And not putting a price on your time, how much did it cost you to try out all that linux software?
I know it's not for everyone yet, but out of curiousity, do have a license for all 7 copies of Windows? I assume you're using MS Office on there, you pay for as many licenses as you have copies installed? How about any additional non-MS software? Assuming you've payed for everything your using, how much did all that set you back?
Now, if you'd rather pay the difference between the two, than look for a little assistance online, or try a different distro (my personal advice, is to try the live CD version of it first, if one exists, to see what works), then yes, Windows is still the OS for you (although if price is not an issue, perhaps a Mac would be better for you). On the other hand, if your shocked at the price difference, and are a little willing to learn, then you'd be what I'd consider the ideal candidate for the next stage of Linux adopters: average computer users either willing to learn and/or fed up with malware.
(I do realize that currently most people fall into a different category: borrow the software they need and install it, rather then paying for it all. I'd imagine that this will get more and more difficult to do over time.)
Well, I can tell you that I had to put together a few quotes this week for Linux servers and for the first time in my life, IBM was the 1st place I went. They may not have my undying loyalty, but they've shown me enough to make me believe that they're going to work as hard as anyone to make sure Linux runs properly on their hardware. And if that tiny bit of profit ends up in their legal team's hands for use vs SCO, well, I wouldn't complain.
If they really wanted Linux market share, and actually did a little research, wouldn't the logical conclusion be to purchase Red Hat? Last survey I saw (and it could be really outdated at this point, I'll admit) they were the distro with the highest percentage of production systems.
Personally, I think a little of both is really the way to go for for ease of upgrade/removal/optimization, but I never compile and "make install". I run Debian unstable and maintain and upgrade most of the packages on the machine with aptitude. However, apt-build is a great tool for building processor optimized versions of those same packages. This way, all your software version tracking and removal is still handled by the Debian package system, but you can recompile for speed on important packages (in my case I compile my own x11 and kde packages). Best part, if it breaks or doesn't work, you can just apt-get the package and try again next release.
Slashdot Mirror
And not putting a price on your time, how much did it cost you to try out all that linux software?
I know it's not for everyone yet, but out of curiousity, do have a license for all 7 copies of Windows? I assume you're using MS Office on there, you pay for as many licenses as you have copies installed? How about any additional non-MS software? Assuming you've payed for everything your using, how much did all that set you back?
Now, if you'd rather pay the difference between the two, than look for a little assistance online, or try a different distro (my personal advice, is to try the live CD version of it first, if one exists, to see what works), then yes, Windows is still the OS for you (although if price is not an issue, perhaps a Mac would be better for you). On the other hand, if your shocked at the price difference, and are a little willing to learn, then you'd be what I'd consider the ideal candidate for the next stage of Linux adopters: average computer users either willing to learn and/or fed up with malware.
(I do realize that currently most people fall into a different category: borrow the software they need and install it, rather then paying for it all. I'd imagine that this will get more and more difficult to do over time.)
I wouldn't be surprised if they knew it would get posted to /. and they could get extra money from all the click-thrus to the story.
I would hope most /.ers by now had Adblocked:
Then everyone can get all fired up about their next anti-linux article without actually supporting whomever the "evil advertisers" are at the time.
But..
Will Slashdot kill yet another helpless server?
Of course.
Well, I can tell you that I had to put together a few quotes this week for Linux servers and for the first time in my life, IBM was the 1st place I went. They may not have my undying loyalty, but they've shown me enough to make me believe that they're going to work as hard as anyone to make sure Linux runs properly on their hardware. And if that tiny bit of profit ends up in their legal team's hands for use vs SCO, well, I wouldn't complain.
If they really wanted Linux market share, and actually did a little research, wouldn't the logical conclusion be to purchase Red Hat? Last survey I saw (and it could be really outdated at this point, I'll admit) they were the distro with the highest percentage of production systems.
Personally, I think a little of both is really the way to go for for ease of upgrade/removal/optimization, but I never compile and "make install". I run Debian unstable and maintain and upgrade most of the packages on the machine with aptitude. However, apt-build is a great tool for building processor optimized versions of those same packages. This way, all your software version tracking and removal is still handled by the Debian package system, but you can recompile for speed on important packages (in my case I compile my own x11 and kde packages). Best part, if it breaks or doesn't work, you can just apt-get the package and try again next release.