The only way MAD makes any sense at all is if there is no other solution
The analogy doesn't hold for patents. We can't amend the laws of physics to
outlaw nuclear fission, but we can amend patent law to outlaw software patents.
Mutually Assured Destruction is just the patent lobby trying to spin
greed to make it look patriotic and essential. It isn't.
Historically, their extensive patent portfolio is used defensively.
Gosh. So, if Microsoft realised that, why then they'd naturally oppose software patents.
You see, they'd realise that if software patents were outlawed, then they wouldn't need the
expanse of maintaining a large patent portfolio to defend themselves, and they'd be
free of the threat of Eolas type lawsuits into the bargain.
And Yet, here are Microsoft happily wasting time and money supporting software patents.
What a bunch of Silly Billies. No wonder people thought they intended to use them offensively
someday.
I'll just phone Bill and tell him he's been being a plonker, shall I? He'll be so relieved,
I bet.
Another problem with it is that, as humans, we always seem to standardize on whatever most people are already doing. If 5 people herding reindeer in Lapland have the best accounting methods, then the whole union should switch, not force them to change, damnit.
Yes, it's called "democracy", and like all other forms of government invented so far it has its drawbacks. Really, though, I think that governments go wrong more often as a result of trying to govern too many people and not from the system they follow (with a few exceptions like small countries that are seized by corrupt dictators).
I've noticed a distressing trend to dismiss the abuse of power with the phrase "that's democracy". It's almost as if
we have come to think of injustice and corruption of as an itegral part of the holy democratic process, and therefore
immune from any criticism.
In this case, there's nothing inherently democratic about making the same set of rules apply to everyone everywhere,
or in inflicting the populace with the stupidest or least fair solution to any given problem. The simple fact that the EU
legislators are appointed by people who are appointed by people who I may have at some point have been involved in an
election somewhere, this does not excuse the corruption, greed and injustice that runs rampant though the system.
I should also say, that isn't aimed at you, HunterZ, personally. In general I agree with your points above. You just touched on a sore point.
...and a weak-kneed government unable or unwilling to do what's needed.
Oh, I don't know. They've shown them selves capable of steely resolve in
the face of overwhelming pressure not to, say, launch a war of aggression
against an oil rich nation. Or in defending the profits of overseas corporation
from the best interests of the electorate, for example.
Corrupt, venal, deluded, increasingly paranoid, cynical, self serving...
there are so many adjectives I'd consider before I resorted to "weak".
What they desire is the surpression of information that could be used to
circumvent copyright. Once the illegality of such information is established,
a pretext will exist to implement censorship of incoming data.
You think this information isn't dangerous to those interests that
lobbied for this law?
A bit of a dilemma there, I feel. On the one hand, it is bad form to feed a troll. On the, other FUD needs to be challenged, lest people start to believe the lies.
In this case... well, the problem with trolls is that they seek to drag the discussion off-topic and drown any meaningful debate in senseless flaming. In this case however, we're managing to remain polite and more or less on-topic.
And I have to confess, I'm curious as to how far slashdot_ghandi is willing to take his argument.
Students copy code from books, GPL software, from websites and
anywhere they can find what they can use. This is treated like stealing
something worth 0.002 cents so almost everyone turns a blind eye.
No problem if they're not distributing the results. The problem
there would seem to be more one of plagiarism.
These students go to work in corporations in India with their other
collegues who are familiar with "reusing" code and go on to contaminate
new projects (sometimes without informing their manager). With GPL,
these coders don't have much luck doing what they are used to. A BSD-like
license provides more freedom IMHO.
I'm a little confused here. What they are used to doing would seem to
be plagarism and copyright infringement.
They don't have to make their new project GPL if they used portions of GNU
code. BSD license is like a golden handshake for countries like India.
Personally, I would encourage them to exploit the BSD code to the
maximum then. That's what the licence is for, and that's what the devs
presumably intended.
As for GPLed code in India... I don't want to misrepresent your views
here, but you seem to be suggesting that Indian developers are routinely
violating the GPL, and that we should therefore do the decent thing and release
all that code under the BSD licence because... Alas, it's the "because" part
which I'm finding difficult to grasp. Perhaps you could help me out here?
In the meantime, as I see it:
You already have BSD under a BSD licence; you don't need the GPLed
code on the same terms.
Practically, it isn't going to happen. It's like the offer of cash for
a BSD licenced Linux kernel: no way are all the parties involved all going to
agree. And it would be necessary to get the agreement of all.
The GPL codebase is a commonwealth. It's held by all, to the benefit of
all. That includes India equally.
I didn't suggest we change the GPL for each country, if that is your understanding of my comments.
Well... you suggested different licences for different countries, rather than a per-nation modification of the GPL. However I will confess that I see little functional distinction. Whether we change the GPL to operate like the BSD licence in, say, India, or whether we Licence it under the BSD licence in India, the results are the same so far as I can see.
Also I don't see why the BSD license cannot be used for distributing Linux in countries like India where GPL is more of a hinderance.
I've yet to be convinced of the benefits of a change in or to the licence. We already have BSD
under a BSD licence. For all the good points of BSD, Linux remains more sucessful. That's hardly
a compelling reason to change.
What's the problem with the GPL in India, anyway? It's not mentioned in TFA.
May I assume from your handle that you have first hand experience?
I think Linux should be distributed with different licenses in different countries.
To what end? To allow businesses to re-licence their modifications under proprietary terms?
The BSDs already exist to that end. To be sure, they've had some prominent business
adoptions. The only problem is that afterwards they're not really BSD anymore, and it's
hard to see how OSX for example actually brings any benefit BDS.
What else could appeal to business? Dropping the source code requirement for modifications?
That more or less morphs back into the same case as a BSD licence. In addition, it's hard to see
how this ameliorates any suspicion over a gift culture.
I really can't see what changes you'd make.
It should also be pointed out that for many of those who write GPL software,
corporate adoption is not a high priority.
Windows is not user friendly because it doesn't handle X11 forwarding
over ssh, it's command line interface is antiquated and ugly and it is
horrendously inflexible with only a single desktop environment available.
Further, it deliberately obfuscates important system settings by means of a
"registry" which bizarre as it seems is prone to filling up and requiring a full
re-install of the operating system.
And then there are the numerous security vulnerabilities, mainly as a result of
a foolish over-emphasis on simplicity by the Windows devs.
For these reasons, Windows is not user friendly. And it never will be. So there.
But it's not really very constructive. I mean yes, Windows does do some things
differently from the various Linux window managers and desktop environments, and
yes it fails (sometimes quite willfully) to implement many of Linux better features,
while some of those it does implement are either broken or primitive
in comparison. Nevertheless, it has a certain quirky charm
all its own, and lots of people appear to like it.
So maybe "user friendly" would work better as a relative value than as an absolute.
Kodak thinks it has found a solution to plumetting revenue as everyone in the world suddenly goes digital.
If everyone in the world pays five bucks a month rent^H^H^H^Hservice charge then even after T-Mbile takes a slice,
Kodak are going to be happy unies once again. And of course you have these Kodak branded print kiosks as well.
I can't see it working myself, both for the reasons you describe, and for the fact that after paying $600 for the damn thing, I;d be anoyed to have to pay $5 a month to keep it working.
Especaially since the damn thing doesn't seem to have an option to talk to my computer direct. To say nothing of all the folks who already pay T-Mobile or similar for basically the same service for their phones...
Tell you what, you like paying for software so much, I'll let you pay for mine as well as your iwn. It shouldn't be a major burden since I run Gentoo Linux which doesn't cost a penny.
Of course, they could try and make us pay for the encryption keys needed to make that software run. I'd object to that; I mean it's not as if I didn't already pay for the computer. And the software isn't theirs, so why should I pay for it?
But the real rear is that they may refuse to licence the keys to the linux kernel or any GPL software. Or that they may picth the licence costs out of reach of free software projects.
Then, even with you payig my software bills, I still won't be able to run my software on my computer.
Quake 3 has a native Linux port; your reply therefore somewhat misses the target.
That's debateable. It's still a game written for the windows platform. Id can't expect to get much on a Linux port,
so it's a little unrealistic to expect them to expend too many resources on ease of installation under Linux. It's not so much a native port as a windows game hacked to run under Linux. Id may have done the hacking, and I'm sure we're all
appreciative, but it's still a windows game in my book.
Therefore, I stand by my point: if ease of installation for windows games is they highest priority, install windows. It's not complicated.
That said, I have installed a number of games on my machine using the loki installer system. It doesn't matter whether they're Linux native or Windows under Wine; with one exception, they just worked.
People don't give a shit who's fault it is, all they know is that on *this* OS they can get stuff to work, while on *that* OS they can't, or can but only with a lot of time and effort.
It's interesting you should say that. A while back my next door neighbour asked me to have a look at their XP box. They'd just bought their eldest the latest Total War game for his birthday. Forty quid, and on the morning, it didn't work.
The problem? Their graphics card didn't support DX9. So I explained the problem and they went down the local computer shop, and ended up having to get a new mobo and ram as well. They spent the price of a new machine getting this
one program to work. It was a modern machine; the CPU and memory were well within spec - it was just that graphics
processor predated MS latest bump for DirectX.
So I don't think the distinction between *this* os and *that* os is as clear cut as you suggest.
The average person on the street couldn't give two figs for Freedom; they have a task to perform and want to perform it as quickly and painlessly as possible, so they can get on with the rest of their lives.
Well, if windows is what works for someone, that person probably ought to use windows. It's not like Highlander with
cries in the night of "There Can Only Be One (Operating System)!" For me, Freedom means other people are free to use whatever software works best for them. I have to say that I think choosing Microsoft is pretty boneheaded;
but then I'll also conceed that not everyone shares my priorites..
However, to stray back on topic for a moment, the New South Wales Office of State Revenue isn't your
average person in the street either. And if they've considered freedom in this context, it's probable freed from
vendor lock in; freedom from MS licence conditions for Vista...
What do you fear? Linux already support Trusted Computing. Anyone can start using it now! Microsoft is still at least a year behind.
What I fear is hardware that requires that in order to be executed, binaries be digitally singed. I fear that the
encryption keys needed to sign code such that it may be executed will be licenced and expensive. I fear that MS may try
and sidestep the challenge posed by free software by changing the platform so that Linux and other competitor code
simply cannot run.
The TPM code for linux that you mention works similarly, but allows you to choose your own encryption keys. As such it becomes a potentially useful tool to prevent execution of unauthorised code.
But only if we, the users, control the keys. I can't see that happening. That's the thing to fear.
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
You know, it strikes me that saying "Linux is not user friendly" is like saying "computers are not user friendly". I mean, I can see where you'd get such an idea, and in some cases it is certainly true. On the other hand, when I think of all
possible environments on offer, it seems to me that such statements say more about the speaker's inexperience in the area
than anything else.
I mean Linux embraces everything from pure command line distros to virtual windows clones of the windows interface. You have ubergeek distros like gentoo, and you have ones where people have spent some serious time and money making it simple, like Ubuntu and Linspire. To say nothing of Knoppix which you don't even need to install, and famously Just Works.
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
OK you got me. It's a bit of a pain getting programs written for windows to run under Linux. I expect there are Mac apps
that give similar problems when you try to make them work under windows. If getting windows games to run on your computer is your highest priority, then it makes sense to have windows installed. You can even dual boot Linux and youse the windows partition as a gaming environment.
On the other hand, the New South Wales Office of State Revenue maybe have more important priorities than Far Cry compatibility. But, hey! the way game studios are ignoring the PC in favour of consoles these days, it's going to be a moot point before too much longer anyway.
So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural.
Oh definitely. It's a mistake made by highly skilled people in all fields - to assume that just because something is
everyday and routine to them, it can be glossed over for others.
Hence, the preference towards Windows.
I don't agree with yout "hence" nor with your assumption of a preference. Winodws' widespread deployment has more to do with the fact that MS make it damn near impossible to buy a linux box from an OEM channel, and the fact that most people
never having tried anything else, tend to think windows is the way things ought to work.
This is not necessarily an endorsement of Windows, just human nature. People tend to think what they're used to is they way things ought to be. For myself, I came to windows from Unix in 1990 and thought Unix was they way things ought to be, purely because that was what I was used to.
Of course, fifteen years later, I still do, and with rather more basis for comparison.
Red hat recomended contractors are not red hat. Contractors are not Linux. He picked crap contractors, name them and be done with it. It is such a pointless M$=B$ obvious story, read and pay attention to every line.
I don't know... First, the Windows fans shout at me for say there are advantages to
free software" and now the Linux faithful are sniping because I didn't shout "FUD!" loudly enough.
All part of Slashdot's whimsical charm, I suppose...
If you deal with a big enough fish, they probably have access to
Microsoft's source.
Parts of it, perhaps. On the other hand, do you want to be tied to a
big fish? Might it not be desirable or convenient to support a local
outfit? Go with windows and you lose that option.
Sure, you might not be able to hire some kid you know from down the
street to whip up a patch for your mission critical server, but what
company in their right mind would do such a thing to begin with?
Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who doesn't work for a
multinational is incompetent? Really?
There are plenty of small scale local software houses and freelance
coders who will do just as good a job as IBM. And, if you run an free
software system, they have access to the source too. You don't need to
pay IBM prices or wait on IBM schedules.
It's not necessarily a better solution. Neither is it necessarily a
worse one. However you get more options if you have the source.
You're missing the one big advantage windows users have over Linux users -
the massive user support base.
Oh, indeed. The size of the windows userbase is a huge advantage and
not just for support. If Linux had one tenth of that deployment, we'd
see a lot more device manufacturers playing nice for a start...
With an obscure Linux distro, you don't
have quite the pool of users to pull solutions from. I experienced this
first hand using Gentoo w/ kernel 2.6.8. Apparently there was a problem
with that kernel and using CD burners. It took me a week to get to the
bottom of it by scouring Gentoo message boards
I remember that. It caught a lot of people on the hop did that one.
Still, to be fair, that was a bit like if your CD burner stopped working
after you applied SP2.
It's just that with XP, the service packs are few and far enough between
that the source of the problem is clear.
With Gentoo, every day brings it's own service pack; if you haven't
burnt any CDs for a week, tracking the problem down can be an adventure.
Which is part of the distro's charm at least if you like tinkering.
Don't all of the support options you mention exist for Windows too?
No, not if the problem is in the source code.
Last time I checked, Microsoft didn't have a monopoly on support options
Dude, I never said "there are no support options for windows". The
point I was making is that free software is always going to have support
options that you cannot get using proprietary code.
Can those same people change code for the underlying OS? Obviously not...
Well, quite. Which means that there are a whole class of problems
that can't be addressed by third party specialists if you use
a proprietory OS. The same for apps too, of course.
...but I would argue that nine times out of ten the OS isn't the issue in the first place.
It's tangential to the point, but I would say that an OS that can be
crashed by a third party app is a buggy OS. Device drivers are another matter,
of course. That's a problem that afflicts all OSes and again, if you can't
get the source, you're held hostage to the vendor for a fix.
Although I have to say, I think blaming device drivers for all of Windows's
ills is letting MS off a little too lightly. I mean Gates just admitted what
a horrible mess the MS development model has been up until this point, has he not?
It seems reasonable that there are issues with the windows OS.
Getting back to the point: the issue isn't Linux vs Windows; it's Free vs Proprietory.
If you have the source, you have more options for fixing a problem.
The amount of application support expertise for Windows is easily an order of magnitude greater than that
of Linux.
So it should be. Windows deployment is about two orders of magnitude greater than Linux and it's
been the dominant platform for about ten years. Id be amazed if it were otherwise.
You'd not only be able to get 3rd party support for less money
thanks to competition, but with a well-thought-out scope of work, you'd
be able to get someone who has expertise doing exactly what you need them
to do.
But third party support for a problem that can't be fixed because it's a
bug in the code is even more expensive.
Incidentally, why assume that the same competitive pressures don't exist
for Linux? It's not the number of support groups that determine prices but
the number relative to the demand. If Linux support groups are so rare,
(and therefore charging so much more) then we can expect a lot more
Linux support companies shortly, as people get into Linux support since
it pays better. This in turn will force prices down as supply approaches
demand.
But of course, OS religous zealotry is always more fun. M$ sux.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
what's the point of replying to this poor guys story by saying that, given exper
tise, he cld fix memorry leaks and instabilities in house
... or pay a third party support firm to do it for him. That's what I actually said.
The point being that these are options that you just do not have under Windows.
Run Windows and you're tied to whatever support MS deign to give you. Typically,
that's not a lot. With Linux you can hire anyone to fix the problem. Or take out a
support contract; or put up a bounty.
The important point is this: you have more support options under Linux
than you do under Windows.
And yes, these guys clearly don't want to do that. Not in house and not third party. That's cool.
It's not a strategy I would recommend myself; I've had windows boxes
that couldn't even apsire to that sort of uptime. But the people have
to make the choice they think best.
Regardless of which, you still have more support options with a free software
installation than you do with a proprietory one. That's always going to be
true.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think you had it right the first time :)
The analogy doesn't hold for patents. We can't amend the laws of physics to outlaw nuclear fission, but we can amend patent law to outlaw software patents.
Mutually Assured Destruction is just the patent lobby trying to spin greed to make it look patriotic and essential. It isn't.
Gosh. So, if Microsoft realised that, why then they'd naturally oppose software patents. You see, they'd realise that if software patents were outlawed, then they wouldn't need the expanse of maintaining a large patent portfolio to defend themselves, and they'd be free of the threat of Eolas type lawsuits into the bargain.
And Yet, here are Microsoft happily wasting time and money supporting software patents. What a bunch of Silly Billies. No wonder people thought they intended to use them offensively someday.
I'll just phone Bill and tell him he's been being a plonker, shall I? He'll be so relieved, I bet.
Oh, I don't know. They've shown them selves capable of steely resolve in the face of overwhelming pressure not to, say, launch a war of aggression against an oil rich nation. Or in defending the profits of overseas corporation from the best interests of the electorate, for example.
Corrupt, venal, deluded, increasingly paranoid, cynical, self serving... there are so many adjectives I'd consider before I resorted to "weak".
It's an honest question, BTW.
What they desire is the surpression of information that could be used to circumvent copyright. Once the illegality of such information is established, a pretext will exist to implement censorship of incoming data.
You think this information isn't dangerous to those interests that lobbied for this law?
For all I know, both are true.
Which is how Microsoft gets away with using a BSD TCP/IP stack without crediting them.
Which really is a perfect example of why many people are reluctant to contribute to the BSD projects, now I think of it...
A bit of a dilemma there, I feel. On the one hand, it is bad form to feed a troll. On the, other FUD needs to be challenged, lest people start to believe the lies.
In this case... well, the problem with trolls is that they seek to drag the discussion off-topic and drown any meaningful debate in senseless flaming. In this case however, we're managing to remain polite and more or less on-topic.
And I have to confess, I'm curious as to how far slashdot_ghandi is willing to take his argument.
No problem if they're not distributing the results. The problem there would seem to be more one of plagiarism.
These students go to work in corporations in India with their other collegues who are familiar with "reusing" code and go on to contaminate new projects (sometimes without informing their manager). With GPL, these coders don't have much luck doing what they are used to. A BSD-like license provides more freedom IMHO.
I'm a little confused here. What they are used to doing would seem to be plagarism and copyright infringement.
They don't have to make their new project GPL if they used portions of GNU code. BSD license is like a golden handshake for countries like India.
Personally, I would encourage them to exploit the BSD code to the maximum then. That's what the licence is for, and that's what the devs presumably intended.
As for GPLed code in India... I don't want to misrepresent your views here, but you seem to be suggesting that Indian developers are routinely violating the GPL, and that we should therefore do the decent thing and release all that code under the BSD licence because... Alas, it's the "because" part which I'm finding difficult to grasp. Perhaps you could help me out here?
In the meantime, as I see it:
Well... you suggested different licences for different countries, rather than a per-nation modification of the GPL. However I will confess that I see little functional distinction. Whether we change the GPL to operate like the BSD licence in, say, India, or whether we Licence it under the BSD licence in India, the results are the same so far as I can see.
Also I don't see why the BSD license cannot be used for distributing Linux in countries like India where GPL is more of a hinderance.
I've yet to be convinced of the benefits of a change in or to the licence. We already have BSD under a BSD licence. For all the good points of BSD, Linux remains more sucessful. That's hardly a compelling reason to change.
What's the problem with the GPL in India, anyway? It's not mentioned in TFA. May I assume from your handle that you have first hand experience?
To what end? To allow businesses to re-licence their modifications under proprietary terms? The BSDs already exist to that end. To be sure, they've had some prominent business adoptions. The only problem is that afterwards they're not really BSD anymore, and it's hard to see how OSX for example actually brings any benefit BDS.
What else could appeal to business? Dropping the source code requirement for modifications? That more or less morphs back into the same case as a BSD licence. In addition, it's hard to see how this ameliorates any suspicion over a gift culture.
I really can't see what changes you'd make.
It should also be pointed out that for many of those who write GPL software, corporate adoption is not a high priority.
But it's not really very constructive. I mean yes, Windows does do some things differently from the various Linux window managers and desktop environments, and yes it fails (sometimes quite willfully) to implement many of Linux better features, while some of those it does implement are either broken or primitive in comparison. Nevertheless, it has a certain quirky charm all its own, and lots of people appear to like it.
So maybe "user friendly" would work better as a relative value than as an absolute.
Kodak thinks it has found a solution to plumetting revenue as everyone in the world suddenly goes digital. If everyone in the world pays five bucks a month rent^H^H^H^Hservice charge then even after T-Mbile takes a slice, Kodak are going to be happy unies once again. And of course you have these Kodak branded print kiosks as well.
I can't see it working myself, both for the reasons you describe, and for the fact that after paying $600 for the damn thing, I;d be anoyed to have to pay $5 a month to keep it working.
Especaially since the damn thing doesn't seem to have an option to talk to my computer direct. To say nothing of all the folks who already pay T-Mobile or similar for basically the same service for their phones...
Of course, they could try and make us pay for the encryption keys needed to make that software run. I'd object to that; I mean it's not as if I didn't already pay for the computer. And the software isn't theirs, so why should I pay for it?
But the real rear is that they may refuse to licence the keys to the linux kernel or any GPL software. Or that they may picth the licence costs out of reach of free software projects.
Then, even with you payig my software bills, I still won't be able to run my software on my computer.
That's debateable. It's still a game written for the windows platform. Id can't expect to get much on a Linux port, so it's a little unrealistic to expect them to expend too many resources on ease of installation under Linux. It's not so much a native port as a windows game hacked to run under Linux. Id may have done the hacking, and I'm sure we're all appreciative, but it's still a windows game in my book.
Therefore, I stand by my point: if ease of installation for windows games is they highest priority, install windows. It's not complicated.
That said, I have installed a number of games on my machine using the loki installer system. It doesn't matter whether they're Linux native or Windows under Wine; with one exception, they just worked.
People don't give a shit who's fault it is, all they know is that on *this* OS they can get stuff to work, while on *that* OS they can't, or can but only with a lot of time and effort.
It's interesting you should say that. A while back my next door neighbour asked me to have a look at their XP box. They'd just bought their eldest the latest Total War game for his birthday. Forty quid, and on the morning, it didn't work.
The problem? Their graphics card didn't support DX9. So I explained the problem and they went down the local computer shop, and ended up having to get a new mobo and ram as well. They spent the price of a new machine getting this one program to work. It was a modern machine; the CPU and memory were well within spec - it was just that graphics processor predated MS latest bump for DirectX.
So I don't think the distinction between *this* os and *that* os is as clear cut as you suggest.
The average person on the street couldn't give two figs for Freedom; they have a task to perform and want to perform it as quickly and painlessly as possible, so they can get on with the rest of their lives.
Well, if windows is what works for someone, that person probably ought to use windows. It's not like Highlander with cries in the night of "There Can Only Be One (Operating System)!" For me, Freedom means other people are free to use whatever software works best for them. I have to say that I think choosing Microsoft is pretty boneheaded; but then I'll also conceed that not everyone shares my priorites..
However, to stray back on topic for a moment, the New South Wales Office of State Revenue isn't your average person in the street either. And if they've considered freedom in this context, it's probable freed from vendor lock in; freedom from MS licence conditions for Vista...
What I fear is hardware that requires that in order to be executed, binaries be digitally singed. I fear that the encryption keys needed to sign code such that it may be executed will be licenced and expensive. I fear that MS may try and sidestep the challenge posed by free software by changing the platform so that Linux and other competitor code simply cannot run.
The TPM code for linux that you mention works similarly, but allows you to choose your own encryption keys. As such it becomes a potentially useful tool to prevent execution of unauthorised code.
But only if we, the users, control the keys. I can't see that happening. That's the thing to fear.
You know, it strikes me that saying "Linux is not user friendly" is like saying "computers are not user friendly". I mean, I can see where you'd get such an idea, and in some cases it is certainly true. On the other hand, when I think of all possible environments on offer, it seems to me that such statements say more about the speaker's inexperience in the area than anything else.
I mean Linux embraces everything from pure command line distros to virtual windows clones of the windows interface. You have ubergeek distros like gentoo, and you have ones where people have spent some serious time and money making it simple, like Ubuntu and Linspire. To say nothing of Knoppix which you don't even need to install, and famously Just Works.
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
OK you got me. It's a bit of a pain getting programs written for windows to run under Linux. I expect there are Mac apps that give similar problems when you try to make them work under windows. If getting windows games to run on your computer is your highest priority, then it makes sense to have windows installed. You can even dual boot Linux and youse the windows partition as a gaming environment.
On the other hand, the New South Wales Office of State Revenue maybe have more important priorities than Far Cry compatibility. But, hey! the way game studios are ignoring the PC in favour of consoles these days, it's going to be a moot point before too much longer anyway.
So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural.
Oh definitely. It's a mistake made by highly skilled people in all fields - to assume that just because something is everyday and routine to them, it can be glossed over for others.
Hence, the preference towards Windows.
I don't agree with yout "hence" nor with your assumption of a preference. Winodws' widespread deployment has more to do with the fact that MS make it damn near impossible to buy a linux box from an OEM channel, and the fact that most people never having tried anything else, tend to think windows is the way things ought to work.
This is not necessarily an endorsement of Windows, just human nature. People tend to think what they're used to is they way things ought to be. For myself, I came to windows from Unix in 1990 and thought Unix was they way things ought to be, purely because that was what I was used to.
Of course, fifteen years later, I still do, and with rather more basis for comparison.
I don't know... First, the Windows fans shout at me for say there are advantages to free software" and now the Linux faithful are sniping because I didn't shout "FUD!" loudly enough.
All part of Slashdot's whimsical charm, I suppose...
Perhaps you could point me at the part of my post where I said "All Linux support is free of charge".
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
And I can't help but wonder where you heard it. You comments don't seem to bear much relation anything I wrote.
Parts of it, perhaps. On the other hand, do you want to be tied to a big fish? Might it not be desirable or convenient to support a local outfit? Go with windows and you lose that option.
Sure, you might not be able to hire some kid you know from down the street to whip up a patch for your mission critical server, but what company in their right mind would do such a thing to begin with?
Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who doesn't work for a multinational is incompetent? Really?
There are plenty of small scale local software houses and freelance coders who will do just as good a job as IBM. And, if you run an free software system, they have access to the source too. You don't need to pay IBM prices or wait on IBM schedules.
It's not necessarily a better solution. Neither is it necessarily a worse one. However you get more options if you have the source.
How could it be otherwise?
Oh, indeed. The size of the windows userbase is a huge advantage and not just for support. If Linux had one tenth of that deployment, we'd see a lot more device manufacturers playing nice for a start...
With an obscure Linux distro, you don't have quite the pool of users to pull solutions from. I experienced this first hand using Gentoo w/ kernel 2.6.8. Apparently there was a problem with that kernel and using CD burners. It took me a week to get to the bottom of it by scouring Gentoo message boards
I remember that. It caught a lot of people on the hop did that one.
Still, to be fair, that was a bit like if your CD burner stopped working after you applied SP2. It's just that with XP, the service packs are few and far enough between that the source of the problem is clear. With Gentoo, every day brings it's own service pack; if you haven't burnt any CDs for a week, tracking the problem down can be an adventure. Which is part of the distro's charm at least if you like tinkering.
Yes.
Don't all of the support options you mention exist for Windows too?
No, not if the problem is in the source code.
Last time I checked, Microsoft didn't have a monopoly on support options
Dude, I never said "there are no support options for windows". The point I was making is that free software is always going to have support options that you cannot get using proprietary code.
Can those same people change code for the underlying OS? Obviously not...
Well, quite. Which means that there are a whole class of problems that can't be addressed by third party specialists if you use a proprietory OS. The same for apps too, of course.
It's tangential to the point, but I would say that an OS that can be crashed by a third party app is a buggy OS. Device drivers are another matter, of course. That's a problem that afflicts all OSes and again, if you can't get the source, you're held hostage to the vendor for a fix.
Although I have to say, I think blaming device drivers for all of Windows's ills is letting MS off a little too lightly. I mean Gates just admitted what a horrible mess the MS development model has been up until this point, has he not? It seems reasonable that there are issues with the windows OS.
Getting back to the point: the issue isn't Linux vs Windows; it's Free vs Proprietory. If you have the source, you have more options for fixing a problem.
The amount of application support expertise for Windows is easily an order of magnitude greater than that of Linux.
So it should be. Windows deployment is about two orders of magnitude greater than Linux and it's been the dominant platform for about ten years. Id be amazed if it were otherwise.
You'd not only be able to get 3rd party support for less money thanks to competition, but with a well-thought-out scope of work, you'd be able to get someone who has expertise doing exactly what you need them to do.
But third party support for a problem that can't be fixed because it's a bug in the code is even more expensive.
Incidentally, why assume that the same competitive pressures don't exist for Linux? It's not the number of support groups that determine prices but the number relative to the demand. If Linux support groups are so rare, (and therefore charging so much more) then we can expect a lot more Linux support companies shortly, as people get into Linux support since it pays better. This in turn will force prices down as supply approaches demand.
But of course, OS religous zealotry is always more fun. M$ sux.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
The point being that these are options that you just do not have under Windows. Run Windows and you're tied to whatever support MS deign to give you. Typically, that's not a lot. With Linux you can hire anyone to fix the problem. Or take out a support contract; or put up a bounty.
The important point is this: you have more support options under Linux than you do under Windows.
And yes, these guys clearly don't want to do that. Not in house and not third party. That's cool. It's not a strategy I would recommend myself; I've had windows boxes that couldn't even apsire to that sort of uptime. But the people have to make the choice they think best.
Regardless of which, you still have more support options with a free software installation than you do with a proprietory one. That's always going to be true.