>By setting a single standard you risk lock-in, yes. But you also gain the ability to use that tech stack to the limits of its ability, rather than to the least common denominator
That is certainly true. You get more features and power (and less testing headaches) by using a proprietary stack and user lock-in. But for many types of applications, compatibility and flexibility are as important or more important than just features. I can't tell you how many times I have encountered incompatibility at the sake of some programmer wanting to do something cute. For example, I don't give a damn about Flash or Silverlight. But if I go to a ticket site wanting to buy tickets and can't, because they wrote the site to DEPEND on one of them, I am really pissed. I don't need animated tickets and fly-out menus. I want to buy tickets (or rent a movie, or a car, or download some info, or check a bank balance, etc, etc).
>Why make the tradeoff for an intranet when the requirement isn't there?
Because we, as consumers, can't choose to run the platform of our choice. We can choose any platform as long as it is MS? If, for example, every electronic medical record vendor decided "the requirement isn't there" and they just require MS on the server and client, then medical facilities have no choice what platform to run. They are locked into one platform for 100% of their environment. So "the requirement isn't there" isn't because the customer chose it, it is because the developer forced it to be that way.
>Just one example - tight integration with Excel? Easy... and I've never seen any kind of architecture-neutral plugin to a web app that could do a few percent...
And I would respond that having tight integration with Excel is not a HORRIBLE thing. But does that exclude also allowing an import/export as a standard CSV file? Does it always have to be all-or-nothing? >
Look, I never said it was "OK" to be locked in on the server side either. I don't like that anymore than client lockin. I strongly support multiplatform and portable solutions, preferably as open as possible.... no matter what the type of system or location.
There is no magical "works on everything equally well and is open" solution. But there ARE alternatives that are a LOT more so than ActiveX. Half the crap I have seen that requires ActiveX is junk that could have been done without ANYTHING special, they just used it because their development environment used it automatically. A quarter of the sites that block browsers supposedly because they aren't IE work just fine with Firefox or Opera (sometimes with some quirks or some a few non-absolutely-necessary features that don't work).
Finally, trust me, it is not the world revolving around me. If you think *I* am the only one that is irritated by lack of choice in server and client choice, you are sadly mistaken. Read Slashdot! And if 20+% of the users in the world are not using IE, then that sends a pretty clear message right there.
>But they have failed to do lock in, and if they try they will get shut down.
Wrong. They have failed to lock in PUBLIC facing web sites. But they have done a MARVELLOUS job of lock-in for corporate web applications and inside apps with IE. Trust me, I have fought that monster over and over again.
> No external public facing site should rely on activeX. There is really nothing wrong with internal enterprise apps using it.
Um, yes there most certainly is a MAJOR problem with internal enterprise apps using it. It means that everyone is chained to running MS-Windows and IE *only* on the desktops and every possible device that connects to that internal enterprise application. Just because you might not have a choice with what is running on the server doesn't necessarily mean you want to have no choice for the client.
Perhaps a company might want some additional choice.
>Microsoft will instead adopt Gazelle, Microsoft Research's brand-new engine that thinks like an OS.
Great, just what we need, a single-platform browser that thinks like an OS- something that will further guaranteed web "sites" designed in a manner that will only work with MS-Windows and their own browser. Been there, done that.
1) Why did you spend the extra money and buy your not-so-netbook with XP in the first place? 2) The included Xandros on my EEE1000 worked great! 3) EEEbuntu worked fantastically. Everything just worked, right after the easy install. Me very happy!
>I do it all the time. But still compared to a real one, they are still clunky. >The fast enough to be not annoying and useful. But still it sometimes when you get those subtle animations >It makes it that much nicer to work locally.
You are thinking of network thin clients, or just running X remotely over the network. The solution Brazil is using is a multiheaded Linux machine. There are just lots (10 sets) of keyboards, mice, and monitors connected directly to each single (local) server. So there is essentially zero lag, since they are all using "the console".
Anyway, I based my observations on the last time I tried to install a non-OEM MS-Windows XP SP2 on a machine. What a nightmare. Video didn't work, ethernet was at half speed, no sound. The install took 4 times as long as Linux and the Linux install on the same system- everything worked perfectly. Took quite a while to track down drivers and get things working under XP. It was quite the opposite of the experience compared to years ago.
But there are several Linux systems, like there are several BSD variants. Didn't think it necessary to list them all.
Hurd, Minix, ReactOS, Haiku, QNX, etc are all "interesting" in their own ways, but really not suitable replacements for most modern desktop OS's (lack of software and/or lack of hardware support and/or lack of full GUI and/or lack of reasonable installer, etc). OpenSolaris could be, though. I kinda thought it would have more interest, but it seems it might have been "too little too late" and is just overshadowed by Linux (kinda like BSD is too).
You are no more "F'ed" (as you put it) than if your hardware isn't supported by whatever MS-Windows. You just replace that part of the hardware.
BTW- I didn't say the cell modem and finger reader don't work, I said I didn't care about them. From my understanding, they do work (with some effort); but I don't have first-hand proof, so I wasn't going to use it as part of my "logic".
Last time I installed MS-Windows on a machine, the video didn't work, and the ethernet was 1/3 normal speed and it took 4 times longer to install than Linux on the same machine; and Linux had everything working with no tweaking. My point was quite valid...
And yes, I have installed Linux on a machine where the video wasn't quite right and required tweaking and never could get the wireless to work. So, as I said, if something was preconfigured to run an OS at the factory, then everything works. If it is not, all bets are off- and that applies to MS-Windows and Linux.
Yeah, in 5 years, MS has probably lost 2% or 3% total for desktop? At this rate, if it could continue, in a another thirty or forty years it could get interesting?
Go nuts, and let me know when you can just buy any hardware and expect Vista or 7 to support all of it with your own manual installation. (And without fiddling and trying to find drivers, and etc).
If you buy a machine with Linux pre-installed, everything will just "work". If you buy a machine with Linux compatible hardware, usually everything should work after install.
I can install any version of Mandriva Linux on my home machine (self-made) and everything works. Sound, video, all resolutions, multiple monitors, ethernet, hard drives; no fiddling.
I installed Mandriva and Fedora on my Sony T series laptop, and everything just works. Only thing I have not tested is the built-in cell modem and fingerprint reader, both of which I don't care about.
I just bought an EEE and the preinstalled Xandros Linux works perfectly. I then installed EEEBuntu Linux on it, and guess what? Everything worked perfectly again- wireless, webcam, bluetooth, resolutions, external monitor, card reader, sound, suspend, ethernet....
And you will face the EXACT same problem if you tried to install generic MS-Windows yourself on some hardware. Install bombs, incompatible drivers, missing drivers, trying to download and find drivers, configuring settings and drivers. Yet, if you bought a machine with preconfigured Linux, it would all "just work". Yours is hardly a "fair" comparison.
The EEE I just bought has Linux, and every single thing on it works perfectly. Imagine that. And it is just as easy to use as any MS-Windows (and yet faster and less expensive).
> We all know the only real winners will be Apple, and Windows XP. Linux will likely carry along with it's.8% market share or whatever
Some estimates place Linux at more like 1.5 to 2% of desktops (but it is so impossible to really know). Even so, it is pretty low. And Linux has something like a 60% share of servers. In any case, the low adoption rate of Linux on desktops says less about the quality or capability of Linux (which is high) and more about the effects of market lock-in and marketing by Microsoft (which is much higher).
It almost doesn't matter WHAT Microsoft does. 90+% of computers are pretty much mandated to come with whatever OS Microsoft is currently forcing, and they will get paid handsomely, even if the user already owns XP and downgrades, or uninstalls Vista/7/whatever and puts Linux/BSD/whatever on it.
If we really wanted to see what market share Linux COULD be, it would require the computer sales industry to be forced to unbundle MS-Windows from all computer sales and show consumers the optional line item cost of MS-Windows. THAT would be an interesting experiment.
> then vote with your feet and wallet. It's not like there aren't alternatives available.
Yep, there are pretty much two: Linux and BSD. Apple has it's own coziness with hardware lockdown, lock-in, and DRM. If more people would just explore the alternatives and request support for alternatives from software and hardware vendors... well... then.... those alternatives would become even better.
Kinda like the economy- if people believed the economy is better, it will be (funny how that works).
Microsoft keeps feeding people crap and people keep right on eating it. Just enough crap to make people feel somewhat sick to their stomachs but apparently not enough to switch to something else.
Yes, yes, I know, Linux is doomed because it doesn't play the latest game or run Photoshop natively.
OK, time to go, gotta edit some more sound files with Audacity under Linux (no rebooting necessary, as the article implies)...
>In all, it comes down to you "open-source" / "pirate" twits that think paying for anything is below them
Anonymous Coward,
Perhaps you should re-read my posting. Specifically the part that says: "not because I am adverse to paying for music." I never pirate anything and I am certainly willing to pay reasonable prices for reasonable services, and do, all the time.
I never had any interest in satellite radio and not because I am adverse to paying for music.
1) The radios were too large/comples 2) The reception indoors was spotty 3) Having to sign contacts and such was an immediate turnoff. Reminds me of the crap with cell phones. 4) Having to pay for EACH radio didn't help matters
And regular radio? Ug.
1) The advertising is so extremely annoying- as if designed for 3-year-olds 2) Screaming advertising or major volume jumps 3) Same ads over and over and over and over and over 4) Poor sound quality 5) Idiotic DJ's 6) Poor music selection. I mean, we must have 30 radio stations, and 3 types of music, none of which I like.
I stopped listening to all radio eons ago. I just have mp3 everywhere. Granted, even with many hundreds of CD's, it still gets old after years.
And the true irony? The Neilson Radio Ratings packet just arrived in my mailbox yesterday. This is the third time. I keep telling them I don't listen to *any* radio, and they keep saying "oh, well that is valuable information, please fill out the forms with blanks".
I know this is a strange concept, but there is this stuff called conduit. You know, that metal tube stuff that has been used in buildings for eons. That stuff that you run wire through.
It is available in both flex and solid. You can bet all *MY* fiber runs are in steel conduit (even though all my wire stuff is not).
I have seen it written both ways for years. I don't think it matters all that much, but when there is no space, it is always cased the "MacOS" way, not "MACOS".
>"OS X" is more of a brand than a version number now"
Exactly - it is just lay-term, marketing stuff. Hip, kewl, non-technical common reference.
>it is more correct to say "Mac OS X version 10.4.11" than "Mac OS 10.4.11",
Well, we just agree to disagree. Saying "Mac OS Ten Version Ten point Four" is just redundant and silly to me.
>you would be implying that the software runs on classic Mac OS
Not really. If you just said "MS Windows", that doesn't imply it runs on 3.11 or 95 does it? If you just said "Linux", that doesn't mean it will necessarily run on Linux kernel 0.1 does it? It is just non-specific, and interpretation depends on the context. If you want to be specific, you add the version/rev to it: "Mac OS 10.3 and above", "MS Windows 95 and XP", "Linux 2.5-2.6/GCC 4.2", etc.
>I'm not familiar with any occasion on which Microsoft have referred to it as "MS-Windows." >I can only find "MS Windows." You're probably getting confused with MS-DOS which does have a hyphen.
Funny, for many, many years, I have seen it written both ways. I just searched and found lots and lots of occurrences. But, you are correct that it is far more common now to see "MS Windows" without the dash. I don't think it matters much, though. As for MS-DOS, I have often seen that written "MSDOS", too; but calling it just "DOS" would be completely incorrect, just like calling something "windows"; both are entirely too generic and presumptuous (which Microsoft loves, of course... just like "word" instead of "MS Word" or "office" instead of "MS Office" or "PC" instead of "X86 Machine" or perhaps they meant "X86 machine running MS-Windows" or did they just mean "Personal Computer").
MacOS is (and always has been) the name of the operating system Apple uses, it is the Macintosh Operating System. The current version is 10, which came after version 9, which came after version 8. In a marketing spiff, they often write the "10" as a roman numeral "X", but if you look in the code and such, it is 10. The subversions follow the "10", such as "10.1", "10.2", etc. It is also pronounced "Mac Oh Ess Ten" not "Mac Oh Ess Ekess".
Don't be sceptical about the "MS" in "MS-Windows". "Windows" are things that let light in, in a building or car. Or they are generic representations of program input/output areas on any computer screen. "MS-Windows" or "Microsoft Windows" is the name of their OS (and always has been).
"Ubuntu" is just one Linux distro. The software runs on Linux, not just Ubuntu.
It is for "MacOS, MS-Windows, and Linux". There, fixed that for you.
Anyway, Miro is already in the repositories for Mandriva, SuSe, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, and Pardus... which probably covers about 95-98% of Linux users.
You might also want to contact your local Linux/FOSS User's Group for some ideas. For example, our user group ( http://www.twuug.org/ ) contains people from all walks of life, including people who work for government agencies. You might get a lot of positive feedback and support. Consider it "networking", just not in the computer sense.
Don't be discouraged- there are, unfortunately, a lot of factors that will work against you or at least for the status-quo. But everyone can make a difference. Just do the best you can, keep an open mind, respect others' points of view, and learn from the experience. It can even be enjoyable along the way.
Slashdot Mirror
>By setting a single standard you risk lock-in, yes. But you also gain the ability to use that tech stack to the limits of its ability, rather than to the least common denominator
That is certainly true. You get more features and power (and less testing headaches) by using a proprietary stack and user lock-in. But for many types of applications, compatibility and flexibility are as important or more important than just features. I can't tell you how many times I have encountered incompatibility at the sake of some programmer wanting to do something cute. For example, I don't give a damn about Flash or Silverlight. But if I go to a ticket site wanting to buy tickets and can't, because they wrote the site to DEPEND on one of them, I am really pissed. I don't need animated tickets and fly-out menus. I want to buy tickets (or rent a movie, or a car, or download some info, or check a bank balance, etc, etc).
>Why make the tradeoff for an intranet when the requirement isn't there?
Because we, as consumers, can't choose to run the platform of our choice. We can choose any platform as long as it is MS? If, for example, every electronic medical record vendor decided "the requirement isn't there" and they just require MS on the server and client, then medical facilities have no choice what platform to run. They are locked into one platform for 100% of their environment. So "the requirement isn't there" isn't because the customer chose it, it is because the developer forced it to be that way.
>Just one example - tight integration with Excel? Easy... and I've never seen any kind of architecture-neutral plugin to a web app that could do a few percent ...
And I would respond that having tight integration with Excel is not a HORRIBLE thing. But does that exclude also allowing an import/export as a standard CSV file? Does it always have to be all-or-nothing?
>
Look, I never said it was "OK" to be locked in on the server side either. I don't like that anymore than client lockin. I strongly support multiplatform and portable solutions, preferably as open as possible.... no matter what the type of system or location.
There is no magical "works on everything equally well and is open" solution. But there ARE alternatives that are a LOT more so than ActiveX. Half the crap I have seen that requires ActiveX is junk that could have been done without ANYTHING special, they just used it because their development environment used it automatically. A quarter of the sites that block browsers supposedly because they aren't IE work just fine with Firefox or Opera (sometimes with some quirks or some a few non-absolutely-necessary features that don't work).
Finally, trust me, it is not the world revolving around me. If you think *I* am the only one that is irritated by lack of choice in server and client choice, you are sadly mistaken. Read Slashdot! And if 20+% of the users in the world are not using IE, then that sends a pretty clear message right there.
>But they have failed to do lock in, and if they try they will get shut down.
Wrong. They have failed to lock in PUBLIC facing web sites. But they have done a MARVELLOUS job of lock-in for corporate web applications and inside apps with IE. Trust me, I have fought that monster over and over again.
> No external public facing site should rely on activeX. There is really nothing wrong with internal enterprise apps using it.
Um, yes there most certainly is a MAJOR problem with internal enterprise apps using it. It means that everyone is chained to running MS-Windows and IE *only* on the desktops and every possible device that connects to that internal enterprise application. Just because you might not have a choice with what is running on the server doesn't necessarily mean you want to have no choice for the client.
Perhaps a company might want some additional choice.
>Microsoft will instead adopt Gazelle, Microsoft Research's brand-new engine that thinks like an OS.
Great, just what we need, a single-platform browser that thinks like an OS- something that will further guaranteed web "sites" designed in a manner that will only work with MS-Windows and their own browser. Been there, done that.
1) Why did you spend the extra money and buy your not-so-netbook with XP in the first place?
2) The included Xandros on my EEE1000 worked great!
3) EEEbuntu worked fantastically. Everything just worked, right after the easy install. Me very happy!
http://www.eeebuntu.org/
>I do it all the time. But still compared to a real one, they are still clunky.
>The fast enough to be not annoying and useful. But still it sometimes when you get those subtle animations
>It makes it that much nicer to work locally.
You are thinking of network thin clients, or just running X remotely over the network. The solution Brazil is using is a multiheaded Linux machine. There are just lots (10 sets) of keyboards, mice, and monitors connected directly to each single (local) server. So there is essentially zero lag, since they are all using "the console".
(Love your user name, by the way)
Anyway, I based my observations on the last time I tried to install a non-OEM MS-Windows XP SP2 on a machine. What a nightmare. Video didn't work, ethernet was at half speed, no sound. The install took 4 times as long as Linux and the Linux install on the same system- everything worked perfectly. Took quite a while to track down drivers and get things working under XP. It was quite the opposite of the experience compared to years ago.
Good post! Informative!! Glad you were modded up.
But there are several Linux systems, like there are several BSD variants. Didn't think it necessary to list them all.
Hurd, Minix, ReactOS, Haiku, QNX, etc are all "interesting" in their own ways, but really not suitable replacements for most modern desktop OS's (lack of software and/or lack of hardware support and/or lack of full GUI and/or lack of reasonable installer, etc). OpenSolaris could be, though. I kinda thought it would have more interest, but it seems it might have been "too little too late" and is just overshadowed by Linux (kinda like BSD is too).
You are no more "F'ed" (as you put it) than if your hardware isn't supported by whatever MS-Windows. You just replace that part of the hardware.
BTW- I didn't say the cell modem and finger reader don't work, I said I didn't care about them. From my understanding, they do work (with some effort); but I don't have first-hand proof, so I wasn't going to use it as part of my "logic".
Last time I installed MS-Windows on a machine, the video didn't work, and the ethernet was 1/3 normal speed and it took 4 times longer to install than Linux on the same machine; and Linux had everything working with no tweaking. My point was quite valid...
And yes, I have installed Linux on a machine where the video wasn't quite right and required tweaking and never could get the wireless to work. So, as I said, if something was preconfigured to run an OS at the factory, then everything works. If it is not, all bets are off- and that applies to MS-Windows and Linux.
Yeah, in 5 years, MS has probably lost 2% or 3% total for desktop? At this rate, if it could continue, in a another thirty or forty years it could get interesting?
Go nuts, and let me know when you can just buy any hardware and expect Vista or 7 to support all of it with your own manual installation. (And without fiddling and trying to find drivers, and etc).
If you buy a machine with Linux pre-installed, everything will just "work".
If you buy a machine with Linux compatible hardware, usually everything should work after install.
I can install any version of Mandriva Linux on my home machine (self-made) and everything works. Sound, video, all resolutions, multiple monitors, ethernet, hard drives; no fiddling.
I installed Mandriva and Fedora on my Sony T series laptop, and everything just works. Only thing I have not tested is the built-in cell modem and fingerprint reader, both of which I don't care about.
I just bought an EEE and the preinstalled Xandros Linux works perfectly. I then installed EEEBuntu Linux on it, and guess what? Everything worked perfectly again- wireless, webcam, bluetooth, resolutions, external monitor, card reader, sound, suspend, ethernet....
And you will face the EXACT same problem if you tried to install generic MS-Windows yourself on some hardware. Install bombs, incompatible drivers, missing drivers, trying to download and find drivers, configuring settings and drivers. Yet, if you bought a machine with preconfigured Linux, it would all "just work". Yours is hardly a "fair" comparison.
The EEE I just bought has Linux, and every single thing on it works perfectly. Imagine that. And it is just as easy to use as any MS-Windows (and yet faster and less expensive).
> We all know the only real winners will be Apple, and Windows XP. Linux will likely carry along with it's .8% market share or whatever
Some estimates place Linux at more like 1.5 to 2% of desktops (but it is so impossible to really know). Even so, it is pretty low. And Linux has something like a 60% share of servers. In any case, the low adoption rate of Linux on desktops says less about the quality or capability of Linux (which is high) and more about the effects of market lock-in and marketing by Microsoft (which is much higher).
It almost doesn't matter WHAT Microsoft does. 90+% of computers are pretty much mandated to come with whatever OS Microsoft is currently forcing, and they will get paid handsomely, even if the user already owns XP and downgrades, or uninstalls Vista/7/whatever and puts Linux/BSD/whatever on it.
If we really wanted to see what market share Linux COULD be, it would require the computer sales industry to be forced to unbundle MS-Windows from all computer sales and show consumers the optional line item cost of MS-Windows. THAT would be an interesting experiment.
> then vote with your feet and wallet. It's not like there aren't alternatives available.
Yep, there are pretty much two: Linux and BSD. Apple has it's own coziness with hardware lockdown, lock-in, and DRM. If more people would just explore the alternatives and request support for alternatives from software and hardware vendors... well... then.... those alternatives would become even better.
Kinda like the economy- if people believed the economy is better, it will be (funny how that works).
Microsoft keeps feeding people crap and people keep right on eating it. Just enough crap to make people feel somewhat sick to their stomachs but apparently not enough to switch to something else.
Yes, yes, I know, Linux is doomed because it doesn't play the latest game or run Photoshop natively.
OK, time to go, gotta edit some more sound files with Audacity under Linux (no rebooting necessary, as the article implies)...
>In all, it comes down to you "open-source" / "pirate" twits that think paying for anything is below them
Anonymous Coward,
Perhaps you should re-read my posting. Specifically the part that says: "not because I am adverse to paying for music." I never pirate anything and I am certainly willing to pay reasonable prices for reasonable services, and do, all the time.
Oh, you are right, I just looked at the packet- it is "Arbitron"
I never had any interest in satellite radio and not because I am adverse to paying for music.
1) The radios were too large/comples
2) The reception indoors was spotty
3) Having to sign contacts and such was an immediate turnoff. Reminds me of the crap with cell phones.
4) Having to pay for EACH radio didn't help matters
And regular radio? Ug.
1) The advertising is so extremely annoying- as if designed for 3-year-olds
2) Screaming advertising or major volume jumps
3) Same ads over and over and over and over and over
4) Poor sound quality
5) Idiotic DJ's
6) Poor music selection. I mean, we must have 30 radio stations, and 3 types of music, none of which I like.
I stopped listening to all radio eons ago. I just have mp3 everywhere. Granted, even with many hundreds of CD's, it still gets old after years.
And the true irony? The Neilson Radio Ratings packet just arrived in my mailbox yesterday. This is the third time. I keep telling them I don't listen to *any* radio, and they keep saying "oh, well that is valuable information, please fill out the forms with blanks".
I know this is a strange concept, but there is this stuff called conduit. You know, that metal tube stuff that has been used in buildings for eons. That stuff that you run wire through.
It is available in both flex and solid. You can bet all *MY* fiber runs are in steel conduit (even though all my wire stuff is not).
BTW- I like the word "stuff".
>No. It's Mac OS - note the space,
I have seen it written both ways for years. I don't think it matters all that much, but when there is no space, it is always cased the "MacOS" way, not "MACOS".
>"OS X" is more of a brand than a version number now"
Exactly - it is just lay-term, marketing stuff. Hip, kewl, non-technical common reference.
>it is more correct to say "Mac OS X version 10.4.11" than "Mac OS 10.4.11",
Well, we just agree to disagree. Saying "Mac OS Ten Version Ten point Four" is just redundant and silly to me.
>you would be implying that the software runs on classic Mac OS
Not really. If you just said "MS Windows", that doesn't imply it runs on 3.11 or 95 does it? If you just said "Linux", that doesn't mean it will necessarily run on Linux kernel 0.1 does it? It is just non-specific, and interpretation depends on the context. If you want to be specific, you add the version/rev to it: "Mac OS 10.3 and above", "MS Windows 95 and XP", "Linux 2.5-2.6/GCC 4.2", etc.
>I'm not familiar with any occasion on which Microsoft have referred to it as "MS-Windows."
>I can only find "MS Windows." You're probably getting confused with MS-DOS which does have a hyphen.
Funny, for many, many years, I have seen it written both ways. I just searched and found lots and lots of occurrences. But, you are correct that it is far more common now to see "MS Windows" without the dash. I don't think it matters much, though. As for MS-DOS, I have often seen that written "MSDOS", too; but calling it just "DOS" would be completely incorrect, just like calling something "windows"; both are entirely too generic and presumptuous (which Microsoft loves, of course... just like "word" instead of "MS Word" or "office" instead of "MS Office" or "PC" instead of "X86 Machine" or perhaps they meant "X86 machine running MS-Windows" or did they just mean "Personal Computer").
MacOS is (and always has been) the name of the operating system Apple uses, it is the Macintosh Operating System. The current version is 10, which came after version 9, which came after version 8. In a marketing spiff, they often write the "10" as a roman numeral "X", but if you look in the code and such, it is 10. The subversions follow the "10", such as "10.1", "10.2", etc. It is also pronounced "Mac Oh Ess Ten" not "Mac Oh Ess Ekess".
Don't be sceptical about the "MS" in "MS-Windows". "Windows" are things that let light in, in a building or car. Or they are generic representations of program input/output areas on any computer screen. "MS-Windows" or "Microsoft Windows" is the name of their OS (and always has been).
"Ubuntu" is just one Linux distro. The software runs on Linux, not just Ubuntu.
No, it is not for "OSX, Windows, and Ubuntu".
It is for "MacOS, MS-Windows, and Linux". There, fixed that for you.
Anyway, Miro is already in the repositories for Mandriva, SuSe, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, and Pardus... which probably covers about 95-98% of Linux users.
You might also want to contact your local Linux/FOSS User's Group for some ideas. For example, our user group ( http://www.twuug.org/ ) contains people from all walks of life, including people who work for government agencies. You might get a lot of positive feedback and support. Consider it "networking", just not in the computer sense.
Don't be discouraged- there are, unfortunately, a lot of factors that will work against you or at least for the status-quo. But everyone can make a difference. Just do the best you can, keep an open mind, respect others' points of view, and learn from the experience. It can even be enjoyable along the way.
So true. It won't matter that people had been using Compiz (and similar) under Linux before MS-Vista even existed, much less MS-Windows-7.