Why not standardize a desktop for your organization? Everyone will have the same l&f, tools, etc. What drivers are you referring to? Most companies don't bother with Linux drivers because the Linux community has already developed working drivers for a said piece of hardware. OpenOffice IS heavy, but OpenOffice is not the only office suite available for a Linux desktop. Maybe use an alternative office suite until OpenOffice becomes more matured in it's efficiency of execution. Then consider switching to OpenOffice at that time. The problems most helpdesks or admins have with windows machines is the OS, not the user. The user may delete a critical system file, but is that REALLY the user's fault? Wouldn't a well designed OS not allow a user to delete that system file in the first place? Preventive medicine. With proper assement, planning, and deployment, Linux coexists quite well in a windows/mac environment. The beauty of a Linux desktop is it's ability to run weeks of daily use and not require a reboot. Any hetergenous environment requires added knowledge for an admin, but it seems that would make a person a bit more indispensable. Job security. The path of least resistance leads to the least rewards.
Have you strolled down to a local CompUSA or any other computer superstore lately? While I find several "shrinkwrapped" Linux distributions, and even FreeBSD on the shelf, I rarely see a "shrinkwrapped" copy of Mac OS, namely due to "marketshare". I do however, find games and even some commercial applications that run on Linux. I'm lucky if i find a Mac system on the shelf. Seems that something with "marketshare" would be easily obtainable for a consumer, not having to order online, or track down a Mac vendor in the yellow pages. It's like comparing apples and ermm..penguins.
Netscape was, and still is a superior "product" or whatever the hell you want to call software. It had some of the brightest minds working on it. ANY project the size of the Netscape browser will have developers complaining about parts that need improvement. At least Netscape was open enough in their operations to let developers cite it's shortcomings, and then focus on those problems to fix them. m$ on the other hand does not let their developers openly express their opinions on IE. The Netscape team faced an uphill battle to get it to where they did on the windows platform. Netscape on Unix or Mac runs like a top. Why? because those platforms weren't owned by a bunch of shitheads hellbent on owning the world. Microsoft deliberately set out to sabotage Netscape's efforts when bill gates caught wind of what he had missed out on. I personally would have loved nothing more than to see the assholes in redmond split up. Tomorrow morning while sipping on your coffee, reading your morning paper, and waiting on your daily IE updates to download, just remember that the assheads in redmond really do care about your computing experience and online safety. You have been weighed and measure, and found wanting. You troll.
Yet, it still requires at least "guru" status to fix a problem when it does go wrong, particularly where things like hardware and device drivers, or configuring the GUI, are concerned.
Aren't MCSEs and other monkeys trained in the M$ circus required to handle those tasks on a windows machine? How is it that someone who can manage a Linux system is automatically labelled as being a guru? As flattering as it may be to some people's ego, this preconcieved notion is a stumbling block in the public's willingness to adopt the OS for common use. As far as installing and configuring a Linux system being a nightmare, i'm a little vague in following that point. Installing even the more spartan distributions like Slackware is an effortless task. Configuration of the system is probably were most people who are too familiar with a device mangler get into trouble. Configuration of various daemons, however, can get a little more involved. However, on a windows platform, we expect a trained tech to handle those tasks (services) anyway. So I'm still not sure why gurus are needed to configure a GUI or install a driver. Linux is just a different OS and it requires different knowledge to do these things. Sure, you might need to know more detail about your hardware when setting things up manually, as opposed to windows or Mac. That's the beauty of Linux and Unix platforms. They don't need to rely on an overworked, underpaid programmer overseas to write an autodetection program to guess the specs and limits of a said piece of hardware for a driver installation. Your point is well taken, and I agree with you whole heartedly, just wanted to add my 2 bits.
The last Mandrake release ran a 2.4.21 prerelease kernel. I personally never had any stability problems with it. I also understand that Mandrake tends to gravitate toward the bleeding edge of the packages they include in their releases, but the kernel is one place I think shouldn't be included in this manner. I think Mandrake is a wonderful company who makes an awesome distribution. I even have a customer's server running Mandrake 9.0 for 7 months and they haven't had a single problem with it (they use it for Samba and DHCP primarily). I suppose if one is looking for the latest and greatest, look toward Mandrake. Otherwise stick to Slackware or Debian for more matured packages in a distribution release.
Although these analogies are good, they do miss a critical point. Computers and computer related technology is not nearly as slow as the automotive or industry or medical sciences. Sure, new automobile and medical technology are being developed constantly. But not nearly as fast as the tech sector. One only hears about the tweaking of current automotive technology in a sales pitch. Do you see advertisements of Brand-A car having a new fusion powered engine, or that Brand-B offers flight capabilities? Does the automotive industry consider 3 year old vehicles obsolete? So the basic problem with the tech vocabulary is that it is far to dynamic, thus it doesn't make much sense to compare cars or medicine to computers in that sense. Until computer technology possibly gets to a slower development pace more comparable to automobile technology, consumers are going to be bombarded with new terms to deal with, or not take part in the said technology at all.
People bringing their machines in to be worked on are constantly confusing their box with with whatever piece of hardware is inside that's giving them trouble. Example: A lady calls up and is having internet problems, we walk her through a few routine troubleshooting steps, and determine she needs has a blownout modem. We advise her to bring in her machine, then she asks, in an unintelligible manner, "so i just bring my modium and tv?"..at that point i usually reply, "no ma'am, bring just the big thing that the tv plugs into."...GAH!!!...I'm tired of people not taking the time to familiarize themselves with their PCs. I certainly don't expect customers to be A+ certified, most of these people show NO effort to learn the right names for what they have. I sure as hell don't refer to my car tires as "those big burnt bagels".
that the DOJ is intimidated by microshaft. What the DOJ needs someone with the scruples of a modern day Elliott Ness who will play hard ball with these people. They are obviously above the law in my opinion. When is it enough from the greedy bastards in Redmond(New Berlin) ? It's time to drag their asses back into court and really give them a good goatse treatment that's long overdue.
I think that SCO's silence in showing their "proprietary" code is because they are grepping desperately through the linux kernel's source code to find a few obscure lines of code that have been long forgotten by a kernel hacker to claim as their own.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yea..see..I'm going to have to disagree with you on that..." "You did get the memo about those TPS reports, didn't you?"
Why not standardize a desktop for your organization? Everyone will have the same l&f, tools, etc. What drivers are you referring to? Most companies don't bother with Linux drivers because the Linux community has already developed working drivers for a said piece of hardware. OpenOffice IS heavy, but OpenOffice is not the only office suite available for a Linux desktop. Maybe use an alternative office suite until OpenOffice becomes more matured in it's efficiency of execution. Then consider switching to OpenOffice at that time. The problems most helpdesks or admins have with windows machines is the OS, not the user. The user may delete a critical system file, but is that REALLY the user's fault? Wouldn't a well designed OS not allow a user to delete that system file in the first place? Preventive medicine. With proper assement, planning, and deployment, Linux coexists quite well in a windows/mac environment. The beauty of a Linux desktop is it's ability to run weeks of daily use and not require a reboot. Any hetergenous environment requires added knowledge for an admin, but it seems that would make a person a bit more indispensable. Job security. The path of least resistance leads to the least rewards.
Have you strolled down to a local CompUSA or any other computer superstore lately? While I find several "shrinkwrapped" Linux distributions, and even FreeBSD on the shelf, I rarely see a "shrinkwrapped" copy of Mac OS, namely due to "marketshare". I do however, find games and even some commercial applications that run on Linux. I'm lucky if i find a Mac system on the shelf. Seems that something with "marketshare" would be easily obtainable for a consumer, not having to order online, or track down a Mac vendor in the yellow pages. It's like comparing apples and ermm..penguins.
Why not just download Linux on your fiber connection at home just like everyone else in the world? :)
Netscape was, and still is a superior "product" or whatever the hell you want to call software. It had some of the brightest minds working on it. ANY project the size of the Netscape browser will have developers complaining about parts that need improvement. At least Netscape was open enough in their operations to let developers cite it's shortcomings, and then focus on those problems to fix them. m$ on the other hand does not let their developers openly express their opinions on IE. The Netscape team faced an uphill battle to get it to where they did on the windows platform. Netscape on Unix or Mac runs like a top. Why? because those platforms weren't owned by a bunch of shitheads hellbent on owning the world. Microsoft deliberately set out to sabotage Netscape's efforts when bill gates caught wind of what he had missed out on. I personally would have loved nothing more than to see the assholes in redmond split up. Tomorrow morning while sipping on your coffee, reading your morning paper, and waiting on your daily IE updates to download, just remember that the assheads in redmond really do care about your computing experience and online safety. You have been weighed and measure, and found wanting. You troll.
Yet, it still requires at least "guru" status to fix a problem when it does go wrong, particularly where things like hardware and device drivers, or configuring the GUI, are concerned.
Aren't MCSEs and other monkeys trained in the M$ circus required to handle those tasks on a windows machine? How is it that someone who can manage a Linux system is automatically labelled as being a guru? As flattering as it may be to some people's ego, this preconcieved notion is a stumbling block in the public's willingness to adopt the OS for common use. As far as installing and configuring a Linux system being a nightmare, i'm a little vague in following that point. Installing even the more spartan distributions like Slackware is an effortless task. Configuration of the system is probably were most people who are too familiar with a device mangler get into trouble. Configuration of various daemons, however, can get a little more involved. However, on a windows platform, we expect a trained tech to handle those tasks (services) anyway. So I'm still not sure why gurus are needed to configure a GUI or install a driver. Linux is just a different OS and it requires different knowledge to do these things. Sure, you might need to know more detail about your hardware when setting things up manually, as opposed to windows or Mac. That's the beauty of Linux and Unix platforms. They don't need to rely on an overworked, underpaid programmer overseas to write an autodetection program to guess the specs and limits of a said piece of hardware for a driver installation. Your point is well taken, and I agree with you whole heartedly, just wanted to add my 2 bits.
The last Mandrake release ran a 2.4.21 prerelease kernel. I personally never had any stability problems with it. I also understand that Mandrake tends to gravitate toward the bleeding edge of the packages they include in their releases, but the kernel is one place I think shouldn't be included in this manner. I think Mandrake is a wonderful company who makes an awesome distribution. I even have a customer's server running Mandrake 9.0 for 7 months and they haven't had a single problem with it (they use it for Samba and DHCP primarily). I suppose if one is looking for the latest and greatest, look toward Mandrake. Otherwise stick to Slackware or Debian for more matured packages in a distribution release.
How hard would it be to /. one of these things??
Although these analogies are good, they do miss a critical point. Computers and computer related technology is not nearly as slow as the automotive or industry or medical sciences. Sure, new automobile and medical technology are being developed constantly. But not nearly as fast as the tech sector. One only hears about the tweaking of current automotive technology in a sales pitch. Do you see advertisements of Brand-A car having a new fusion powered engine, or that Brand-B offers flight capabilities? Does the automotive industry consider 3 year old vehicles obsolete? So the basic problem with the tech vocabulary is that it is far to dynamic, thus it doesn't make much sense to compare cars or medicine to computers in that sense. Until computer technology possibly gets to a slower development pace more comparable to automobile technology, consumers are going to be bombarded with new terms to deal with, or not take part in the said technology at all.
People bringing their machines in to be worked on are constantly confusing their box with with whatever piece of hardware is inside that's giving them trouble. Example: A lady calls up and is having internet problems, we walk her through a few routine troubleshooting steps, and determine she needs has a blownout modem. We advise her to bring in her machine, then she asks, in an unintelligible manner, "so i just bring my modium and tv?"..at that point i usually reply, "no ma'am, bring just the big thing that the tv plugs into."...GAH!!!...I'm tired of people not taking the time to familiarize themselves with their PCs. I certainly don't expect customers to be A+ certified, most of these people show NO effort to learn the right names for what they have. I sure as hell don't refer to my car tires as "those big burnt bagels".
that the DOJ is intimidated by microshaft. What the DOJ needs someone with the scruples of a modern day Elliott Ness who will play hard ball with these people. They are obviously above the law in my opinion. When is it enough from the greedy bastards in Redmond(New Berlin) ? It's time to drag their asses back into court and really give them a good goatse treatment that's long overdue.
I think that SCO's silence in showing their "proprietary" code is because they are grepping desperately through the linux kernel's source code to find a few obscure lines of code that have been long forgotten by a kernel hacker to claim as their own.