I'm finding it amusing how easily everyone is dismissing this rather than paying attention to it and gleaning important points.
Martin for example quite rightly points out that IBM, Oracle etc. are not throwing their lot in selflessly and wholeheartedly with Linux, they're augmenting a customer solution with open source products where their own proprietary software is lacking (they need an OS stack on which to run websphere, for example).
These kinds of points are strong, not because they're obvious, but because they indicate that in a lot of respects, adopting an open source operating system does not mean embracing free and open software. There is always cost and propriety.
Another point which isn't often raised and which Microsoft is hammering on is yes, their solutions are at times more expensive, but do they provide more value to the customer, and this is the point which is most often dismissed as FUD, although it's valid.
Objectively speaking (objectivity being in short supply in this environment) some Microsoft products do provide better value in terms of functionality. From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems.
The foregoing is not FUD. It's "the right tool for the right job". Microsoft doesn't strongly compete in top-level enterprise services like border security, and it doesn't do a great deal of business replacing UNIX systems or placing itself in environments where UNIX would ordinarily be. Why? Because it doesn't provide as much value. But at the workgroup level, they're a competitor and everyone just has to deal with that.
Internet explorer doesn't "hook" into the Windows kernel. It's embedded throughout the graphical interface.
The same can be said for KHTML under KDE, GTKHTML under GNOME, and increasingly, Mozilla under GNOME.
It is this platform integration that causes issues, since the capabilities of the browser are everywhere, and it's a security problem Linux will eventually share if it becomes popular enough.
Believe it or not, I think the user experience is more positive. A nicely configured Linux distribution with all the graphical trimmings, and you have a fine workstation you can do everyday things with. No worries about viruses, popups, spyware or even spam (as most mainstream Linux mail clients have some sort of available antispam solution - in the case of Mozilla, a builtin, and easy one).
Because of the added feeling of security and the increasing maturity of Linux desktops, I don't think I've had a *need* to run Windows for much except the odd video game.
Out of curiosity, where did you find the figures on total personal computer unit sales? I'd like to review that; it's been commonly bandied about that overall sales of personal computers has dropped in recent years rather than increased.
Another common behaviour among slashdot geeks is to recoil in self-righteous horror at anything derisive said about Microsoft products.
This is chiefly due to the fact that geeks are becoming increasingly aware that their vitriol toward typical users who don't deserve scorn or to be looked down upon ostracizes them from most any discussion they enter. The typical geek then misdirects his dislike of these social repercussions toward other geeks whom he thinks perpetuate the same.
Unfortunately this is an exercise in two-dimensional thinking, as our lovable geek friend becomes so involved in being apologetic and hard on his fellow geeks that he forgets a simple truth; Microsoft products do indeed have fundamental flaws that need to be addressed, discussed, and objected to in order for the typical consumer to become aware of what they're missing and what they should come to expect from Windows, failing a switch to another platform or operating system.
The insider's point of view is not that the project is run by a secretive overlord. While you may have a cultural or societally engrained reason for believing that, it's not the case.
Nobody has the right to make something look like something else? I don't know if you're on the same page as everyone else my friend, but patenting an appearance is a bad thing.
Liquid widgets are attractive, that's why Apple chose to use them. Apple is not the first to theme an environment with liquid widgets, either.
The OSS movement powers your favorite operating system. Over half of your precious kernel is FreeBSD. Without FreeBSD, your favorite operating system would still not truly multitask.
Count me in as a moviegoer, there's no substitute. I want to go see it again!
Why on earth would you download a badly done copy of something you can pay for the best quality of?
In my world we have little bits of currency with which we can purchase (for the most part) quality controlled goods and services. Some of you should check that out.
Unfortunately they also left much of the Linux network stack untuned even though they altered all of two settings in samba's config file.
They then proceeded to tune the hell out of the Windows server, altering things like file locking semantics, network timeouts and dormant file limits in order to eke out more speed.
Hope someone else has picked up on this imbalance in the optimisation of the systems....
RedHat can't market the software they sell as a general purpose OS yet. Not because it's simply not appropriate, but because the software isn't ready.
My perspective is this; Linux itself doesn't need to work better as a workstation, it's fine. It needs applications now.
As a server there is no competition, Linux is among the top performers in the industry, and any inroads Microsoft makes will certainly be due to management making poor decisions.
On the workstation side, groups of people spend thousands of man-hours working on KDE and GNOME, Mozilla and OpenOffice.org, and various other workstation applications. Among these selections are a set of laudable starts, but they fall flat when it comes to actually working.
OpenOffice.org can't transfer clipboard selections to Mozilla and vice versa. Gaim is incapable in its current version of sending or receiving IM images without crashing. Licq doesn't understand the concept of a serverside contact list.
XMMS is aging and is unable to edit ID3v2 tags. GNOME's panel application for organising the desktop is crash prone. Customizing the GNOME menu requires a restart of the environment in order for things to show up. GNOME's print system is sad and has no configurator because that team 'doesn't believe in it'. KDE doesn't obey fontconfig properly.
Okay, so we have all these little tiny points, which are superfluous to you an I, because we either work around them, don't like desktop environments or user applications, or avoid using X entirely.
The thing is, these applications were DESIGNED to be userfriendly. KDE, GNOME particularly are examples of software whose express goal is to make life easy for a user who has no experience at all with UNIX.
This is the aspect that annoys me. They fail to acheive stated goals because of numerous issues, including as mentioned above the fact that people just don't want to do the dirty work of making the glue happen.
I'm on the phone as I'm typing my thoughts out, so I'm probably digressing all over the place here.
The replies I've been receiving so far with regard to my concerns are mainly 'so? we don't care about userfriendly!'
That's all well and good, but for projects dedicated to this goal, and integrated into major Linux titles like RedHat, who are marketed as easyto use and indeed easy to administer, there's a certain level of self-respect that should be accompanied by higher quality software, rather than the presently poor user-experience people have.
Oh damn, my browser segfaulted when I tried to print. Shoot, X died on me when I tried revising my resume. My NIC won't initialize! I can't check my email!
That's where I'm coming from, mainly. That's the angle from which Microsoft is going to come and attack Linux, too. They're going to present Linux as though it tried and failed miserably to appeal to the userbase.
And it may be a strawman on Microsoft's part, but still, it looks bad and the community could probably do better.
For schmoe user who reads Ballmers words and understands that Windows is sexier and easier for them.
I do understand the interest and desire to write software to fill needs and satisfy interests. I think it's one of open source's greatest strengths, the freedom to create.
But as a community, probably because of a minority of loud voices have made claims which the community is unable to back up, and that bugs me to no end.
If we're not here to replace Microsoft, someone should speak up and say so, even if it knocks RedHat and the profiteers on their asses.
People who use Gentoo are largely irresponsible with it; I migrated to Gentoo on my workstations coming from FreeBSD, so I know to be sparing with CFLAGS, etc.
The distribution does need significant policies with respect to how to compile things. FreeBSD will not let you impose unruly CFLAGS like -fignore-important-functions and then report bugs. It will even filter out -march and replace it with something the development team supports.
Slashdot Mirror
"yet another dull FUD exercise"
I'm finding it amusing how easily everyone is dismissing this rather than paying attention to it and gleaning important points.
Martin for example quite rightly points out that IBM, Oracle etc. are not throwing their lot in selflessly and wholeheartedly with Linux, they're augmenting a customer solution with open source products where their own proprietary software is lacking (they need an OS stack on which to run websphere, for example).
These kinds of points are strong, not because they're obvious, but because they indicate that in a lot of respects, adopting an open source operating system does not mean embracing free and open software. There is always cost and propriety.
Another point which isn't often raised and which Microsoft is hammering on is yes, their solutions are at times more expensive, but do they provide more value to the customer, and this is the point which is most often dismissed as FUD, although it's valid.
Objectively speaking (objectivity being in short supply in this environment) some Microsoft products do provide better value in terms of functionality. From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems.
The foregoing is not FUD. It's "the right tool for the right job". Microsoft doesn't strongly compete in top-level enterprise services like border security, and it doesn't do a great deal of business replacing UNIX systems or placing itself in environments where UNIX would ordinarily be. Why? Because it doesn't provide as much value. But at the workgroup level, they're a competitor and everyone just has to deal with that.
Small new companies that can't afford to purchase more expensive, perhaps more useful (to them) solutions?
It took my company 4 years of Linux use before it grew to the point of needing to adopt a Windows solution internally.
Internet explorer doesn't "hook" into the Windows kernel. It's embedded throughout the graphical interface.
The same can be said for KHTML under KDE, GTKHTML under GNOME, and increasingly, Mozilla under GNOME.
It is this platform integration that causes issues, since the capabilities of the browser are everywhere, and it's a security problem Linux will eventually share if it becomes popular enough.
Believe it or not, I think the user experience is more positive. A nicely configured Linux distribution with all the graphical trimmings, and you have a fine workstation you can do everyday things with. No worries about viruses, popups, spyware or even spam (as most mainstream Linux mail clients have some sort of available antispam solution - in the case of Mozilla, a builtin, and easy one).
Because of the added feeling of security and the increasing maturity of Linux desktops, I don't think I've had a *need* to run Windows for much except the odd video game.
Hanson - Mmm Bop
Out of curiosity, where did you find the figures on total personal computer unit sales? I'd like to review that; it's been commonly bandied about that overall sales of personal computers has dropped in recent years rather than increased.
Another common behaviour among slashdot geeks is to recoil in self-righteous horror at anything derisive said about Microsoft products.
This is chiefly due to the fact that geeks are becoming increasingly aware that their vitriol toward typical users who don't deserve scorn or to be looked down upon ostracizes them from most any discussion they enter. The typical geek then misdirects his dislike of these social repercussions toward other geeks whom he thinks perpetuate the same.
Unfortunately this is an exercise in two-dimensional thinking, as our lovable geek friend becomes so involved in being apologetic and hard on his fellow geeks that he forgets a simple truth; Microsoft products do indeed have fundamental flaws that need to be addressed, discussed, and objected to in order for the typical consumer to become aware of what they're missing and what they should come to expect from Windows, failing a switch to another platform or operating system.
It's a pet peeve of mine, really. ;)
Clearly this is an example of good flash. ;)
But... it builds in about four hours on here.. :P
The insider's point of view is not that the project is run by a secretive overlord. While you may have a cultural or societally engrained reason for believing that, it's not the case.
If I hadn't already posted on this thread I'd flamebait you so fast it would make your head spin.
The fact that you haven't even read both sides before trying to add fuel to the fire is obviated by your comment.
Misrepresentation.
He was thrown out of nothing, he attempted to make arrangements that may or may not have agreed with the founder's intentions for his project.
Paying attention is a plus.
I did not as most do, make the mistake of saying the OS X kernel is BSD based.
It does, however, contain BSD code.
Flame on, muh bruthah.
Incredible, absolutely incredible.
Nobody has the right to make something look like something else? I don't know if you're on the same page as everyone else my friend, but patenting an appearance is a bad thing.
Liquid widgets are attractive, that's why Apple chose to use them. Apple is not the first to theme an environment with liquid widgets, either.
The OSS movement powers your favorite operating system. Over half of your precious kernel is FreeBSD. Without FreeBSD, your favorite operating system would still not truly multitask.
Remember that.
Count me in as a moviegoer, there's no substitute. I want to go see it again!
Why on earth would you download a badly done copy of something you can pay for the best quality of?
In my world we have little bits of currency with which we can purchase (for the most part) quality controlled goods and services. Some of you should check that out.
How to Increase Your Penis
And Stop Premature Ejaculation
FREE Bottle Offer 100% Guaranteed to work.
Take Advantage of Our FREE Bottle Offer As Seen On TV !!!
Click here to learn more.
NB: Amusingly my first revision of this was smacked down by slashdot's inbuilt junk filtering mechanisms. :P
Refreshing to see understanding about SCO's true actions.
The more people who understand that SCO has no teeth, the less effect it can have in terms of creating the kind of panic it wants.
kindergarten* d8)
Unfortunately they also left much of the Linux network stack untuned even though they altered all of two settings in samba's config file.
They then proceeded to tune the hell out of the Windows server, altering things like file locking semantics, network timeouts and dormant file limits in order to eke out more speed.
Hope someone else has picked up on this imbalance in the optimisation of the systems....
This is typically a result of a technique known as 'skimming the documentation' and 'thinking you know how to do it yourself'.
People are too quick to blame the distribution (any distribution, even Debian) when something goes wrong.</rant>
PEBKAC
Yeargh.
RedHat can't market the software they sell as a general purpose OS yet. Not because it's simply not appropriate, but because the software isn't ready.
My perspective is this; Linux itself doesn't need to work better as a workstation, it's fine. It needs applications now.
As a server there is no competition, Linux is among the top performers in the industry, and any inroads Microsoft makes will certainly be due to management making poor decisions.
On the workstation side, groups of people spend thousands of man-hours working on KDE and GNOME, Mozilla and OpenOffice.org, and various other workstation applications. Among these selections are a set of laudable starts, but they fall flat when it comes to actually working.
OpenOffice.org can't transfer clipboard selections to Mozilla and vice versa. Gaim is incapable in its current version of sending or receiving IM images without crashing. Licq doesn't understand the concept of a serverside contact list.
XMMS is aging and is unable to edit ID3v2 tags. GNOME's panel application for organising the desktop is crash prone. Customizing the GNOME menu requires a restart of the environment in order for things to show up. GNOME's print system is sad and has no configurator because that team 'doesn't believe in it'. KDE doesn't obey fontconfig properly.
Okay, so we have all these little tiny points, which are superfluous to you an I, because we either work around them, don't like desktop environments or user applications, or avoid using X entirely.
The thing is, these applications were DESIGNED to be userfriendly. KDE, GNOME particularly are examples of software whose express goal is to make life easy for a user who has no experience at all with UNIX.
This is the aspect that annoys me. They fail to acheive stated goals because of numerous issues, including as mentioned above the fact that people just don't want to do the dirty work of making the glue happen.
I'm on the phone as I'm typing my thoughts out, so I'm probably digressing all over the place here.
The replies I've been receiving so far with regard to my concerns are mainly 'so? we don't care about userfriendly!'
That's all well and good, but for projects dedicated to this goal, and integrated into major Linux titles like RedHat, who are marketed as easyto use and indeed easy to administer, there's a certain level of self-respect that should be accompanied by higher quality software, rather than the presently poor user-experience people have.
Oh damn, my browser segfaulted when I tried to print. Shoot, X died on me when I tried revising my resume. My NIC won't initialize! I can't check my email!
That's where I'm coming from, mainly. That's the angle from which Microsoft is going to come and attack Linux, too. They're going to present Linux as though it tried and failed miserably to appeal to the userbase.
And it may be a strawman on Microsoft's part, but still, it looks bad and the community could probably do better.
Are you twelve years old? I don't see any need for such a lack of civility.
Come back when you've cultivated a dignified way of interacting with people, please.
For schmoe user who reads Ballmers words and understands that Windows is sexier and easier for them.
I do understand the interest and desire to write software to fill needs and satisfy interests. I think it's one of open source's greatest strengths, the freedom to create.
But as a community, probably because of a minority of loud voices have made claims which the community is unable to back up, and that bugs me to no end.
If we're not here to replace Microsoft, someone should speak up and say so, even if it knocks RedHat and the profiteers on their asses.
People who use Gentoo are largely irresponsible with it; I migrated to Gentoo on my workstations coming from FreeBSD, so I know to be sparing with CFLAGS, etc.
The distribution does need significant policies with respect to how to compile things. FreeBSD will not let you impose unruly CFLAGS like -fignore-important-functions and then report bugs. It will even filter out -march and replace it with something the development team supports.
Gentoo definitely does need to mature.