This is an excellent point that people asking "why doesn't Linux dominate NOW?" need to realize.
Linux is progressing slowly into the corporate desktop market. The early adopters are still just that. The main switch will come when more enterprise infrastructure runs on Linux - which will happen, but it takes time to develop that infrastructure in the OSS manner.
There's nothing inherent about Linux or the OSS development model that prevents the corporate world from switching to it. It's merely the time it takes for sufficient management to become aware of the benefits, for the necessary enterprise level software to be developed, and in general for inertia to be replaced by an awareness of the need for change.
The reactions of several foreign governments, a number of city governments around the world, and the recent reactions of the Department of Transportation and NIST here in the US show that when the pressure for the switch to Linux arrives - and it will, albeit in varying speeds at varying segments of the market - the switch will be real. And the issues of training and deployment will be dealt with because it will be seen as doable.
Yeah, Ubuntu is GNOME-based, and I've never used GNOME, so I don't know where they stash that stuff or even if they have it.
But you'd think if Kubuntu has it - even if it's based on KDE - that the Ubuntu people would have matched the capability in GNOME. I mean, why not?
This is why I think (K)Ubuntu is "dumbed down" over other Linux distros. They spend too much time changing shit that doesn't NEED to be changed (like restricting root and minimizing the system settings - you don't get a full KDE control panel by default in Kubuntu and there's nothing like the Mandriva Control Center or SUSE YAST) rather than concentrating on maximizing capabilities.
(K)Ubuntu is "okay" - otherwise I wouldn't be using it at all - it doesn't take much to make me dump a distro. The fact that it's popular means there's an active community and a hell of a lot of forums and assistance if something goes wrong. But it just can't compete capability-wise with Mandriva or SUSE once you get past the basics.
No, industry studies have proven that using COMPUTERS WITH SOME OS gets things done faster and cheaper over paper and pencil. The fact that the only OS studied was Windows is not relevant.
And you can't compare an OS that has had hardware vendor lock-in for the last fifteen years - and was the ONLY available cheap OS (DOS) for ten years previous to that - with an OS that only became usable in the last five or so.
That says nothing about which OS is better NOW. It also doesn't say anything about the excessive costs of the Microsoft approach.
Linux can facilitate a lot of low-cost common denominator products just as well as Windows - once people realize that the OSS development model is just as good as the commercial development model (and Linux can use the commercial model just as well as Windows, in any event.)
It simply hasn't reached critical mass yet to do so - and that is because of vendor and corporate inertia encouraged by Microsoft with their contracts, their glad-handling sales reps, and their pseudo-monopoly status.
The point is, to paraphrase Microsoft, where do corporation want to go? To more vendor lock-in, insecurity, unreliabiliy, and expense - or change the terms of engagement and try a different approach which is already demonstrating its feasibility in large-scale deployments?
Do corporations really want to make Bill Gates richer while getting nothing but headaches in return, or do thsy want to get on with THEIR business and put some of that saved money into THEIR business?
In the end, it really comes down to: is there ANYBODY in corporate management who has a clue?
I agree, Linux is ready for the corporate desktop, as an IT department or consultant can make sure everything works.
And Linux is ready for the home user who doesn't use any hardware other than what is standard on a desktop PC. Laptops and wireless are still iffy. But that's coming along nicely - and would do so faster if the damn manufacturers could supply driver information, if not actual drivers. I still say IBM and HP and others who are making money off Linux need to pressure - or pay for - the peripheral manufacturers to start supporting Linux with drivers or at least hardware info so the community could write drivers. It's no more than what Microsoft does for hardware manufactuers.
And where do you get the notion that Groupwise will not be supported under Linux? Novell already runs most of its company under Linux - do you think they use Exchange?
Another Microsoft nitwit.
These clowns don't even bother to try thinking for a second before posting this nonsense. They don't even care how stupid it makes them look. All they care about is getting their licks in for Microsoft.
Here's an idea - why don't you go up to Redmond, find Bill's office and just suck his dick for a living. I'm sure Bill will pay you well. Oh, wait, I forgot. Microsoft shills don't need to be paid to be shills. Being submissive to Bill is all that is required.
This article pretty clearly destroys this idiot Campbell as anything but an incompetent and probably crooked state employee who knows absolutely nothing about Linux, IT or anything else but graft, apparently.
All of which is bullshit because the moron at the Illinois state office said, "We don't have time for science projects..." - which is a clear demonstration that he has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to Linux and therefore isn't a competent IT person.
The bottom line for any IT department should be just that - the bottom line. And Windows is KNOWN and DEMONSTRATED by industry statistics for being detrimental to the bottom line because of the costs of licensing, the cost of unreliabiliy and downtime, the cost of insecurity, the cost of complexity, and the cost of vendor lock-in compared to UNIX in general and Linux in particular.
COMPETENT IT organizations will choose that software which over time will be cheaper to own and operate. Training costs are a small part of that effort - and would not be a problem had not INCOMPETENT IT organizations chosen to lock themselves into Microsoft products.
Citing the methods would be "informative". As it stands, this is an opinion - one not shared by everybody in the security industry, I suspect. Shared by many in the security industry, perhaps, but not all.
In Kubuntu, System Settings, under Computer Administration, Monitor and Display. You have tabs for Size, Orientation and Positioning, Color and Gamma, Hardware (which is where the graphics card and driver can be selected - you even have the option of native or proprietary drivers, if they have been detected), and Power Saving.
It's really very similar to Windows - except under Linux, you don't have the proprietary tabs put in by the video card manufacturer for advanced configuration of the card.
Yes, the US Army will call in an airstrike on a hospital just because two idiots are shooting AK's from the roof.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what we do there. Stop watching Fox News and get a clue.
Just because we haven't done it on Baghdad General Hospital (or whatever it's called) - as far as I know anyway - doesn't mean we haven't done the equivalent elsewhere.
"Brownshirts also wouldn't be patrolling city streets to protect civilians, which is where most of the ambushes occur and where most of our casualties come from."
You ARE clueless. You've never bothered to read any of the reports from Iraq, have you? Never read anything about how US troops treat Iraqis, right? Never heard of Abu Ghraib? Never read the stats that at least a THIRD of the half million or so Iraqis killed since 2003 were killed by US airstrikes and random US murders of people in cars or who happened to be on the street when an ambush took place and the US troops shot everybody on the street? Never saw the videos of tanks running over people's cars for no good reason?
Completely fucking clueless about how things are done over there.
Not that it matters. The US has lost over 3,000 troops - and when Bush attacks Iran, the US will lose the rest unless they evacuate the country. It will cost the Iraqis a million dead, but the US is going to lose big time in Iraq. And Iran will be worse.
Scudsucker - what an appropriate handle for an idiot who supports the worst strategic decision in US history.
Smart remarks don't change the fact that you're a liar and a shill.
You get your jollies off bullshitting people about Windows and attacking Linux. That makes you a shill and a troll.
I had to go straighten out a client yesterday who had a lousy little power failure. Windows hosed its Registry. How the FUCK do you hose a Registry from a simple power failure with no damage to the machine in any other respect? What do Microsoft programmers do - say, "Oh, gee, lost power, I guess I should write crap to the Registry now before my process dies?"
You NEVER see Linux screw up like that. The worst that can happen is that a Linux program has a lock file open which isn't removed when an application dies, and the programmer was too dumb to check for the same running process on startup to remove the lock file.
No. Instead Windows manages to boot to the Welcome screen and then shows NO accounts to login with! Brilliant! And NOTHING fixes that - not even a fucking REPAIR INSTALL AFTER a System Restore to an earlier day! Not only that, if you boot to Safe Mode - the one place where you'd like to run the goddamn System File Check, you CAN'T run SFC from Safe Mode without getting a braindead error message that says the RPC Server is not available WHEN SAID RPC SERVER IS RUNNING!
No way you can hose Linux THAT badly from a simple power failure.
Windows is TOTAL SHIT. And anybody who supports this TOTAL SHIT IS a TOTAL SHIT.
MOST malware is installed via ActiveX controls via Internet Explorer. It is not because every one of the adults using Windows is visiting porn sites, prurient individuals like yourself fantasies not withstanding.
While KIDS might be downloading "Nude Celeb Viewer", most adults are not. Many adults might be doing stupid stuff occasionally, but the various worms that devastated Windows a couple years were the result of Microsoft CRAP software practices, nothing more.
"Admittedly, XP and earlier skip the root password part"
No shit.
You imply that since you managed to run for 12 years with NO protection that therefore Windows users don't need any of that stuff. That is BULLSHIT that no professional in the IT industry can take seriously. It's the mark of a shill that he would even suggest such a thing. Even Microsoft wouldn't make that stupid a statement.
You're a shill whether you're actually paid by Microsoft or not. If you make your living on Windows and have some stupid emotional attachment to this crap and feel you have to defend it at every opportunity regardless of the facts, you're a shill.
I criticize Linux frequently for its failings - specifically, the failings of the distros in testing and various design decisions. I don't try to excuse its limitations. I've repeatedly said the following:
What part of "you can select the monitor" didn't you understand? If the specific monitor isn't on the list, a) you bought unsupported hardware, and b) select one that IS on the list that is close enough to enable the necessary resolution.
Come back when you bother to check out what the OS can do before running your mouth.
"one of the absolute must-haves is that the user must NEVER EVER EVER, any any circumstances, have to either (1) edit a text config file by hand, or (2) use the command line."
Oh, bullshit.
Let your Windows hose itself (on a daily basis). How do you fix it?
Ever used the Recovery Console, moron?
Guess what? COMMAND LINE!
Ever need to ping your localhost because WINDOWS HOSED THE FUCKING NETWORK?
Guess what? COMMAND LINE!
Ever use Windows servers?
Guess what? COMMAND LINE! (If you want to be productive, anyway...)
Get a fucking clue about Windows support.
"I speak the truth."
You speak Microsoft shill bullshit, like the rest of the shills.
I haven't had to bother changing the Xorg config from the GUI - OR from the command line - since my install of Kubuntu - I wonder if I should say that, since it makes me sound like the usual naive Windows user - so I just took a look at the Kubuntu Monitor settings in System Settings.
Why, look! They have a slider to change to the resolution! JUST LIKE WINDOWS!
They have a way to select the monitor, select the driver, select the colors, etc. - JUST LIKE WINDOWS!
Gee, looks like Windows, don't it?
Only thing wrong with it is that you don't see this level of configuration when you right-click on the desktop and choose "Configure Desktop"...
If the (K)Ubuntu idiots had linked the System Settings dialog to the "Configure Desktop", it would be nearly identical to Windows...
Of course, if you're INSTALLING Kubuntu and your card isn't detected at all, then you're hosed until you get it configured right - which of course the installer lets you do if you have the card and monitor specs. But again, as everyone has pointed out, if you're dealing with a PRE-INSTALLED Linux, that isn't an issue.
Guess that argument about needing to tweak the Xorg config file from the command line just got blown out...
"most malware is installed by end users intentionally, although not knowingly, when they download and install toolbars, smilies, P2P clients and the like. It is virtually impossible for the OS to protect the end user from this sort of thing, and Linux is no different in this regard."
Oh, really? I guess that explains all the popups and viruses I have on my Linux machine that have automatic root access because Linux default installs set up only one user as root...
Gee, I never knew that SP2 and Windows firewall made Windows PCs impregnable!
And all my spyware-cleaning clients run P2P software and download viruses deliberately. (I will admit to having had two clients who used Limewire to download a couple MP3's and ended up with totally hosed machines...)
Moron...
It is NOT easy to set up a secure Windows machine. It requires at least FOUR antispyware tools, at least one antivirus (maybe two for a second opinion since the first one gives false positives), one firewall (preferably hardware), one antitrojan tool, one browser hijack tool, one rootkit revealer, and a different browser than IE, and several hardening steps requiring turning off services and editing the Registry.
And that doesn't include the "vulnerability of the week^M^M^M^Mday" patches, either.
Not to mention that Windows has a firewall only after ten goddamn years of NOT having one.
I AM tired of hearing sophomoric arguments from people who aren't in business themselves - including the idiot who wrote this article.
The variety of Linux distros is utterly irrelevant to anybody, including Dell. If Dell wants to sell Linux, they will deal with one of the top two or three Linux companies and that's it. It's an insignifant issue in all other respects. If there went fifty versions of Windows, does anybody expect Dell would try to support them all? Hardly - they would turn that whole thing back to Microsoft to do the support - and rightly so. In fact, they and the rest of the industry SHOULD do that - make Microsoft RESPONSIBLE for supporting their own crap, rather than laying it off on everybody else while Bill reaps the savings.
One moron on another site commenting on this issue suggested that Dell would be put off because some morons would buy a Linux box expecting to get a Windows box and then complain to Dell.
Gimme a break... While certainly there WILL be such morons, Dell is not SO stupid that they wouldn't be able to deal with this irrelevant issue. Dell has morons buying the wrong box NOW for whatever reason and bitching about it. What's so special about some moron buying the wrong box with Linux on it?
Dell can certainly offer preinstalled Linux if they want to - figuring out how to offset the negative aspects isn't rocket science.
Where people go wrong is when they suppose the fact that Dell is selling Linux laptops and desktops will make all that much difference in the uptake of Linux on those platforms.
Obviously a few new Linux users will buy the boxes. But mostly people who are already Linux users will buy them if they believe Dell has certified the OS to run ALL the hardware - thus eliminating the main issues of poor support of wireless cards, touchpads, and special keys.
The REAL issue for Dell is whether they can attract some large corporate business with this move. Reportedly, HP has made some very large deals for Linux desktops - involving thousands of units per sale. THIS is what Dell will be looking at - not whether some individuals want Linux on the desktop.
The ONLY issue for Dell is will it cost them more to set that market up than they make on those larger deals to do it - and only Dell can know that.
If there ARE large corporate Linux sales to be made AND Dell can figure out how to provide that service to those corporations, it MAY help Linux in moving to the desktop. But that's a chicken-and-egg issue - which came first, the corporate desire for Linux or Dell providing Linux? Obviously the demand has to be there, so the entrance of Dell into that market will not really improve Linux's chances for being on the desktop. The only way that would be true is if major corporations aren't moving to Linux because they can't get major hardware supplier support - and that isn't a proven fact.
The one BIG advantage Linux users may get from Dell supporting that market is that at least some peripheral manufacturers may then be motivated - or requested by Dell - to provide driver support. And that will be good for all Linux users.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an excellent point that people asking "why doesn't Linux dominate NOW?" need to realize.
Linux is progressing slowly into the corporate desktop market. The early adopters are still just that. The main switch will come when more enterprise infrastructure runs on Linux - which will happen, but it takes time to develop that infrastructure in the OSS manner.
There's nothing inherent about Linux or the OSS development model that prevents the corporate world from switching to it. It's merely the time it takes for sufficient management to become aware of the benefits, for the necessary enterprise level software to be developed, and in general for inertia to be replaced by an awareness of the need for change.
The reactions of several foreign governments, a number of city governments around the world, and the recent reactions of the Department of Transportation and NIST here in the US show that when the pressure for the switch to Linux arrives - and it will, albeit in varying speeds at varying segments of the market - the switch will be real. And the issues of training and deployment will be dealt with because it will be seen as doable.
Yeah, Ubuntu is GNOME-based, and I've never used GNOME, so I don't know where they stash that stuff or even if they have it.
But you'd think if Kubuntu has it - even if it's based on KDE - that the Ubuntu people would have matched the capability in GNOME. I mean, why not?
This is why I think (K)Ubuntu is "dumbed down" over other Linux distros. They spend too much time changing shit that doesn't NEED to be changed (like restricting root and minimizing the system settings - you don't get a full KDE control panel by default in Kubuntu and there's nothing like the Mandriva Control Center or SUSE YAST) rather than concentrating on maximizing capabilities.
(K)Ubuntu is "okay" - otherwise I wouldn't be using it at all - it doesn't take much to make me dump a distro. The fact that it's popular means there's an active community and a hell of a lot of forums and assistance if something goes wrong. But it just can't compete capability-wise with Mandriva or SUSE once you get past the basics.
I'd say KDE is the desktop polish. Basically Kubuntu pretty much looks like any other KDE-based distro I've used.
When they go outside KDE, they start to show some flaws in design and testing.
Okay, I'll buy that.
Let's see how long it stays zero - it should get at least a one for informative.
No, industry studies have proven that using COMPUTERS WITH SOME OS gets things done faster and cheaper over paper and pencil. The fact that the only OS studied was Windows is not relevant.
And you can't compare an OS that has had hardware vendor lock-in for the last fifteen years - and was the ONLY available cheap OS (DOS) for ten years previous to that - with an OS that only became usable in the last five or so.
That says nothing about which OS is better NOW. It also doesn't say anything about the excessive costs of the Microsoft approach.
Linux can facilitate a lot of low-cost common denominator products just as well as Windows - once people realize that the OSS development model is just as good as the commercial development model (and Linux can use the commercial model just as well as Windows, in any event.)
It simply hasn't reached critical mass yet to do so - and that is because of vendor and corporate inertia encouraged by Microsoft with their contracts, their glad-handling sales reps, and their pseudo-monopoly status.
The point is, to paraphrase Microsoft, where do corporation want to go? To more vendor lock-in, insecurity, unreliabiliy, and expense - or change the terms of engagement and try a different approach which is already demonstrating its feasibility in large-scale deployments?
Do corporations really want to make Bill Gates richer while getting nothing but headaches in return, or do thsy want to get on with THEIR business and put some of that saved money into THEIR business?
In the end, it really comes down to: is there ANYBODY in corporate management who has a clue?
Oh, wait, never mind.
Bill, Steve says check your cell, Rob Enderle is trying to call you. You didn't pay him for his last shill article.
I agree, Linux is ready for the corporate desktop, as an IT department or consultant can make sure everything works.
And Linux is ready for the home user who doesn't use any hardware other than what is standard on a desktop PC. Laptops and wireless are still iffy. But that's coming along nicely - and would do so faster if the damn manufacturers could supply driver information, if not actual drivers. I still say IBM and HP and others who are making money off Linux need to pressure - or pay for - the peripheral manufacturers to start supporting Linux with drivers or at least hardware info so the community could write drivers. It's no more than what Microsoft does for hardware manufactuers.
And where do you get the notion that Groupwise will not be supported under Linux? Novell already runs most of its company under Linux - do you think they use Exchange?
Another Microsoft nitwit.
These clowns don't even bother to try thinking for a second before posting this nonsense. They don't even care how stupid it makes them look. All they care about is getting their licks in for Microsoft.
Here's an idea - why don't you go up to Redmond, find Bill's office and just suck his dick for a living. I'm sure Bill will pay you well. Oh, wait, I forgot. Microsoft shills don't need to be paid to be shills. Being submissive to Bill is all that is required.
Mod parent UP!
This article pretty clearly destroys this idiot Campbell as anything but an incompetent and probably crooked state employee who knows absolutely nothing about Linux, IT or anything else but graft, apparently.
This gets score zero why? The poster is a complete newbie here? Or the Windows shills are out in force again...
This post demonstrates exactly what I said above - this Illinois state guy is clueless as to Linux and has no idea what he's talking about.
All of which is bullshit because the moron at the Illinois state office said, "We don't have time for science projects..." - which is a clear demonstration that he has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to Linux and therefore isn't a competent IT person.
The bottom line for any IT department should be just that - the bottom line. And Windows is KNOWN and DEMONSTRATED by industry statistics for being detrimental to the bottom line because of the costs of licensing, the cost of unreliabiliy and downtime, the cost of insecurity, the cost of complexity, and the cost of vendor lock-in compared to UNIX in general and Linux in particular.
COMPETENT IT organizations will choose that software which over time will be cheaper to own and operate. Training costs are a small part of that effort - and would not be a problem had not INCOMPETENT IT organizations chosen to lock themselves into Microsoft products.
How is this "informative"?
Citing the methods would be "informative". As it stands, this is an opinion - one not shared by everybody in the security industry, I suspect. Shared by many in the security industry, perhaps, but not all.
In Kubuntu, System Settings, under Computer Administration, Monitor and Display. You have tabs for Size, Orientation and Positioning, Color and Gamma, Hardware (which is where the graphics card and driver can be selected - you even have the option of native or proprietary drivers, if they have been detected), and Power Saving.
It's really very similar to Windows - except under Linux, you don't have the proprietary tabs put in by the video card manufacturer for advanced configuration of the card.
How thick are YOU?
Yes, the US Army will call in an airstrike on a hospital just because two idiots are shooting AK's from the roof.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what we do there. Stop watching Fox News and get a clue.
Just because we haven't done it on Baghdad General Hospital (or whatever it's called) - as far as I know anyway - doesn't mean we haven't done the equivalent elsewhere.
"Brownshirts also wouldn't be patrolling city streets to protect civilians, which is where most of the ambushes occur and where most of our casualties come from."
You ARE clueless. You've never bothered to read any of the reports from Iraq, have you? Never read anything about how US troops treat Iraqis, right? Never heard of Abu Ghraib? Never read the stats that at least a THIRD of the half million or so Iraqis killed since 2003 were killed by US airstrikes and random US murders of people in cars or who happened to be on the street when an ambush took place and the US troops shot everybody on the street? Never saw the videos of tanks running over people's cars for no good reason?
Completely fucking clueless about how things are done over there.
Not that it matters. The US has lost over 3,000 troops - and when Bush attacks Iran, the US will lose the rest unless they evacuate the country. It will cost the Iraqis a million dead, but the US is going to lose big time in Iraq. And Iran will be worse.
Scudsucker - what an appropriate handle for an idiot who supports the worst strategic decision in US history.
Thanks, I'm aware of that site. You're right, I probably should include it in my sig.
Smart remarks don't change the fact that you're a liar and a shill.
You get your jollies off bullshitting people about Windows and attacking Linux. That makes you a shill and a troll.
I had to go straighten out a client yesterday who had a lousy little power failure. Windows hosed its Registry. How the FUCK do you hose a Registry from a simple power failure with no damage to the machine in any other respect? What do Microsoft programmers do - say, "Oh, gee, lost power, I guess I should write crap to the Registry now before my process dies?"
You NEVER see Linux screw up like that. The worst that can happen is that a Linux program has a lock file open which isn't removed when an application dies, and the programmer was too dumb to check for the same running process on startup to remove the lock file.
No. Instead Windows manages to boot to the Welcome screen and then shows NO accounts to login with! Brilliant! And NOTHING fixes that - not even a fucking REPAIR INSTALL AFTER a System Restore to an earlier day! Not only that, if you boot to Safe Mode - the one place where you'd like to run the goddamn System File Check, you CAN'T run SFC from Safe Mode without getting a braindead error message that says the RPC Server is not available WHEN SAID RPC SERVER IS RUNNING!
No way you can hose Linux THAT badly from a simple power failure.
Windows is TOTAL SHIT. And anybody who supports this TOTAL SHIT IS a TOTAL SHIT.
Am I getting through to you, moron?
Glad you admit to being a lying moron.
MOST malware is installed via ActiveX controls via Internet Explorer. It is not because every one of the adults using Windows is visiting porn sites, prurient individuals like yourself fantasies not withstanding.
While KIDS might be downloading "Nude Celeb Viewer", most adults are not. Many adults might be doing stupid stuff occasionally, but the various worms that devastated Windows a couple years were the result of Microsoft CRAP software practices, nothing more.
"Admittedly, XP and earlier skip the root password part"
No shit.
You imply that since you managed to run for 12 years with NO protection that therefore Windows users don't need any of that stuff. That is BULLSHIT that no professional in the IT industry can take seriously. It's the mark of a shill that he would even suggest such a thing. Even Microsoft wouldn't make that stupid a statement.
You're a shill whether you're actually paid by Microsoft or not. If you make your living on Windows and have some stupid emotional attachment to this crap and feel you have to defend it at every opportunity regardless of the facts, you're a shill.
I criticize Linux frequently for its failings - specifically, the failings of the distros in testing and various design decisions. I don't try to excuse its limitations. I've repeatedly said the following:
Windows is CRAP.
Linux is ALSO CRAP.
BUT...Linux is FREE crap.
What part of "you can select the monitor" didn't you understand? If the specific monitor isn't on the list, a) you bought unsupported hardware, and b) select one that IS on the list that is close enough to enable the necessary resolution.
Come back when you bother to check out what the OS can do before running your mouth.
"one of the absolute must-haves is that the user must NEVER EVER EVER, any any circumstances, have to either (1) edit a text config file by hand, or (2) use the command line."
Oh, bullshit.
Let your Windows hose itself (on a daily basis). How do you fix it?
Ever used the Recovery Console, moron?
Guess what? COMMAND LINE!
Ever need to ping your localhost because WINDOWS HOSED THE FUCKING NETWORK?
Guess what? COMMAND LINE!
Ever use Windows servers?
Guess what? COMMAND LINE! (If you want to be productive, anyway...)
Get a fucking clue about Windows support.
"I speak the truth."
You speak Microsoft shill bullshit, like the rest of the shills.
"Easily attaching a video projector to a laptop is an absolute necessity. It is a very common thing in many workplaces"
Bullshit.
Try again, Microsoft shill.
Gave yourself away with that Linux bullshit line again.
Interesting.
Never knew that.
I haven't had to bother changing the Xorg config from the GUI - OR from the command line - since my install of Kubuntu - I wonder if I should say that, since it makes me sound like the usual naive Windows user - so I just took a look at the Kubuntu Monitor settings in System Settings.
Why, look! They have a slider to change to the resolution! JUST LIKE WINDOWS!
They have a way to select the monitor, select the driver, select the colors, etc. - JUST LIKE WINDOWS!
Gee, looks like Windows, don't it?
Only thing wrong with it is that you don't see this level of configuration when you right-click on the desktop and choose "Configure Desktop"...
If the (K)Ubuntu idiots had linked the System Settings dialog to the "Configure Desktop", it would be nearly identical to Windows...
Of course, if you're INSTALLING Kubuntu and your card isn't detected at all, then you're hosed until you get it configured right - which of course the installer lets you do if you have the card and monitor specs. But again, as everyone has pointed out, if you're dealing with a PRE-INSTALLED Linux, that isn't an issue.
Guess that argument about needing to tweak the Xorg config file from the command line just got blown out...
Big surprise.
(K)Ubuntu is lacking in a lot of things.
The morons who put that distro out dumbed it down in an attempt to emulate Windows.
They failed.
I'm running Kubuntu - I know.
I'm seriously thinking about going back to Mandriva which has more complete configuration tools and better tested software.
"most of that stuff is installed by the end user, on purpose."
Bullshit.
"12 years using windows. Never used any form of AV software. Number of viruses infections in that time? Zero."
Bullshit.
"I only switched to XP after SP2."
So you used Windows 98 and 2000 for 12 years?
Bullshit.
"I use Linux around 80 percent of the time myself"
Bullshit.
Sorry, just gave yourself away. EVERY Microsoft shill uses some version of that line: "I really like Linux, BUT..."
You're a Microsoft shill. You're a liar.
"most malware is installed by end users intentionally, although not knowingly, when they download and install toolbars, smilies, P2P clients and the like. It is virtually impossible for the OS to protect the end user from this sort of thing, and Linux is no different in this regard."
Oh, really? I guess that explains all the popups and viruses I have on my Linux machine that have automatic root access because Linux default installs set up only one user as root...
Gee, I never knew that SP2 and Windows firewall made Windows PCs impregnable!
And all my spyware-cleaning clients run P2P software and download viruses deliberately. (I will admit to having had two clients who used Limewire to download a couple MP3's and ended up with totally hosed machines...)
Moron...
It is NOT easy to set up a secure Windows machine. It requires at least FOUR antispyware tools, at least one antivirus (maybe two for a second opinion since the first one gives false positives), one firewall (preferably hardware), one antitrojan tool, one browser hijack tool, one rootkit revealer, and a different browser than IE, and several hardening steps requiring turning off services and editing the Registry.
And that doesn't include the "vulnerability of the week^M^M^M^Mday" patches, either.
Not to mention that Windows has a firewall only after ten goddamn years of NOT having one.
Another goddamn Microsoft shill without a clue...
I AM tired of hearing sophomoric arguments from people who aren't in business themselves - including the idiot who wrote this article.
The variety of Linux distros is utterly irrelevant to anybody, including Dell. If Dell wants to sell Linux, they will deal with one of the top two or three Linux companies and that's it. It's an insignifant issue in all other respects. If there went fifty versions of Windows, does anybody expect Dell would try to support them all? Hardly - they would turn that whole thing back to Microsoft to do the support - and rightly so. In fact, they and the rest of the industry SHOULD do that - make Microsoft RESPONSIBLE for supporting their own crap, rather than laying it off on everybody else while Bill reaps the savings.
One moron on another site commenting on this issue suggested that Dell would be put off because some morons would buy a Linux box expecting to get a Windows box and then complain to Dell.
Gimme a break... While certainly there WILL be such morons, Dell is not SO stupid that they wouldn't be able to deal with this irrelevant issue. Dell has morons buying the wrong box NOW for whatever reason and bitching about it. What's so special about some moron buying the wrong box with Linux on it?
Dell can certainly offer preinstalled Linux if they want to - figuring out how to offset the negative aspects isn't rocket science.
Where people go wrong is when they suppose the fact that Dell is selling Linux laptops and desktops will make all that much difference in the uptake of Linux on those platforms.
Obviously a few new Linux users will buy the boxes. But mostly people who are already Linux users will buy them if they believe Dell has certified the OS to run ALL the hardware - thus eliminating the main issues of poor support of wireless cards, touchpads, and special keys.
The REAL issue for Dell is whether they can attract some large corporate business with this move. Reportedly, HP has made some very large deals for Linux desktops - involving thousands of units per sale. THIS is what Dell will be looking at - not whether some individuals want Linux on the desktop.
The ONLY issue for Dell is will it cost them more to set that market up than they make on those larger deals to do it - and only Dell can know that.
If there ARE large corporate Linux sales to be made AND Dell can figure out how to provide that service to those corporations, it MAY help Linux in moving to the desktop. But that's a chicken-and-egg issue - which came first, the corporate desire for Linux or Dell providing Linux? Obviously the demand has to be there, so the entrance of Dell into that market will not really improve Linux's chances for being on the desktop. The only way that would be true is if major corporations aren't moving to Linux because they can't get major hardware supplier support - and that isn't a proven fact.
The one BIG advantage Linux users may get from Dell supporting that market is that at least some peripheral manufacturers may then be motivated - or requested by Dell - to provide driver support. And that will be good for all Linux users.