I don't think developers have such a big problem with Windows not being open source as users have a problem with it being a crappy OS.
People migrate to Mac OS even though it's not open source (well, not all of it) and even though it costs more. People who migrate to Linux or BSD because they want an open source OS are not that numerous and I doubt Microsoft is fearful because people who cared about open software issue already left the boat a while ago.
I don't pirate products, and this is not about me since I don't use Windows regularly and I won't buy Windows 7 anyway. I was merely explaining that having hundreds of Linux distros is not a problem for anybody since you can try and use any of them for free all the features come for the same price $0. But again, in this instance Microsoft loses in confrontation with Apple (not Linux) because of their boneheaded marketing decisions.
Most of those hundred distros cost $0 and you won't get a "reduced functionality distro" and a "less reduced functionality distro" and an "enhanced functionality distro", so you are free to choose and use whatever works best for you.
However in Microsoft case, you have to pay more to get the full monty.
Nobody would care if Windows would come in 100 versions, all free and all having the full functionality, the problem is not in the number, it's in reducing the functionality and asking for money to get the "full version". It's basically a crappy shareware type of distibution that asks money even for the basic product and asks for more mone for "enhaced version"
Oh, and remember that Windows now competes with Macs too, and Mac OS doesn't come in 7 versions.
Why are you so amazed? Your control over your computer is illusory when you use closed-source programs -- especially ones that call back home and install "updates"
...and you sound like an Apple fanboy. Do you think that popularity = better? Then following this logic Windows is way better than any OS out there.
Apple could have put any product out, make it a bit better than Windows and still win. Heck, Apple at its core is BSD. BSD and Linux are not that different. Apple is successful because of the support thrown behind the platform. Because people can go to any store buy a webcam or a printer and see on the installation CD "OS requirement: Windows or Mac" same with software not because it has only one desktop environment.
Heck, people could not even buy a computer with Linux installed from a big company till very recently. Have you heard of netbooks? They are very popular and not one of them comes with Mac OS X. Unfortunately for some strange reasons companies that make netbooks decided to install the crappiest Linux distributions that exist on them and limit what people can do with them.
But you didn't actually responded to my points, you only challenged me to say why Macs are more popular... that doesn't make you initial points any more valid. They are based on fallacies and myths.
1. Yes, this is the Linux problem *rolls eyes* How do you know? Have you conducted a study? My simple guess is that people don't switch to Linux because their programs don't work in Linux and also because many don't go on changing their OS (some people don't know how to change the browser, heck some people call IE "the Internet") And how do you plan to solve this "problem" kill the developers that make other desktop environments, force people to use only one?
2. How Linux users realizing that people are different and that some are computer illiterate would change the "problem of Linux on desktop"?
3. Yes, simplicity is good, Linux is just as simple as Windows, you don't HAVE TO use the CLI, but it's simpler to explain if there's a problem, instead of "Open that program, move the mouse to "File" click, then go to the 3rd tab, select the 1,5, and 9 boxes" it's easier to say "type this in console". Moreover this is a myth, you don't NEED CLI in Linux, take Ubuntu for example you can do everything in GUI. I am not aware of anything important for which you need the CLI and there's no GUI alternative. But even in Windows you need sometime to edit files and to use "Run Command"
People should be aware of the situation around them, if you have a daughter I'm sure you'd not be OK with her going half-naked at a late hour in a bad part of the city with some drunk "friends". If she gets raped it would not be "her fault" (I also think that people in general have a problem with the concept of "fault", but that's for another discussion), but as I said, people have to be aware of circumstances and act accordingly.
And to make things clear, that I'm not a Taliban, I do support the right of women to go completely naked, nothing wrong with that. I also support the right of people to leave valuable goods in unlocked car and the key in the ignition -- people should be free to do that, it's obviously not their fault if somebody breaks the law and steal their property...
I was not making an argument that it will, I was just making the case that there are companies that care about 10% of Linux market even though it's such an "incredible small number".
And for that matter if Chrome would gain 10% of Linux market it would double its market share -- that was the point, not the petty issue whether Opera will make it or not to the top.
By the way, I don't give a shit about "open source", I just use the best tool, it so happens that Linux is the best one for me. I would assume people choose their browser similarly, many use Firefox because it's the best tool at the moment not because it's open source (many people, not all, some are religious in what they use) if they would consider Opera better than Firefox they would use it even though it's not open source. Just a guess.
that "incredible small number" is in the millions. If any company can successfully address the needs of 20 millions (or so) then I would call that company successful. Google might not care about millions when they care about billions, but there will be other companies to fill in the void. Opera for example has about 2 million users I think, if they can capture 10% more of Linux market they would double their user base.
I doubt it, when you config a VM you assign memory to it, you probably cannot assign more memory than the VirtuaBox sees, and VirtualBox will see just as much as the OS sees.
It's not the "whining" it's the fact that there are already millions of Linux users, companies think twice to restricting access to million of potential clients.
Of course it will work, people who can't stand the small change from XP to Vista, will not tolerate a change to Linux... the only problem for Microsoft is that they might say "screw it, instead of paying $150 for a downgrade I better get a Mac" so they might switch to Mac out of spite even though are not comfortable with the OS.
"Inferior is of course in the eye of the beholder."
Yes, and no. There are some objective measures. Just some simple examples, try this when you have time: time an install/removal of OpenOffice.org on Windows then time it in Linux. Or... try to kill a hang up process in Windows and see how long it takes (if you are lucky and lets you kill it) and kill one in Linux and see how that works. Do an upgrade of the system in Windows and time it, do the same in Linux and time it. Remove or copy files in Windows and compare it with the same activity in Linux, and so on..
At most you could choose Vista because you need to run some specific program that's not available in Linux, however that's an external issue and doesn't say anything about the quality of an OS (that's because the legacy OS is always hard to replace, but it has no bearing to its or the competitor's quality)
Slashdot Mirror
QT runs very well on Windows. Opera for example uses QT, its installer is very basic. Don't know where you got this idea that QT is only for Linux.
I don't think developers have such a big problem with Windows not being open source as users have a problem with it being a crappy OS.
People migrate to Mac OS even though it's not open source (well, not all of it) and even though it costs more. People who migrate to Linux or BSD because they want an open source OS are not that numerous and I doubt Microsoft is fearful because people who cared about open software issue already left the boat a while ago.
I don't pirate products, and this is not about me since I don't use Windows regularly and I won't buy Windows 7 anyway. I was merely explaining that having hundreds of Linux distros is not a problem for anybody since you can try and use any of them for free all the features come for the same price $0. But again, in this instance Microsoft loses in confrontation with Apple (not Linux) because of their boneheaded marketing decisions.
Most of those hundred distros cost $0 and you won't get a "reduced functionality distro" and a "less reduced functionality distro" and an "enhanced functionality distro", so you are free to choose and use whatever works best for you.
However in Microsoft case, you have to pay more to get the full monty.
Nobody would care if Windows would come in 100 versions, all free and all having the full functionality, the problem is not in the number, it's in reducing the functionality and asking for money to get the "full version". It's basically a crappy shareware type of distibution that asks money even for the basic product and asks for more mone for "enhaced version"
Oh, and remember that Windows now competes with Macs too, and Mac OS doesn't come in 7 versions.
All for $0
# apt-get update apt-get: ET phone home :P
E: The update command takes no arguments
Why are you so amazed? Your control over your computer is illusory when you use closed-source programs -- especially ones that call back home and install "updates"
...lipstick on Vista
(no offense Sarah)
Totally agree, people are interested in applications not in operating systems.
Free software tends to soar.
Does that mean that we age slower compared to the people in Andromeda?
Nope, just add the repositories in Synaptic. But of course, the CLI method is actually easier to explain.
...and you sound like an Apple fanboy. Do you think that popularity = better? Then following this logic Windows is way better than any OS out there.
Apple could have put any product out, make it a bit better than Windows and still win. Heck, Apple at its core is BSD. BSD and Linux are not that different. Apple is successful because of the support thrown behind the platform. Because people can go to any store buy a webcam or a printer and see on the installation CD "OS requirement: Windows or Mac" same with software not because it has only one desktop environment.
Heck, people could not even buy a computer with Linux installed from a big company till very recently. Have you heard of netbooks? They are very popular and not one of them comes with Mac OS X. Unfortunately for some strange reasons companies that make netbooks decided to install the crappiest Linux distributions that exist on them and limit what people can do with them.
But you didn't actually responded to my points, you only challenged me to say why Macs are more popular... that doesn't make you initial points any more valid. They are based on fallacies and myths.
Please mod parent as flamebait.
But I'll bite.
1. Yes, this is the Linux problem *rolls eyes* How do you know? Have you conducted a study? My simple guess is that people don't switch to Linux because their programs don't work in Linux and also because many don't go on changing their OS (some people don't know how to change the browser, heck some people call IE "the Internet") And how do you plan to solve this "problem" kill the developers that make other desktop environments, force people to use only one?
2. How Linux users realizing that people are different and that some are computer illiterate would change the "problem of Linux on desktop"?
3. Yes, simplicity is good, Linux is just as simple as Windows, you don't HAVE TO use the CLI, but it's simpler to explain if there's a problem, instead of "Open that program, move the mouse to "File" click, then go to the 3rd tab, select the 1,5, and 9 boxes" it's easier to say "type this in console". Moreover this is a myth, you don't NEED CLI in Linux, take Ubuntu for example you can do everything in GUI. I am not aware of anything important for which you need the CLI and there's no GUI alternative. But even in Windows you need sometime to edit files and to use "Run Command"
4. Music works on my box. Period.
People should be aware of the situation around them, if you have a daughter I'm sure you'd not be OK with her going half-naked at a late hour in a bad part of the city with some drunk "friends". If she gets raped it would not be "her fault" (I also think that people in general have a problem with the concept of "fault", but that's for another discussion), but as I said, people have to be aware of circumstances and act accordingly.
And to make things clear, that I'm not a Taliban, I do support the right of women to go completely naked, nothing wrong with that. I also support the right of people to leave valuable goods in unlocked car and the key in the ignition -- people should be free to do that, it's obviously not their fault if somebody breaks the law and steal their property...
I was not making an argument that it will, I was just making the case that there are companies that care about 10% of Linux market even though it's such an "incredible small number".
And for that matter if Chrome would gain 10% of Linux market it would double its market share -- that was the point, not the petty issue whether Opera will make it or not to the top.
By the way, I don't give a shit about "open source", I just use the best tool, it so happens that Linux is the best one for me. I would assume people choose their browser similarly, many use Firefox because it's the best tool at the moment not because it's open source (many people, not all, some are religious in what they use) if they would consider Opera better than Firefox they would use it even though it's not open source. Just a guess.
that "incredible small number" is in the millions. If any company can successfully address the needs of 20 millions (or so) then I would call that company successful. Google might not care about millions when they care about billions, but there will be other companies to fill in the void. Opera for example has about 2 million users I think, if they can capture 10% more of Linux market they would double their user base.
I doubt it, when you config a VM you assign memory to it, you probably cannot assign more memory than the VirtuaBox sees, and VirtualBox will see just as much as the OS sees.
The Devil is in the details.
It's not the "whining" it's the fact that there are already millions of Linux users, companies think twice to restricting access to million of potential clients.
Just an example of something that doesn't work in 64 bit... not that it holds me back.
"next up death's while walking the Marinara Trench" -- I'd guess that would be caused by too much pizza ingestion...
Of course it will work, people who can't stand the small change from XP to Vista, will not tolerate a change to Linux... the only problem for Microsoft is that they might say "screw it, instead of paying $150 for a downgrade I better get a Mac" so they might switch to Mac out of spite even though are not comfortable with the OS.
[citation needed]
This looks just like a personal opinion, why should we believe you that he's lying? The story doesn't seem that far-fetched to me.
"Inferior is of course in the eye of the beholder."
Yes, and no. There are some objective measures. Just some simple examples, try this when you have time: time an install/removal of OpenOffice.org on Windows then time it in Linux. Or... try to kill a hang up process in Windows and see how long it takes (if you are lucky and lets you kill it) and kill one in Linux and see how that works. Do an upgrade of the system in Windows and time it, do the same in Linux and time it. Remove or copy files in Windows and compare it with the same activity in Linux, and so on..
At most you could choose Vista because you need to run some specific program that's not available in Linux, however that's an external issue and doesn't say anything about the quality of an OS (that's because the legacy OS is always hard to replace, but it has no bearing to its or the competitor's quality)