The idea of starting a project like that you've described definitely seems like a daunting one, but I will most definitely consider it. The thought of building a stable, useable and linux-based port of Windows 98 is somewhat of a strange one as it seems to me to be an oxymoron in itself. Just kidding (sorta!) Seriously though, the reason I said notepad was their only good application was because, as you said, it doesn't crash (which we have a hard time saying for anything else that Microsoft has created.)
I will sit down and start researching this possible project when I have some time on my hands (which shouldn't be too far away.) I will post some updates as to my discoveries and my thoughts on the project and will ask the community for input. This should be fun.
How can I put this without offending anyone? Microsoft deserves kudos for their business strategies and such. I agree that their software is poor (for the most part) and that the only really good products they came out with were Notepad and... Well that's about it. Seriously though, if my history is off, I apologize, but that was the way I learned it. I am definitely going to be hitting the history books about this one, but that's more for personal interest than anything else.
The point of my last post was this... In order for Linux to go anywhere, we have to adapt to the world around us as opposed to forcing them to adapt to us. No one likes doing more work than they have to, so who wants to switch to something new (and often frightening for most users)?
I think we all seem to be forgetting that Windows didn't start off as the supergiant that it presently is. In fact, when it started, Microsoft was were many of the Linux developers are presently: Underfunded, making good software that goes unnoticed or marketed under different names, and building something that would make the world work a lot more efficiently, except that they can't get them out there!
To compare Linux and Windows to the horse-drawn buggie and carriage may at first seem like a great analogy, but when you consider it more in depth, we easily see that it does not work. The problems listed previously about cost and interoperability are valid, but they're useless.
We've already agreed that 90%+ of the world runs Windows-based systems, whether they be servers, desktop machines, portables or whatnot. To try to take on this market head to head will never work and I think that Linux developers everywhere are beginning to realize this. We can't sit back and say "Things ought to be this way or that things will never work because of Microsoft. To do so will only frustate us and get us no closer to our ultimate goal. Instead, we need to be smarter than that.
We know that Microsoft will do everything in its power to lockout competition by giving us bogus source-code, faulty applications (that we must depend on), etc. In order for Linux to take a stand in this arena, what must be done is Linux must be created as an adaptable, usable and useful operating system that will not only work with what we've got already (saving users and IT guys time and money) but which will also allow us to expand and integrate what will come from Hell's Minions in the future.
Anyway, the short of it is that in order for Linux to work on a desktop level, we (unfortunate) must adapt and accept the Windows environment in its entirety and build our systems in such a way that they can expand and adapt as quickly and easily as possible. We will not kill of Microsoft or Windows for those of you who made cost comments are right. Companies don't want to spend millions training their people or redoing their computers. Time and money aside though, if they could find free (or cheap), feasible solutions that would allow them to conduct business as they have every other day of the week, I'm relatively sure they'd go for it. Linux does not need to play nice. Instead... We need to play smart!
Slashdot Mirror
The idea of starting a project like that you've described definitely seems like a daunting one, but I will most definitely consider it. The thought of building a stable, useable and linux-based port of Windows 98 is somewhat of a strange one as it seems to me to be an oxymoron in itself. Just kidding (sorta!) Seriously though, the reason I said notepad was their only good application was because, as you said, it doesn't crash (which we have a hard time saying for anything else that Microsoft has created.)
I will sit down and start researching this possible project when I have some time on my hands (which shouldn't be too far away.) I will post some updates as to my discoveries and my thoughts on the project and will ask the community for input. This should be fun.
How can I put this without offending anyone? Microsoft deserves kudos for their business strategies and such. I agree that their software is poor (for the most part) and that the only really good products they came out with were Notepad and... Well that's about it. Seriously though, if my history is off, I apologize, but that was the way I learned it. I am definitely going to be hitting the history books about this one, but that's more for personal interest than anything else.
The point of my last post was this... In order for Linux to go anywhere, we have to adapt to the world around us as opposed to forcing them to adapt to us. No one likes doing more work than they have to, so who wants to switch to something new (and often frightening for most users)?
I think we all seem to be forgetting that Windows didn't start off as the supergiant that it presently is. In fact, when it started, Microsoft was were many of the Linux developers are presently: Underfunded, making good software that goes unnoticed or marketed under different names, and building something that would make the world work a lot more efficiently, except that they can't get them out there!
To compare Linux and Windows to the horse-drawn buggie and carriage may at first seem like a great analogy, but when you consider it more in depth, we easily see that it does not work. The problems listed previously about cost and interoperability are valid, but they're useless.
We've already agreed that 90%+ of the world runs Windows-based systems, whether they be servers, desktop machines, portables or whatnot. To try to take on this market head to head will never work and I think that Linux developers everywhere are beginning to realize this. We can't sit back and say "Things ought to be this way or that things will never work because of Microsoft. To do so will only frustate us and get us no closer to our ultimate goal. Instead, we need to be smarter than that.
We know that Microsoft will do everything in its power to lockout competition by giving us bogus source-code, faulty applications (that we must depend on), etc. In order for Linux to take a stand in this arena, what must be done is Linux must be created as an adaptable, usable and useful operating system that will not only work with what we've got already (saving users and IT guys time and money) but which will also allow us to expand and integrate what will come from Hell's Minions in the future.
Anyway, the short of it is that in order for Linux to work on a desktop level, we (unfortunate) must adapt and accept the Windows environment in its entirety and build our systems in such a way that they can expand and adapt as quickly and easily as possible. We will not kill of Microsoft or Windows for those of you who made cost comments are right. Companies don't want to spend millions training their people or redoing their computers. Time and money aside though, if they could find free (or cheap), feasible solutions that would allow them to conduct business as they have every other day of the week, I'm relatively sure they'd go for it. Linux does not need to play nice. Instead... We need to play smart!