Well, it obviously is easy to use. 95% of the market doesn't happen if your OS isn't easy to use. More users would have migrated over to Macs by now if that truly was the case. I mean, if you just think about your point for 5 seconds, you can almost see how much it had to hurt when you pulled it out your ass;)
Seriously, you can make up all the stuff you want to protect your "baby", but each time you do, you're setting the cause back. If you don't accept the shortcomings, you'll never progress. You're proving my point;)
Embedded XP can run embedded. That means, without a head. Without a keyboard, without a mouse. Without a hard disk, if needed. Without anything you specify. It's 100% modular, and does everything you'd expect of an embedded operating system.
You do need driver support for embedded systems, as they often have to talk to something. If you're throwing in new hardware, chances are most of that is powered by software running on its CPU, and that requires drivers for the OS that is using it. Linux, through its less-than-huge market share, attracts much less driver development, which in turn means its driver support is less than that of Windows. That fact alone means Windows XP embedded has better driver support than Linux, which is a big deal for a lot of people.
Everything you say that makes Linux great also applies to Windows. I run Windows headless at work. I run it without a keyboard and mouse. It sits tucked under a desk on the other side of the room, quietly doing my bidding. I SSH in to my windows boxes, and run my PHP scripts on them, on the command prompt. They're just as powerful as anything I've done on linux. This whole "windows can't do X" argument is tedious and factually inadequate. It's based on a premise first established in Windows 9x days, when networking, and ported unix apps, were not available.
So, in answer to your question, I do run windows headless, and it's perfectly usable. In fact, I'm very productive using it, and when I do use linux, I can't do what I do with so much ease.
ps. It's funny you take the piss out of windows xp embedded, yet don't know anything about it. Well, it's slashdot I suppose. That never stopped fanboys in the past;)
- Web/Email
- Word Processing/Spreadsheet/Presentations
- Printing
- Music
- Burning CDs
- Solitaire
I'm not being funny, but windows was there 8 years ago. Where are the in-roads into the new areas PCs are excelling in? I'm all for linux on the desktop, but it has to be ready. Sacrificing hardware compatability or ease-of-use of more complicated features just isn't viable.
I hate discussions like this. I always end up being called a troll for just thinking. shoot.
Ease of install is one thing. Applications, driver support, multimedia and gaming are others. Heck. DOS 3.3 is even easier to install. Should we all start whining that DOS 3.3 isn't the most common OS now?
Each linux distro does something good that's apparently better than Windows. What we need is one distro that has all of those killer features in it. Otherwise, you'll have to sacrifice all the other functionality the linux distro doesn't have, just to get that which it's good at.
Saying all those companies use linux is true, but not on the desktop. That's Windows territory. Fileservers? Sure - linux does them well (apart from tedious AD integration and kerberos support). Webserver? Of course - one area Linux excells at. Desktop? Don't make me laugh. The IT department, unless they take the usual linux primadonna attitude of "if it doesn't work with linux, fuck it. I don't want it. Windows sucks" will have their work cut out ensuring compatability. I'm not trolling, this is what a lot of companies come up against. It is a circle-jerk, as every single article like it makes some claim like "linux is ready for the desktop!" and "linux will have a 98% desktop share in 5 minutes", which inevitably never come true. Most of the articles I read from linux advocates that have been posted on/. are lacking in objectivity. Ignoring the obvious shortcomings on Linux (in fact, usually saying they're benefits and should be praised), and damning the excellent features of windows as crap. If the linux world doesn't get its act together, that desktop share could actually start to fall.
Why do you say that? XP Embedded is here, has a tiny footprint, has EXCELLENT driver support (can't say the same for embedded linux, or even linux for that matter (not a flame, experience)).
Linux is going to give MS a run for its money on servers. Linux makes the best webservers BY FAR. That coming from a windows-based open-source developer. Windows has a huge head start on the desktop, and is putting in so much money and time into developing the next generation that by the time Linux is 100% as good as XP, Longhorn will have been out for a year or two. I'm not trying to flame here, but just offer some insight.
If it was down to ethics and ideology, Linux has already won. Unfortunately, market share rarely takes heed of that, and so for linux to be the most-used desktop OS out there, it has to beat Windows at its own game. The people know what they want, and it's windows. Make a better windows, and you'll get the market share.
It's only going to win on economic reasons when that's the last difference between the two. At the moment, there are still more urgent differences, such as ease of use, configuration, driver support, etc. which need addressing first, before they can truly go head to head. Of course, this is a trolling post, as I've not condemned windows. bring it.
Hammers aren't specifically designed to kill someone, whereas guns are. (I'm still keeping the analogy, not an anti-gun rant, less some crazed republican nazi wants to start a flaming session).
Restricting tools that have a specific purpose which is extremely detremental to any member of the public it's used on is good, as who gives the user the right to wield such power over others? Certainly not those it's going to be used against. If people who wanted to use such tools took tests and were strictly vetted to ensure proficiency (as police are), then that would be cool. As it is, any nutter can go grab one of these tools and go fuck someone over. Actually, this is exactly the same with guns. Fucking NRA.
The same TCP stack which can be replaced in 3 seconds with a patched version off the net. I think it's a great idea. If you're pounding P2P, you're going to know about getting patches off the net. If you know that, you're also going to know about keeping your system non-zombified. It's a great way to ensure stupid users aren't making zombie boxes everywhere, yet let more experienced users keep the performance they want. Of course, it's microsoft, so to not be a troll, here's a little something - "boo! m$ sucks! linux rules! go tux!"
It works fine installing over SP2 beta. The update recognises it, and makes the changes for you. Though I agree whole-heartedly with everything else you said. Plus, that broken window is just immature beyond belief. Would slashdot like it if windows sites had logos of Tux being gang-raped by polar bears, or smoking a crack pipe?
(and yes, I know polar bears are from the artic, and penguins the antarctic)
Hahahaha!!! A republican having a go at people for hypocrisy. That's freakin' RICH. "liberal ignorant masses" - hahaha! I've yet to hear an argument from a right-winger on/. that wasn't drenched in racism and blatant lies. However, most posts from left-leaning individuals at least contain a modicum more substance and direction.
Stop watching so much fox! Kerry never once called all Americans war criminals, just those who actually committed war crimes (and even then, he didn't use such expressive language).
The US forces regularly uprooted villages, burned them down and moved the occupants on. They were innocent people. Napalming whole villages and machine-gunning people working in fields isn't exactly behaviour becoming the self-proclaimed greatest democracy. It's cowards committing bloodshed. The US military performed abysmally in Vietnam. First of all, it shouldn't have been there (oops - does that make me a commie?), and second of all it shouldn't just wade in and blow the crap out of everyone it comes across. It's no surprise America got its ass handed to it on a plate by the VC. Those guys knew how to fight properly, not throw HE at problems until they go away. sheesh.
Well, at least kerry was there to save a man's life, not hiding back in the US high on coke and scared to report for duty.
I have no idea where to start with that rant. Wow.
You say your "freedom and rights are on the line", but by who? Certainly not the terrorists, but most definitely Bush. He's done more to errode your quality of life and freedom than Osama ever dreamt possible.
America is the world police, because of World War 2. During that war, the US used its money and material wealth to buy military bases from its allies around the world, and to steal technology from the defeated Germans. That boost has made the US the most wide-spread military force in the world, and one of the most technologically advanced out there. That is reason alone why the US is the world police. Also, waltzing into Saudi Arabia and not leaving extended your empire (and also pissed off a lot of rich arabs, namely. Mr. Bin Laden and a bunch of others). Basically, America is the world police, because America wants to be the world police. Bush has outlined American foreign policy as follows: Do what ever is necessary to spread the American form of democracy around the world, starting with areas of specific financial interest and importance to the US. If you're fed up with America having the piss taken out of it every day by every single nation on the face of the earth, take it up with your government. They aren't acting to help the people of the countries they "liberate" or "help", but to help the US. That's the sort of false altruism that the rest of the world despises, and is so much clearer outside the US propaganda machine that is US media. People who stand up for America's foreign policy or who ask to not help in foreign crises are selfish, plain and simple. They're the reason America is hated, and they're the reason America will continue to be hated until something very serious happens.
America has the power, and must decide to use it for good or evil. Sitting by and watching people get hurt when you can stop it certainly isn't good.
1. Multiple architectures? Windows supports all the architectures I've ever wanted to run it on.
2. Source code availability? I've never wanted the code to something that didn't provide it.
3. Lots of open source software runs on Windows. How is that not competing?
Linux's complexity isn't an unjustly bad wrap. Seeing as you have to delve into the command prompt to configure most things (or wrap your mind around 200+ line config files), compared to the windows GUI configuration it's positively archaic. It's not a false statement in the slightest. However, every single one of your points is false (except 'Microsoft doesn't come close to being even half as complex' - exactly. it's nowhere near as complex as linux). Surprised?
PAM gets very fiddly to set up with some servers. That's the problem. There isn't a standard way to do it, and each piece of software (just take a look at samba 3 authenticating via an AD server) needs its own configurations significantly modified to use it. And some don't use it at all.
There just isn't the continuity you get on Windows. Again, it's not something that can't be changed, but denying it's a problem is just stupid.
Because it's a very useful feature on a LAN, and one that is blocked by any firewall out there. Of course, with microsoft, damned if you do, damned if you don't;)
Remember the dot-com boom? All those businesses were worth tens of billions of dollars, and wiped out over night. Just because the market says one thing doesn't mean it's accurate. The market even acknowledges that itself, and refers to it as "overvaluing". That's exactly what developers' salaries are at the moment - Overvalued.
I've been developing for about 7-8 years professionally, always in the private sector. I don't work in the US, so that might shed some light on why I can see your wages are brutally overblown. We don't have the same 'problem' with outsourcing over here, as our salaries (even though they're higher than in India) aren't ridiculously overblown to the point it's prohibitively expensive to hire any developers.
I'm not trying to start a flame war either, but compared to lots of other jobs in the US, why on earth are developers paid such ridiculously high salaries? Compare the difference in salary between a street-sweeper and a developer in most countries, and you'll see that the US is way out there. Way out there. That's why people are going to India, and the only people to blame are developers and their managers.
So, you think people getting paid less do a worse job? Or somehow Indians are worse programmers than Americans? Wow.
I'd want the best person to do the job, not look at salaries and location. I know if I could get the job done in India for 1/5 the price in the US, I'd go to India.
By your logic, people who work factories producing seatbelt material should be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each, as mistakes could cause many people to die. Or, even, a road worker, who could not fill in a pot hole and cause an accident.
I've heard all those excuses before, but it just boils down to highly-paid people arguing in favor of their overly-priced wages. Developing isn't hard. Sure, it can be critical, but then so can most jobs if you look hard enough.
The service outsourcing in India offers is on par, and possibly even better, than that in the US. All this "ooh - them there indians can't code SHIT" sentiment flowing around on slashdot is a tad xenophobic.
Your logic is prohibitively pessimistic. By your logic, we can't have armies, as tomorrow they might be sent to crush us. We can't have police because of the same reason. We can't have government because they might decide we, as people, are illegal.
It's not the technology that scares you. Clearly, it's the government. If you think the government might enact laws tomorrow that harm you, why the hell are they in power? If you get the assholes out of the whitehouse, your laws are safe, and your VoIP provider can record whatever the heck they want.
Oh, and I love SF even more for banning SUVs from streets.
Next time someone says "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care", they might actually have more of a clue than you do (ie they're not paranoid).
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, you can make up all the stuff you want to protect your "baby", but each time you do, you're setting the cause back. If you don't accept the shortcomings, you'll never progress. You're proving my point ;)
Not nearly childish enough ;)
You do need driver support for embedded systems, as they often have to talk to something. If you're throwing in new hardware, chances are most of that is powered by software running on its CPU, and that requires drivers for the OS that is using it. Linux, through its less-than-huge market share, attracts much less driver development, which in turn means its driver support is less than that of Windows. That fact alone means Windows XP embedded has better driver support than Linux, which is a big deal for a lot of people.
Everything you say that makes Linux great also applies to Windows. I run Windows headless at work. I run it without a keyboard and mouse. It sits tucked under a desk on the other side of the room, quietly doing my bidding. I SSH in to my windows boxes, and run my PHP scripts on them, on the command prompt. They're just as powerful as anything I've done on linux. This whole "windows can't do X" argument is tedious and factually inadequate. It's based on a premise first established in Windows 9x days, when networking, and ported unix apps, were not available.
So, in answer to your question, I do run windows headless, and it's perfectly usable. In fact, I'm very productive using it, and when I do use linux, I can't do what I do with so much ease.
ps. It's funny you take the piss out of windows xp embedded, yet don't know anything about it. Well, it's slashdot I suppose. That never stopped fanboys in the past ;)
- Word Processing/Spreadsheet/Presentations
- Printing
- Music
- Burning CDs
- Solitaire
I'm not being funny, but windows was there 8 years ago. Where are the in-roads into the new areas PCs are excelling in? I'm all for linux on the desktop, but it has to be ready. Sacrificing hardware compatability or ease-of-use of more complicated features just isn't viable.
I hate discussions like this. I always end up being called a troll for just thinking. shoot.
Each linux distro does something good that's apparently better than Windows. What we need is one distro that has all of those killer features in it. Otherwise, you'll have to sacrifice all the other functionality the linux distro doesn't have, just to get that which it's good at.
Saying all those companies use linux is true, but not on the desktop. That's Windows territory. Fileservers? Sure - linux does them well (apart from tedious AD integration and kerberos support). Webserver? Of course - one area Linux excells at. Desktop? Don't make me laugh. The IT department, unless they take the usual linux primadonna attitude of "if it doesn't work with linux, fuck it. I don't want it. Windows sucks" will have their work cut out ensuring compatability. I'm not trolling, this is what a lot of companies come up against. It is a circle-jerk, as every single article like it makes some claim like "linux is ready for the desktop!" and "linux will have a 98% desktop share in 5 minutes", which inevitably never come true. Most of the articles I read from linux advocates that have been posted on /. are lacking in objectivity. Ignoring the obvious shortcomings on Linux (in fact, usually saying they're benefits and should be praised), and damning the excellent features of windows as crap. If the linux world doesn't get its act together, that desktop share could actually start to fall.
Linux is going to give MS a run for its money on servers. Linux makes the best webservers BY FAR. That coming from a windows-based open-source developer. Windows has a huge head start on the desktop, and is putting in so much money and time into developing the next generation that by the time Linux is 100% as good as XP, Longhorn will have been out for a year or two. I'm not trying to flame here, but just offer some insight.
If it was down to ethics and ideology, Linux has already won. Unfortunately, market share rarely takes heed of that, and so for linux to be the most-used desktop OS out there, it has to beat Windows at its own game. The people know what they want, and it's windows. Make a better windows, and you'll get the market share.
It's only going to win on economic reasons when that's the last difference between the two. At the moment, there are still more urgent differences, such as ease of use, configuration, driver support, etc. which need addressing first, before they can truly go head to head. Of course, this is a trolling post, as I've not condemned windows. bring it.
Which features? The pop-up drop-down? That was in IE first... :)
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Slashdot is as fair and balanced as fox news.
Restricting tools that have a specific purpose which is extremely detremental to any member of the public it's used on is good, as who gives the user the right to wield such power over others? Certainly not those it's going to be used against. If people who wanted to use such tools took tests and were strictly vetted to ensure proficiency (as police are), then that would be cool. As it is, any nutter can go grab one of these tools and go fuck someone over. Actually, this is exactly the same with guns. Fucking NRA.
The same TCP stack which can be replaced in 3 seconds with a patched version off the net. I think it's a great idea. If you're pounding P2P, you're going to know about getting patches off the net. If you know that, you're also going to know about keeping your system non-zombified. It's a great way to ensure stupid users aren't making zombie boxes everywhere, yet let more experienced users keep the performance they want. Of course, it's microsoft, so to not be a troll, here's a little something - "boo! m$ sucks! linux rules! go tux!"
Slashdot - the Fox News of IT
(and yes, I know polar bears are from the artic, and penguins the antarctic)
Please, give up gracefully.
What are the libertarian views on welfare? Gay marriage? Foreign policy? Nuclear non-proliferation? Environment? SEC? FCC? NRA?
Let's see...
hahahahaha!! you libertarians are funny.
The US forces regularly uprooted villages, burned them down and moved the occupants on. They were innocent people. Napalming whole villages and machine-gunning people working in fields isn't exactly behaviour becoming the self-proclaimed greatest democracy. It's cowards committing bloodshed. The US military performed abysmally in Vietnam. First of all, it shouldn't have been there (oops - does that make me a commie?), and second of all it shouldn't just wade in and blow the crap out of everyone it comes across. It's no surprise America got its ass handed to it on a plate by the VC. Those guys knew how to fight properly, not throw HE at problems until they go away. sheesh.
Well, at least kerry was there to save a man's life, not hiding back in the US high on coke and scared to report for duty.
You say your "freedom and rights are on the line", but by who? Certainly not the terrorists, but most definitely Bush. He's done more to errode your quality of life and freedom than Osama ever dreamt possible.
America is the world police, because of World War 2. During that war, the US used its money and material wealth to buy military bases from its allies around the world, and to steal technology from the defeated Germans. That boost has made the US the most wide-spread military force in the world, and one of the most technologically advanced out there. That is reason alone why the US is the world police. Also, waltzing into Saudi Arabia and not leaving extended your empire (and also pissed off a lot of rich arabs, namely. Mr. Bin Laden and a bunch of others). Basically, America is the world police, because America wants to be the world police. Bush has outlined American foreign policy as follows: Do what ever is necessary to spread the American form of democracy around the world, starting with areas of specific financial interest and importance to the US. If you're fed up with America having the piss taken out of it every day by every single nation on the face of the earth, take it up with your government. They aren't acting to help the people of the countries they "liberate" or "help", but to help the US. That's the sort of false altruism that the rest of the world despises, and is so much clearer outside the US propaganda machine that is US media. People who stand up for America's foreign policy or who ask to not help in foreign crises are selfish, plain and simple. They're the reason America is hated, and they're the reason America will continue to be hated until something very serious happens.
America has the power, and must decide to use it for good or evil. Sitting by and watching people get hurt when you can stop it certainly isn't good.
2. Source code availability? I've never wanted the code to something that didn't provide it.
3. Lots of open source software runs on Windows. How is that not competing?
Linux's complexity isn't an unjustly bad wrap. Seeing as you have to delve into the command prompt to configure most things (or wrap your mind around 200+ line config files), compared to the windows GUI configuration it's positively archaic. It's not a false statement in the slightest. However, every single one of your points is false (except 'Microsoft doesn't come close to being even half as complex' - exactly. it's nowhere near as complex as linux). Surprised?
There just isn't the continuity you get on Windows. Again, it's not something that can't be changed, but denying it's a problem is just stupid.
So, to use Linux, they do need to hire more expensive staff? So, according to you, isn't some of that FUD actually true?
Because it's a very useful feature on a LAN, and one that is blocked by any firewall out there. Of course, with microsoft, damned if you do, damned if you don't ;)
Remember the dot-com boom? All those businesses were worth tens of billions of dollars, and wiped out over night. Just because the market says one thing doesn't mean it's accurate. The market even acknowledges that itself, and refers to it as "overvaluing". That's exactly what developers' salaries are at the moment - Overvalued.
I've been developing for about 7-8 years professionally, always in the private sector. I don't work in the US, so that might shed some light on why I can see your wages are brutally overblown. We don't have the same 'problem' with outsourcing over here, as our salaries (even though they're higher than in India) aren't ridiculously overblown to the point it's prohibitively expensive to hire any developers.
I'm not trying to start a flame war either, but compared to lots of other jobs in the US, why on earth are developers paid such ridiculously high salaries? Compare the difference in salary between a street-sweeper and a developer in most countries, and you'll see that the US is way out there. Way out there. That's why people are going to India, and the only people to blame are developers and their managers.
I'd want the best person to do the job, not look at salaries and location. I know if I could get the job done in India for 1/5 the price in the US, I'd go to India.
By your logic, people who work factories producing seatbelt material should be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each, as mistakes could cause many people to die. Or, even, a road worker, who could not fill in a pot hole and cause an accident.
I've heard all those excuses before, but it just boils down to highly-paid people arguing in favor of their overly-priced wages. Developing isn't hard. Sure, it can be critical, but then so can most jobs if you look hard enough.
The service outsourcing in India offers is on par, and possibly even better, than that in the US. All this "ooh - them there indians can't code SHIT" sentiment flowing around on slashdot is a tad xenophobic.
It's not the technology that scares you. Clearly, it's the government. If you think the government might enact laws tomorrow that harm you, why the hell are they in power? If you get the assholes out of the whitehouse, your laws are safe, and your VoIP provider can record whatever the heck they want.
Oh, and I love SF even more for banning SUVs from streets.
Next time someone says "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care", they might actually have more of a clue than you do (ie they're not paranoid).