the user ends up roaming..). The system font folder (IMHO) should contain a standard small set of fonts and thats it.. not mixed with user fonts.
#10 -- Good to know. Now I need to figure it out.:)
#11 -- regedt32 for security.. good to know. Now is there some documentation on keys and what they do? Ie change the default email client key so regular users can modify. Seems like regmon might work, but without knowing exactly when to capture, it ends up being a lot of data.
Also, is it possible to modify security on keys via group policy or a script? Any books on this? (the few I have read so far have been pretty basic standard admin, hands on type stuff.)
#13 -- Yah, I've used that too (WinInstallLE I believe). So far haven't had any luck creating.MSI's using its snapshot feature (package up the difference after a program is installed) but it just seems umm.. lame. Ie FreeBSD has 12,000+ ports/packages that have a rich amount of control over how items are installed (locations, etc..) with permissions set correctly, etc.. Even creating a new port (so far) appears much more straight forward than WinInstallLE or other methods.
#18 -- So users when roaming don't have access to their email using the default configuration if they use Outlook Express? I fail to see the logic in this. Thanks for the heads-up because right now email is vulnerable to a system crash. Yippie. Time to figure out how to move those email files to a more sane location (Application Data seems like a good choice).
#20 -- Thanks for the tip.
Thanks for the reply. I learned quite a bit. Any recommendations on good sources of information for scripting/centralized management functions?
Some of my recent experiences with setting up a Win2k3, WinXP network (26 desktops, 1 server):
Win2k3 came on 3 disks, one being the service pack.. why isn't the service pack included in the original install disk? They were packaged together.
Office2003 came on 4 disks, one being the service pack.. in-order to create a self-installing MSI file, I had to create an admin setup then slipstream the service pack then set it up as a group policy. Not apparent by ANYTHING that came with the media -- ended up going online to a 3rd party site to figure this out.
WindowsXP Professional pre-installed on the desktops. Even though they were purchased from Dell's small business division, the setup required the following:
1. Setup admin account w/password..
2. Setup a local user account.. come to find out, this "user" has ADMIN rights and is setup by default with NO PASSWORD.
3. Even though this is the Pro edition, during installation, it forced a workgroup install and would not allow me to join the domain.. ended up having to log in, join the domain then reboot..
4. Many printers and peripherals were not installed properly and required manually going to websites, downloading drivers and installing. This includes mainstream older hardware such as HP printers.
5. Regular users do not have the ability to choose their own default browser and email client.
6. Regular users are prompted with dialog boxes that they do not have control over (ie if a change is made with msconfig as administrator, when a regular user logs in, it comes up with a dialog that has a checkbox to not show anymore.. next time the user logs in, the dialog still appears..)
7. Regular users for the most part do not have the ability to install software in their own user folder.
8. Regular users by default have write access to the root folder (C:\) -- from what I have read, this cannot be changed w/o significant impacting the system (ie program/Windows failures).
9. Regular users do not have control over their own fonts (Quite aggervating) -- admin has to grant write permission to the single font folder on the system (no per-user font folders).
10. Several applications, even using the "Run As.." to escalate to admin environment do not run properly. It requires a logoff and re-login as the admin.
11. Applications act sporadic when run by a regular user account. This generally requires granting write permission to the program folder or some other system-level folder for regular users.
12. Other applications simply will not run w/o full administrative access (haven't found a workaround).
13. There is no centralized package management. It appears the latest is a complex format called "MSI" but very few applications are distributed using this format. Several software companies when questioned expressed no interest in repackaging their applications in this format.
14. Troubleshooting issues is difficult. Unlike Linux, most apps do not appear to have a function to be verbose about their run-time activity to track down an issue quickly. Use of third party tools such as filemon and regmon appear to be the norm, but I have yet to find them useful (volume of information is too much and depth of information too narrow).
15. When displaying the "My Computer" it has taken a significant amount of time (a minute or more) to fully display, locking up the entire desktop (explorer.exe) interface in the process.
16. On Linux, when apps are installed, they tend to install into an appropriate labeled subfolder on the menu (KDE). On Windows, all apps throw themself in the main "Programs" folder (as well as the quick launch bar, desktop, etc..) and require more manual intervention to keep organized.
17. Even though all the apps are "Windows", the widget sets tend to be different. Windows XP has one feel, Office2003 another, Windows media player a third, and so on.. It use to be the opposite, but it see
The reasons he outlines for this transition are pathetic:
Windows is complex -- hmm.. so is Mac OS X and UNIX.. Computers are inherently multi-function devices and given the wide range of tasks, it makes them complex.
When a new operating system or service pack is released, there are tons of changes to the functionality. -- What? Of course a new OS will have tons of changes -- while I disagree with service packs having tons of critical changes, its more of a naming convention issue (service packs are generally more reliable, solid than the previous incarnation)
WinTel machines use different versions of BIOS. They are not all equal, nor do they all have the same level of compatibility. -- I have no idea what he is talking about. Anyone know?
Some Windows software applications are well written; others take shortcuts. -- same with Mac software, same with open source software, etc.. this is not platform dependant.
Hardware. There are hundreds of "WinTel-compatible" motherboards, each claiming to be better than the next. Whatever. -- Now he dislikes choice. Great! Why not just buy a highly rated, prebuilt desktop/laptop?
Memory. Not all RAM is equal. Some works well. Cheap stuff doesn't. -- Funny, that same RAM is used in Macs as well. Again, do your homework if your an IT guy.
Hard disks. Same problem: cheap or reliable. Your call. -- Same issue, this has NOTHING to do with Windows.
I could understand if he mentioned something like a lot of apps do not initially function properly under a standard user account or break in unexpected ways (I'm dealing with this right now).
Perhaps talk about how centralized application management is a joke on Windows (Microsoft recommends MSI but very little software is shipped as MSIs).
Or perhaps he could take the route of security issues -- Microsoft's idea of security is to pop up a little warning box or some other unnecessary dialog to annoy users instead of providing true security measures. Or even discuss how the registry is a joke where certain user configuration options are stored in system registry so regular user accounts cannot control their own environments (ie certain dialogs that pop up and have an option to "not display again" or the in-ability for a standard user account to set a default email client/browser.)
As far as Win95/98/Me/2k/XP support.. 7.0 (IIRC) will _ONLY_ be available for XP. So as far as I am concerned, Internet Explorer is NOT cross platform and not even cross-Windows version compatible.
and none of them did anything. The javascript looks like it should save a file (c:\booom.bat) and run it which should echo "malicious commands here" and wait for a keypress.
Is this truly an issue with Firefox and not some other software? If so, any ideas why it doesn't work?
But doesn't everyone eat their own dogfood as applicable? If Microsoft says their stuff can do xyz and they need a product that can do xyz, it would look horrible if they used another companies product or even an older version of their own product.
Having said this, does it really matter? Microsoft's corporate goals and resources are much different than most companies. For all intents and purposes, Microsoft has unlimited resources so they can "throw hardware at the problem" or beef up the cluster to provide some assurance in the event their individual servers underperform or have stability issues (which, as far as I know are not disclosed to the public).
Just because Microsoft has the resources to "eat their own dogfood" doesn't necessarily mean this same dog food is healthier for a company than some other food.:)
There are a few things that I think the/. crowd doesn't get:
Most businesses are NOT tech businesses. As a result, they tend to want to keep their costs for tech low and support options open.
Virtually all businesses looking into Linux would be migrating from Windows. The fact that Windows is the core of their technology infrastructure and the support options are there (hardware, software, niche market software, inhouse software, etc..) its VERY difficult to transition.
Sure there might be future cost benefits but are those guaranteed? Doubtful. Microsoft is making inroads in areas that are considered issues -- primarily malicious code and security issues. Reliability (ie BSOD and random reboots) are in large part not much of a concern anymore -- MS has addressed this issue since ~w2k's release.
So I agree with you -- its not a surprise. From what I have read, the ONLY people currently transitioning to Linux are the following:
- Large corporations with a stake in the success of Linux (ie ibm, novell, etc..)
- Governments that are interested in re-investing in their economy instead of pushing money MS and the US economy.
- Small businesses and startups that do not have a pre-existing infrastructure based in Windows (generally tech based startups).
- Select portions of a companies infrastructure that does not require much more than a web browser or single, in-house app.
I think that about sums it up. Needless to say, as these segments grow, it will put pressure on the others to futher maximize their tech infrastructure to stay competitive. As more companies utilize FOSS and can show definitive cost savings.
Hopefully the IT team at these companies are aware of the changing landscape and have already started to plan for the _possibility_ of migrating to another platform in the future (ie make sure existing software is cross platform, etc..) -- I know this is where I am with several companies, so even though the companies are primarily Windows, the ability to transition in the future is becoming less of a "chance" due to pro-active migration to FOSS/cross platform apps and open standards.
If a full Linux infrastucture is in these companies futures, I think for most of the employees, when that day comes, it will be about as big of a deal as a Windows upgrade -- some relearning where stuff is located, but not the huge divide that existing companies making the transition have to overcome.
True, but think what this implies: 5% of development groups never deliver a project that is late. Amazing..
Its true.. these groups are dissolved due to budget over runs, incompetence (either by management or the team), inadaquate staff or any other number of reasons -- as a result, they never deliver the project. So it is technically correct, even though it implies that they do deliver on time, they simply don't deliver at all.
Why not exactly? If the default browser is good enough, why install a secondary browser? If MS builds IE to be singificantly less vulnerable to spyware/adware (ie integration with their spyware tool), throws in pop-up blocking, throws in tab browsing, etc.. what is the motivation to download firefox and use it instead?
I think they can easily derail Firefox.. who is going to stop them? Web developers -- ha! They are being paid by businesses that don't give a crap about CSS2 standards -- if their website doesn't work with IE then it is broken. As an occasional web developer, I can tout the virtues of CSS/XHTML all day long, but it ultimately comes down to "I looked at this in IE and its not displaying right.. fix it."
I have to say, KDE is starting to get really good. And they seem to be cranking out improvements faster than they did in past years.
I feel the QT/KDE teams has been particularly successful in developing a very extensible foundation. Everything fits nicely together which makes it very developer friendly. As a result, as it continues to gain popularity, development has accelerated.
Confusing layout of the filesystem
Thats one thing I particularly like about FreeBSD.. the OS and non-OS files are separated (/usr/bin vs/usr/local/bin and/etc vs/usr/local/etc) and there is a well defined file hierarchy (man hier) which the majority of the ports conform.
Given the detailed description of what each folder is used for makes it clear as to where you would expect to find certain files. The "Program Files" and "System" folder approach falls short. Sure your able to separate the system files and program files, but beyond that, there is no organizational structure. Things like the path variable are effectively useless and included additional content (help files, clipart, sound files, templates, etc..) get buried and may not be discovered.
Thats one of the big issues I have with Linux. This hierarchy is left up to the various distributions and many times, a strong, well planned layout is simply not there. I find I regularly spend too much additional time searching for files on Linux due to this (though still not nearly as long as digging through the registry and scouring various files on a Windows box) compared to knowing the hierarchy on FreeBSD and having a high level of confidence that a file i am looking for will be in one or two possible places.
This is about Apple's diagnostic and performance tools supporting more than 2 CPU cores. The implication is, whatever prototypes Apple's working on needs these tools *right now.*
Yah but its still not a big deal. Any OEM _not_ already looking into dual core and prototyping future product around that technology, especially someone like Apple who does have a higher ratio of workstation/power users is umm.. bad business. I think anyone in the industry would agree.
Windows XP, on the other hand, does not yet support more than two logical CPUs. So any dual-core chip used on an XP box would be by itself...a two-way box. 4-way or larger Windows boxes would have to run Server 2003. Windows Server is not usually blessed for use on personal machines. (Though plenty of people do it.)
Thats purely marketing. You know it and I know it. Same with WinXP Home being unable to handle dual processor setup. Its market driven, artifical limitations.
Whats the big deal? multi-core processors seems to be the "next big thing" to achieve faster speeds, smaller sizes, yada yada.. AMD is doing it.. Intel is doing it.. IBM has been doing it for a while.. so Apple is going to do it.
I don't understand why a rumor about yet another chip going dual core is news. It makes a LOT of sense. Multi-processor machines are more responsive, apps that need the speed are designed (generally) to utilize multiple processors and a dual core processor provides the benefits of a SMP machine in a physically smaller situation. Great for 1U servers.
If they were NOT working on a dual core (4-way) machine, they would risk their power users (read: higher profit margin users) -- I think many of these users, while adaquately swayed by Job's reality distortion field, are cognizant of the industry and will jump ship if it allows them to get their job done faster/better/quicker/whatever..
There are enough "OMFG! Linus is using a PPC!" posts but isn't Linux, FOSS, etc all about choice? Choice of hardware, choice of operating system, choice of apps? Mix and match?
In this instance, it doesn't seem like much more than using the fastest, free system he was given. But isn't that whats cool about Linux and FOSS in general? The fact your ABLE to run a functional system using the OS of your choice on pretty much any hardware available is very cool.
Just curious, are there non-FOSS operating systems that offer this level of choice? I know Microsoft tried on a few platforms with NT but dropped that relatively quickly. MacOS has always been tied to 68k/PPC, Sun offers what most consider a castrated x86 version of Solaris (with hopes of it turning into a sparc system purchase).
Its great being able to get the best hardware for the job and know that your OS and apps will run on it. Its a beautiful thing. *sniff*:)
If you had the opportunity to better define what each item was, that you would.
Assuming that it is _easy_ to do and doesn't require a significant departure from our current model (ie in the save dialog, it has the meta fields there for entry.. in the open dialog, it has the meta fields there for search..)
I can see where it is useful.. ever since I started using JuK, I have found myself utilizing the ID3 tags on my music a LOT more. For one thing, it is built into the interface and allows flexibility (ie when I record a live gig, I can go in and tag all of mp3's with the same artist/album/date/genre and then go back and add the title and change the filename) which is GREAT. Infact, when playing music, even though I do organize my files in folders (by genre), I tend to use the search in JuK much more often.
Just curious, how is this meta data stored in WinFS? Do you know? (I haven't kept up) -- is it built into the file a'la ID3 tags or is it a separate resource fork a'la Mac OS Classic? If I transfer a file to someone elses computer, is the meta data included? Is this an open standard so the meta data is cross platform compatiable?
OpenOffice is one that isn't, it doesn't really offer anything in the same area as Access for example (I hate Access, but lots of non-Technical, non-Database people use it a lot).
OOo 2 has "Base" which is simialr to Access. I haven't had a chance to really dig into it to compare it but it looks promising. In addition, 2.0 adds a lot of other features including a more modern interface -- its looking really good. Pretty much all of my compliants with 1.x have been addressed. Infact, right now, I have found OOo to do a better job in many areas over Office XP (though can't vouch for Office 2003 since I haven't used it). OOo 2.0 looks like a HUGE release (as far as user growth).
Or look at GIMP, it just isn't as good as Photoshop in terms of features and ease of use.
Agreed. Unfortunately it seems like no matter where you look, open source or commercial, no one has come close to Photoshop. Not that this surprises me too much but Photoshop does have over a decade of development and the input of thousands (millions?) of users that got it to where it is today. The GIMP is pretty good for what it is, but unfortuantely, atleast for now, the semi-pro or professional still does not have a viable alternative to Photoshop.
I'm sure once Episode IV, V and VI Longhorn 64-bit comes out, it will be great. Granted, it will require the absolute top-of-the-line playback equipment and super-HDTV to view...
So basically your like the majority of people out there..
#1 -- have software that only runs on Windows -- while you *might* be able to run it pretty well under some type of emulation, you basically forfit any type of support if it fails.
#2 -- trained on Windows, only know Windows, Windows = the computer, are completely oblivious to the benefits and merits of other operating systems. Even though you have tried other operating systems, you haven't really fully understood the other systems (ie everything you do in the other OS is relative to Windows -- your mind is still very much Windows-centric and as a result, your still bounded by the limitations and methodologies that Windows enforces).
It is a shame that #1 is still very true for most people. There is still a LOT of software that is simply only available for Windows and nothing too similar on other platforms (particularly music/notation software and games).
Keep on chippin' away I suppose. FOSS usage is on the rise, so perhaps the transition will be easier in a few years (would be great to have the music apps on Linux..)
I just wanted to tip my hat in your general direction. This reply is fantastic. I really hope to see a reply from the parent..
It amazes me as well that people will spend significant amount of time running adaware, spybot, virus scanners, windows update, defrag, norton internet security, a multitude of pop-up blockers, etc..etc..etc.. but will not spend time to gradually learn a new, better way of doing things.
I think people rationalize spending a little bit of time each week (ie a few hours) for an indefinite period of time is better than spending a larger amount of time learning a different system. The fact that perhaps the use of a non-MS operating system is not clearly evident in long-term time savings is perhaps holding most back from truly embracing an alternative system.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the answer to 1 + 1???
How about 10 or 11?
Why don't I have spell checking in EVERY place on the computer I could possibly enter text?
:) Its umm.. smart.
Because your using an outdated system. Try KDE. You will like it.
So much fun. Out of all the posts, I liked yours best, so I felt compelled to reply. ;)
.. newer hardware is probably down to 40-50%, that is, half the time your going to have to get a driver from some other source for some hardware to make it function.
.. I'll be sure to post my results on my blog..
.. get the latest, install it, copy over your user data and umm.. thats it.
.. apparently you haven't done tech support.. this is far from mindless for the average user. Granted, I find it easy -- I find both platforms easy to install/use (once you understand their methodology). I find Linux/BSD easier when issues occur (it is much more logical/modular/open) but thats a different topic.
First, your advantage is comparing apples to oranges and you also have a nonsenical arguments thrown in for good measure.
I am comparing how long it takes me to install the latest Fedora (or some other Linux distro) to the latest Windows and how long it takes to get to a point of being productive. I firmly believe it is faster and easier to setup the latest Linux distros. Straight forward, less hoops. Easy.
WinXP installing on a PC has 99.9% of the drivers for most people - maybe not your frankenstein setup, but most boxes are plug and play install.
If your referring to the WinXP disk INCLUDING those drivers, then I'll happily disagree. If your working with hardware thats OLDER than the WinXP disk, then I'd say that number is close to 80-85% of the time
For a more fair comparison, maybe you should compare it to a preloaded software suite with a new box... at least then they tend to come with recovery cds. I'll bet it's really easy then!
Well if its preloaded (Linux or Windows) than we really don't have to install it, do we? So then the comparison is useless given it is about INSTALLING the system. jeez..
In fact, on new machines, you simply have to click activate and hit Next. If you purchase WinXP separately, yes, you must "hunt down" the string from the sleeve of your CD case. Wow, don't hurt your back in the process you lazy bastard. This same process applies to many other software packages, and it's pretty easy/fast - especially if it's a new box preloaded.
Duh. Again, we are not talking about preloaded systems. We are talking about installing the system on the computer. Sure if someone else installs and configures the software, the installation and configuration TO YOU the enduser is simple because umm.. you didn't do it.
Okay, so when Fedora Core 5 comes out, upgrade to it and let me know how that goes. You know, just update to the latest FC release. That should be easy since they don't test it or support it really.
I don't tend to run Linux -- I run FreeBSD and do the upgrade cycle quite frequently -- but if I end up setting a Fedora 4 system and upgrade to Fedora 5
Also, with regards to Microsoft not updating the ISOs. SP2 is now distributed as the base version of Windows, and updates over Windows Update is pretty easy. Couple that with Automatic Updates and it's pretty mindless for the average user. Regardless of if you like that or not, it's not "tough"
Its annoying. If you purchased a WinXP disk when it came out, you don't have the option to download the updated WinXP with SP2 and service packs applied. So when you end up reinstalling the system, you have to install XP, SP2, Security Patches, updated drivers, yada yada yada.. thats where I like the distro model better
As far as being "pretty mindless for the average user"
You have GOT to be kidding me.
.. install Fedora. Generally hardware detection is much better and my hardware is detected and configured properly (granted this could be due to the fact it is newer, but alias, Microsoft doesn't offer updated ISOs of WinXP for me to download.. so I think its fair .. latest release to latest release). Oh yah, it comes with the apps I need to use ... so perhaps the quick step of updating *ALL* the software on my system to make sure its the latest versions (versus just Windows via Windows update and manually downloading for the rest..) I am pretty much done after installing Fedora.
10 times easier than windows XP?
Sure.. why not? After you install Windows you get umm.. Windows. After a Windows install (even from an SP2 disk) I generally have to go search around for device drivers and install them, do the Windows update, install software (Office suite, good instant messenger, graphics program, good CD burner app, etc..) and during hte process, hunt down a handful of real long alphanumeric strings that I get to enter to apparently show that I am worthy.
Now Fedora lets see
I think the distros for quite a while have beat Windows for going from 0 to productive. I can do a full Linux install in well under an hour -- I'm lucky to get Windows installed in an hour before thinking about installing the apps that Linux comes with.
I think Windows XP installer asks for a grand total for 3 inputs. Computer Name, User Name, and Time Zone.
Try installing again and let me know how many prompts it takes until you get a useful system where you can get work done.
Apple have written their own SMB/CIFS server. They don't use Samba.
/usr/sbin/smbd -D -l /Library/Logs/WindowsServices/Wi /usr/sbin/nmbd -D -l /Library/Logs/WindowsServices/Wi
Are you sure??
[xserver:/usr/sbin] root# uname -a
Darwin xserver 6.8 Darwin Kernel Version 6.8: Wed Sep 10 15:20:55 PDT 2003;
root:xnu/xnu-344.49.obj~2/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
[xserver:/usr/sbin] root# ps -ax | egrep "(smb|nmb)"
437 ?? Ss 0:04.35
439 ?? Ss 1:18.42
[xserver:/usr/sbin] root# smbd -V
Version 2.2.3a (build 26)
Doing a man smbd shows the following:
This program is part of the Samba suite.
Looks an awful lot like samba to me.. atleast that version of Mac OS X..
Thanks for the follow-up. Just a few additional questions if you don't mind.
You said you prefer not to use it (MSI? WinInstallLE?) if you can get away with it.. does that mean you do not use MSIs for software distribution? How do you manage software installs? Is there another process I should be looking into?
Is Kix32 = KiXtart? I did a search for Kix32 and didn't come up with much.
Thanks for the reply. I recently took on a Win2k3/WinXPPro admin job (coming from mainly Unix servers/thin clients) and many of my issues went unresolved with the MS-droids that assisted in the setup (one even going as far as "why not just give all users administrator access? it will solve your issues!!")
/home and being done with it for user files.
:)
.. good to know. Now is there some documentation on keys and what they do? Ie change the default email client key so regular users can modify. Seems like regmon might work, but without knowing exactly when to capture, it ends up being a lot of data.
.MSI's using its snapshot feature (package up the difference after a program is installed) but it just seems umm.. lame. Ie FreeBSD has 12,000+ ports/packages that have a rich amount of control over how items are installed (locations, etc..) with permissions set correctly, etc.. Even creating a new port (so far) appears much more straight forward than WinInstallLE or other methods.
If you don't mind, I have some followup as it appears your a fellow Windows domain admin as well..
#5 -- I guess I don't understand. Sure, if you make a GPO to mandate IE/OE or some other combination should be the default, great, but if not, why have a default user policy outside of the user registry?
#8 -- I realize the "program files" and "windows" folders (among others) are RX and not RWX, but what annoys me is people able to save files to the root (instead of their user profile). Totally screws up my backup procedure (backup roaming profiles at server). I'm use to backing up
#9 -- Its not a huge problem until I need to swap out a computer. It would be nice to plug in a new system and have all the users fonts available (or if the user ends up roaming..). The system font folder (IMHO) should contain a standard small set of fonts and thats it.. not mixed with user fonts.
#10 -- Good to know. Now I need to figure it out.
#11 -- regedt32 for security
Also, is it possible to modify security on keys via group policy or a script? Any books on this? (the few I have read so far have been pretty basic standard admin, hands on type stuff.)
#13 -- Yah, I've used that too (WinInstallLE I believe). So far haven't had any luck creating
#18 -- So users when roaming don't have access to their email using the default configuration if they use Outlook Express? I fail to see the logic in this. Thanks for the heads-up because right now email is vulnerable to a system crash. Yippie. Time to figure out how to move those email files to a more sane location (Application Data seems like a good choice).
#20 -- Thanks for the tip.
Thanks for the reply. I learned quite a bit. Any recommendations on good sources of information for scripting/centralized management functions?
Some of my recent experiences with setting up a Win2k3, WinXP network (26 desktops, 1 server):
.. come to find out, this "user" has ADMIN rights and is setup by default with NO PASSWORD.
.. ended up having to log in, join the domain then reboot..
Win2k3 came on 3 disks, one being the service pack.. why isn't the service pack included in the original install disk? They were packaged together.
Office2003 came on 4 disks, one being the service pack.. in-order to create a self-installing MSI file, I had to create an admin setup then slipstream the service pack then set it up as a group policy. Not apparent by ANYTHING that came with the media -- ended up going online to a 3rd party site to figure this out.
WindowsXP Professional pre-installed on the desktops. Even though they were purchased from Dell's small business division, the setup required the following:
1. Setup admin account w/password..
2. Setup a local user account
3. Even though this is the Pro edition, during installation, it forced a workgroup install and would not allow me to join the domain
4. Many printers and peripherals were not installed properly and required manually going to websites, downloading drivers and installing. This includes mainstream older hardware such as HP printers.
5. Regular users do not have the ability to choose their own default browser and email client.
6. Regular users are prompted with dialog boxes that they do not have control over (ie if a change is made with msconfig as administrator, when a regular user logs in, it comes up with a dialog that has a checkbox to not show anymore.. next time the user logs in, the dialog still appears..)
7. Regular users for the most part do not have the ability to install software in their own user folder.
8. Regular users by default have write access to the root folder (C:\) -- from what I have read, this cannot be changed w/o significant impacting the system (ie program/Windows failures).
9. Regular users do not have control over their own fonts (Quite aggervating) -- admin has to grant write permission to the single font folder on the system (no per-user font folders).
10. Several applications, even using the "Run As.." to escalate to admin environment do not run properly. It requires a logoff and re-login as the admin.
11. Applications act sporadic when run by a regular user account. This generally requires granting write permission to the program folder or some other system-level folder for regular users.
12. Other applications simply will not run w/o full administrative access (haven't found a workaround).
13. There is no centralized package management. It appears the latest is a complex format called "MSI" but very few applications are distributed using this format. Several software companies when questioned expressed no interest in repackaging their applications in this format.
14. Troubleshooting issues is difficult. Unlike Linux, most apps do not appear to have a function to be verbose about their run-time activity to track down an issue quickly. Use of third party tools such as filemon and regmon appear to be the norm, but I have yet to find them useful (volume of information is too much and depth of information too narrow).
15. When displaying the "My Computer" it has taken a significant amount of time (a minute or more) to fully display, locking up the entire desktop (explorer.exe) interface in the process.
16. On Linux, when apps are installed, they tend to install into an appropriate labeled subfolder on the menu (KDE). On Windows, all apps throw themself in the main "Programs" folder (as well as the quick launch bar, desktop, etc..) and require more manual intervention to keep organized.
17. Even though all the apps are "Windows", the widget sets tend to be different. Windows XP has one feel, Office2003 another, Windows media player a third, and so on.. It use to be the opposite, but it see
The reasons he outlines for this transition are pathetic:
Windows is complex -- hmm.. so is Mac OS X and UNIX.. Computers are inherently multi-function devices and given the wide range of tasks, it makes them complex.
When a new operating system or service pack is released, there are tons of changes to the functionality. -- What? Of course a new OS will have tons of changes -- while I disagree with service packs having tons of critical changes, its more of a naming convention issue (service packs are generally more reliable, solid than the previous incarnation)
WinTel machines use different versions of BIOS. They are not all equal, nor do they all have the same level of compatibility. -- I have no idea what he is talking about. Anyone know?
Some Windows software applications are well written; others take shortcuts. -- same with Mac software, same with open source software, etc.. this is not platform dependant.
Hardware. There are hundreds of "WinTel-compatible" motherboards, each claiming to be better than the next. Whatever. -- Now he dislikes choice. Great! Why not just buy a highly rated, prebuilt desktop/laptop?
Memory. Not all RAM is equal. Some works well. Cheap stuff doesn't. -- Funny, that same RAM is used in Macs as well. Again, do your homework if your an IT guy.
Hard disks. Same problem: cheap or reliable. Your call. -- Same issue, this has NOTHING to do with Windows.
I could understand if he mentioned something like a lot of apps do not initially function properly under a standard user account or break in unexpected ways (I'm dealing with this right now).
Perhaps talk about how centralized application management is a joke on Windows (Microsoft recommends MSI but very little software is shipped as MSIs).
Or perhaps he could take the route of security issues -- Microsoft's idea of security is to pop up a little warning box or some other unnecessary dialog to annoy users instead of providing true security measures. Or even discuss how the registry is a joke where certain user configuration options are stored in system registry so regular user accounts cannot control their own environments (ie certain dialogs that pop up and have an option to "not display again" or the in-ability for a standard user account to set a default email client/browser.)
hmmmm...
.. 7.0 (IIRC) will _ONLY_ be available for XP. So as far as I am concerned, Internet Explorer is NOT cross platform and not even cross-Windows version compatible.
Microsoft: No new versions of IE for Mac - June 2003
As far as Win95/98/Me/2k/XP support
Just curious, I downloaded the page and loaded it up on several systems:
Win XP, Firefox 1.0.3
Win 2k, Firefox 1.0.3
FreeBSD, Firefox 1.0.3
and none of them did anything. The javascript looks like it should save a file (c:\booom.bat) and run it which should echo "malicious commands here" and wait for a keypress.
Is this truly an issue with Firefox and not some other software? If so, any ideas why it doesn't work?
But doesn't everyone eat their own dogfood as applicable? If Microsoft says their stuff can do xyz and they need a product that can do xyz, it would look horrible if they used another companies product or even an older version of their own product.
:)
Having said this, does it really matter? Microsoft's corporate goals and resources are much different than most companies. For all intents and purposes, Microsoft has unlimited resources so they can "throw hardware at the problem" or beef up the cluster to provide some assurance in the event their individual servers underperform or have stability issues (which, as far as I know are not disclosed to the public).
Just because Microsoft has the resources to "eat their own dogfood" doesn't necessarily mean this same dog food is healthier for a company than some other food.
There are a few things that I think the /. crowd doesn't get:
Most businesses are NOT tech businesses. As a result, they tend to want to keep their costs for tech low and support options open.
Virtually all businesses looking into Linux would be migrating from Windows. The fact that Windows is the core of their technology infrastructure and the support options are there (hardware, software, niche market software, inhouse software, etc..) its VERY difficult to transition.
Sure there might be future cost benefits but are those guaranteed? Doubtful. Microsoft is making inroads in areas that are considered issues -- primarily malicious code and security issues. Reliability (ie BSOD and random reboots) are in large part not much of a concern anymore -- MS has addressed this issue since ~w2k's release.
So I agree with you -- its not a surprise. From what I have read, the ONLY people currently transitioning to Linux are the following:
- Large corporations with a stake in the success of Linux (ie ibm, novell, etc..)
- Governments that are interested in re-investing in their economy instead of pushing money MS and the US economy.
- Small businesses and startups that do not have a pre-existing infrastructure based in Windows (generally tech based startups).
- Select portions of a companies infrastructure that does not require much more than a web browser or single, in-house app.
I think that about sums it up. Needless to say, as these segments grow, it will put pressure on the others to futher maximize their tech infrastructure to stay competitive. As more companies utilize FOSS and can show definitive cost savings.
Hopefully the IT team at these companies are aware of the changing landscape and have already started to plan for the _possibility_ of migrating to another platform in the future (ie make sure existing software is cross platform, etc..) -- I know this is where I am with several companies, so even though the companies are primarily Windows, the ability to transition in the future is becoming less of a "chance" due to pro-active migration to FOSS/cross platform apps and open standards.
If a full Linux infrastucture is in these companies futures, I think for most of the employees, when that day comes, it will be about as big of a deal as a Windows upgrade -- some relearning where stuff is located, but not the huge divide that existing companies making the transition have to overcome.
True, but think what this implies: 5% of development groups never deliver a project that is late. Amazing..
.. these groups are dissolved due to budget over runs, incompetence (either by management or the team), inadaquate staff or any other number of reasons -- as a result, they never deliver the project. So it is technically correct, even though it implies that they do deliver on time, they simply don't deliver at all.
Its true
The day before my birthday. Too bad I'll be too busy working off my student loan to go see it. Its about time they went back up.
:) Luckily I don't have any student loans to pay off. :)
Interesting. Thats a day before my birthday.
People will use IE7 .. it will not derail Firefox.
.. who is going to stop them? Web developers -- ha! They are being paid by businesses that don't give a crap about CSS2 standards -- if their website doesn't work with IE then it is broken. As an occasional web developer, I can tout the virtues of CSS/XHTML all day long, but it ultimately comes down to "I looked at this in IE and its not displaying right.. fix it."
Why not exactly? If the default browser is good enough, why install a secondary browser? If MS builds IE to be singificantly less vulnerable to spyware/adware (ie integration with their spyware tool), throws in pop-up blocking, throws in tab browsing, etc.. what is the motivation to download firefox and use it instead?
I think they can easily derail Firefox
I have to say, KDE is starting to get really good. And they seem to be cranking out improvements faster than they did in past years.
/usr/local/bin and /etc vs /usr/local/etc) and there is a well defined file hierarchy (man hier) which the majority of the ports conform.
I feel the QT/KDE teams has been particularly successful in developing a very extensible foundation. Everything fits nicely together which makes it very developer friendly. As a result, as it continues to gain popularity, development has accelerated.
Confusing layout of the filesystem
Thats one thing I particularly like about FreeBSD.. the OS and non-OS files are separated (/usr/bin vs
Given the detailed description of what each folder is used for makes it clear as to where you would expect to find certain files. The "Program Files" and "System" folder approach falls short. Sure your able to separate the system files and program files, but beyond that, there is no organizational structure. Things like the path variable are effectively useless and included additional content (help files, clipart, sound files, templates, etc..) get buried and may not be discovered.
Thats one of the big issues I have with Linux. This hierarchy is left up to the various distributions and many times, a strong, well planned layout is simply not there. I find I regularly spend too much additional time searching for files on Linux due to this (though still not nearly as long as digging through the registry and scouring various files on a Windows box) compared to knowing the hierarchy on FreeBSD and having a high level of confidence that a file i am looking for will be in one or two possible places.
This is about Apple's diagnostic and performance tools supporting more than 2 CPU cores. The implication is, whatever prototypes Apple's working on needs these tools *right now.*
Yah but its still not a big deal. Any OEM _not_ already looking into dual core and prototyping future product around that technology, especially someone like Apple who does have a higher ratio of workstation/power users is umm.. bad business. I think anyone in the industry would agree.
Windows XP, on the other hand, does not yet support more than two logical CPUs. So any dual-core chip used on an XP box would be by itself...a two-way box. 4-way or larger Windows boxes would have to run Server 2003. Windows Server is not usually blessed for use on personal machines. (Though plenty of people do it.)
Thats purely marketing. You know it and I know it. Same with WinXP Home being unable to handle dual processor setup. Its market driven, artifical limitations.
Whats the big deal? multi-core processors seems to be the "next big thing" to achieve faster speeds, smaller sizes, yada yada.. AMD is doing it .. Intel is doing it .. IBM has been doing it for a while .. so Apple is going to do it.
I don't understand why a rumor about yet another chip going dual core is news. It makes a LOT of sense. Multi-processor machines are more responsive, apps that need the speed are designed (generally) to utilize multiple processors and a dual core processor provides the benefits of a SMP machine in a physically smaller situation. Great for 1U servers.
If they were NOT working on a dual core (4-way) machine, they would risk their power users (read: higher profit margin users) -- I think many of these users, while adaquately swayed by Job's reality distortion field, are cognizant of the industry and will jump ship if it allows them to get their job done faster/better/quicker/whatever..
There are enough "OMFG! Linus is using a PPC!" posts but isn't Linux, FOSS, etc all about choice? Choice of hardware, choice of operating system, choice of apps? Mix and match?
:)
In this instance, it doesn't seem like much more than using the fastest, free system he was given. But isn't that whats cool about Linux and FOSS in general? The fact your ABLE to run a functional system using the OS of your choice on pretty much any hardware available is very cool.
Just curious, are there non-FOSS operating systems that offer this level of choice? I know Microsoft tried on a few platforms with NT but dropped that relatively quickly. MacOS has always been tied to 68k/PPC, Sun offers what most consider a castrated x86 version of Solaris (with hopes of it turning into a sparc system purchase).
Its great being able to get the best hardware for the job and know that your OS and apps will run on it. Its a beautiful thing. *sniff*
If you had the opportunity to better define what each item was, that you would.
.. in the open dialog, it has the meta fields there for search..)
.. ever since I started using JuK, I have found myself utilizing the ID3 tags on my music a LOT more. For one thing, it is built into the interface and allows flexibility (ie when I record a live gig, I can go in and tag all of mp3's with the same artist/album/date/genre and then go back and add the title and change the filename) which is GREAT. Infact, when playing music, even though I do organize my files in folders (by genre), I tend to use the search in JuK much more often.
Assuming that it is _easy_ to do and doesn't require a significant departure from our current model (ie in the save dialog, it has the meta fields there for entry
I can see where it is useful
Just curious, how is this meta data stored in WinFS? Do you know? (I haven't kept up) -- is it built into the file a'la ID3 tags or is it a separate resource fork a'la Mac OS Classic? If I transfer a file to someone elses computer, is the meta data included? Is this an open standard so the meta data is cross platform compatiable?
OpenOffice is one that isn't, it doesn't really offer anything in the same area as Access for example (I hate Access, but lots of non-Technical, non-Database people use it a lot).
OOo 2 has "Base" which is simialr to Access. I haven't had a chance to really dig into it to compare it but it looks promising. In addition, 2.0 adds a lot of other features including a more modern interface -- its looking really good. Pretty much all of my compliants with 1.x have been addressed. Infact, right now, I have found OOo to do a better job in many areas over Office XP (though can't vouch for Office 2003 since I haven't used it). OOo 2.0 looks like a HUGE release (as far as user growth).
Or look at GIMP, it just isn't as good as Photoshop in terms of features and ease of use.
Agreed. Unfortunately it seems like no matter where you look, open source or commercial, no one has come close to Photoshop. Not that this surprises me too much but Photoshop does have over a decade of development and the input of thousands (millions?) of users that got it to where it is today. The GIMP is pretty good for what it is, but unfortuantely, atleast for now, the semi-pro or professional still does not have a viable alternative to Photoshop.
I'm sure once Episode IV, V and VI Longhorn 64-bit comes out, it will be great. Granted, it will require the absolute top-of-the-line playback equipment and super-HDTV to view ...
Thanks for the followup ..
So basically your like the majority of people out there..
#1 -- have software that only runs on Windows -- while you *might* be able to run it pretty well under some type of emulation, you basically forfit any type of support if it fails.
#2 -- trained on Windows, only know Windows, Windows = the computer, are completely oblivious to the benefits and merits of other operating systems. Even though you have tried other operating systems, you haven't really fully understood the other systems (ie everything you do in the other OS is relative to Windows -- your mind is still very much Windows-centric and as a result, your still bounded by the limitations and methodologies that Windows enforces).
It is a shame that #1 is still very true for most people. There is still a LOT of software that is simply only available for Windows and nothing too similar on other platforms (particularly music/notation software and games).
Keep on chippin' away I suppose. FOSS usage is on the rise, so perhaps the transition will be easier in a few years (would be great to have the music apps on Linux..)
I just wanted to tip my hat in your general direction. This reply is fantastic. I really hope to see a reply from the parent..
It amazes me as well that people will spend significant amount of time running adaware, spybot, virus scanners, windows update, defrag, norton internet security, a multitude of pop-up blockers, etc..etc..etc.. but will not spend time to gradually learn a new, better way of doing things.
I think people rationalize spending a little bit of time each week (ie a few hours) for an indefinite period of time is better than spending a larger amount of time learning a different system. The fact that perhaps the use of a non-MS operating system is not clearly evident in long-term time savings is perhaps holding most back from truly embracing an alternative system.