I don't see that in the real world, except for exceptions.
This is one of the more frustrating parts of discussions on slashdot. I'm 45 years old and have been in a lot of companies. I *know* what I have seen. yet someone comes along and contradicts what I say. It may be a valid observation based on a different set of experiences, or it may be some fanboi making stuff up. I have no way to know for sure, but I have to go with my experience.
I'm not saying there aren't the IT departments that love Microsoft, but I've work as a software developer and a consultant for a long time. I did a stint at a banking software company a number of years ago. We were selling an NT server solution. The IT guys at Bank of America HATED that it ran on Microsoft, but they didn't have many other options. So, we sold it IN SPITE of it running on Microsoft NT. That's monopoly hatred.
As alternatives become more and more generally accepted, the monoculture will break down. In fact, I predict that in the next few years, you'll see Microsoft less than 70% of computers.
Large companies very rarely switch "seat by seat". They like monoculture, it makes it easier to run the whole damn thing.
This is not really true, and it is the most interesting aspect of it all. They HATE the monoculture, they want interoperability. They would love word processors that merely work on documents, not specif types of documents or specific programs to do so.
The "browser" is the model that EVERY COMPUTER USER wants. Competition of programs to best operate with data. Why does a word document have to be different than an OpenOffice document? Its what the companies want, not what the users want.
The monoculture is something forced on companies and IT departments by Microsoft. They do it because they are stuck with it. If they could be "un-stuck" they would.
Counter example: me. We're strictly a Linux shop at work, but I run Vista at home.
I'm not sure I believe you, no offense, but is counter to things that I do know about.
I don't know anyone, aside from yourself of course, that is proficient in Linux or Macintosh and claims to use Windows at home (except out of necessity -- monopoly driven necessity). It seems counter to every experience I have had in 13~14 years using Linux. So I am forced to accept what you say as true, or believe my own personal observations over the years.
I am suspicious of the "pro-windows" posts from supposed nerds. (Slashdot - news for nerds). Again, I don't know any "nerds" that like Windows. I know plenty, myself included, who write software targeting Windows, but personally, I wish it would disappear tomorrow. The limitations, the problems, the cost, and crap that comes with it just sucks.
I used to be the family member that had to answer all computer problems. I upgraded everyone to Macintosh, and now, I never get calls. My experience is a common one. So, you'll forgive me if I don't believe you.
Not what you'd call statistically significant, but OTOH I don't see what all the defensiveness is about. In fact, I'd expect that there are more linux desktops in businesses, where you probably have a competent administrator.
I'm 45 years old and I hate the computing infrastructure that we are stuck with. In the early 80s there was variety, IBM, Apple, CP/M etc. it was fun. It also forced software developers to use more generic and portable practices. The programs were, IMHO, better written back then.
Because of Micreosoft's FUD, anti-competitive misconduct, back-room deals, bribes, astro-turf, and so on, we are at a point where they control most of the computing infrastructure of the world. It is gratifying to see them losing share as "competition" makes for a better environment.
The "defensiveness" is nothing more than fighting lemming-like group-think where people defend Microsoft. Sometimes its astro-turfers, sometimes it is fan-bois, but either way, this study shows what we all know, users generally don't like Windows, no matter how much advertisement Microsoft pays for. As users discover that there *is* choice, we find they don't chose Windows.
That's because of brain-dead IT departments. They are only capable enough of supporting one configuration and because Microsoft donates money to the universities what OS do you think that is?
I'm sure Hannah Montana has a few good songs, given that she doesn't write any of them. Pop stars have their songs written and performed for them by real musicians.
I feel like the ACLU here, I don't want to defend "pop" music and child stars, but your statement needs to be addressed.
Yes, the studio media produced child stars "generally" just lip sync and prance on the stage. That is basically true. There are however important exceptions.
Christine Agulara vs Britney Spears. Britney is a talentless media whore who can't sing, can't arrange her own music, or anything.
Agulara, on the other hand, has a fantastic voice, arranges her own music, and generally has talent if not taste for music.
While I can't speak with any authority, I would suspect that Myley Cyrus is probably a little more talented given who her father is.
it usually takes closer to two weeks, and even then he is happy to accept that only 90% of everything works properly, because "hey it's free, what do you expect".
This is pure FUD. Plain and simple, here's why: No operating system is perfect, this is a fact. However, if we were to assume that universal support of devices were some sort of benchmark to quality, then Vista would have a HUGE problem. (Well, another one, anyway) Linux supports more devices than Vista.
I'd rather have 90% support from something that was free than less support from something I'd have to pay for.
Or we could say that it's a proof that OS X is poorly suited for corporate work desktop environments. Funny how the words can be twisted either way if you really want to, eh?
That only works if you wish to ignore the body of knowledge about Windows. Through the various anti-trust actions against Microsoft we learn that they have made it very difficult to be interoperable with other systems. They have made illegal (monopolistic) deals with companies and governments to maintain their ill-acquired market share.
People *have* to use Windows at work because of Microsoft's monopoly and misconduct. The evidence suggests that people are choosing not to use Windows at home.
This year, Hannah Montana outsold John Coltrane albums. Which, in your opinion, is better?
In my opinion, I'm sort of partial to Pink Floyd and B.B. king, but to the tween girls, Hannah Montana rocks.
I'm not implying that Windows is the John Coltrane of computers.
More like the "Bee Gees" of operating systems.
I am implying that Apple is the Hannah Montana of technology. (popular, pretty, over-hyped, etc)
Well, say what you want, Miley Cirus has some musical blood and as "child stars" go, is probably more talented than, say, Britney Spears.
Its easy to dump on "pop," but even the Monkees had a few cool songs. Popularity != bad. Apple is better than Windows in every reasonable metric.
IMHO, Linux is as good if not better than Mac on many desktop usability issues. While it lacks some of the finish it more than makes up for it in other areas like device support and flexibility.
Though every time I have installed Linux on a computer at home I spend so much time trying to install drivers and software I usually give up after a week.
There is no way to politely respond to this statement because it presents only two alternatives. Either the author is an idiot or the author is lying. Either way, it would not be nice to point that out.
conspire with who? That requires more than one business- but a monopoly is just one business. So, again, conspire with who?
Oh, you know....
Dell, HP, Sony, et al they *all* conspire to remove choice from the consumer.
CPM/86, DrDOS, DesqView, DoubleDOS, GemDesktop, Go, BeOS, etc. have all been victims of Microsoft conspiring to keep them out of the P.C. market.
It is well documented in DOJ proceedings how Microsoft maked special deals with the OEMs to preload DOS and then Windows on their P.C.s to keep customers from choosing the competition.
So Windows isn't niche, it's not stylish, it doesn't express your personality much. It's plain middle of the road "use what everybody else is using" product.
There are quite a few people who use Linux workstations at work, but have windows PCs at home
Back up that statement with facts please. In my experience, Linux users who have Linux work stations at work have Linux machines at home and for family members, either Linux or Mac. That is not something I'd assert as fact, but is has more foundation in my portion of the observable universe.
"Windows' share typically falls on weekends and after work hours, as users surf from home computers, a larger percentage of which run Mac OS X than do work machines."
So, what they are saying is that people would rather use something else, and do so at home. In effect, people don't want windoze but are forced to use it at work.
Just curious, but at what point is Microsoft no longer considered a monopoloy? At what percentage are they legally allowed to start pulling the dirty tricks again?
when they no longer conspire to dominate the market through misconduct.
Not to stir the conspiracy pot, but I find it odd that we've been in a recession for a year, but we only hear about it a month after an election. One could postulate that the administration worked very hard to keep this announcement quiet in order to not look worse.
Up until a few months ago, the republicans have been saying the economy is strong and NOT in a recession. OK, so now they lose, and we find out the truth.
It could be innocent timing, but given the record of this administration I suspect it was known for some time.
I wish there was a windows remote desktop equivalent.
I find it hard to understand what you are talking about. In KDE, at least, there is a built in VNC based remote desktop for an active session on display:0. It works perfectly. The Mac remote desktop is based on VNC as well.
Yah, but the Registry also enables reasonably-intelligent remote administration in Windows, which isn't really currently available in Linux (or OS X).
I can't find a single part of this sentence that is true in any sense.
It also deals reasonably-intelligently with race conditions, i.e. two simultaneously-running instances of the same program saving over each other's settings.
Umm, really? Can you think of a single instance where this operation would NOT result in unexpected behavior .
The registry might not be the best implementation in the world, but it's certainly not a bad idea. ok, back that statement up because I 100% disagree. Text files in well defined directories is far more flexible. Can be edited, managed, backed up, and differentially compared using standard tools. The *only* reason I can see for the Windows registry is to allow Microsoft to hide configuration settings that can't be edited unless you have their tools.
"Barely working?" Have you actually tried it, or are you talking out of your ass?
I have and it is slow and a security risk as implemented.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see that in the real world, except for exceptions.
This is one of the more frustrating parts of discussions on slashdot. I'm 45 years old and have been in a lot of companies. I *know* what I have seen. yet someone comes along and contradicts what I say. It may be a valid observation based on a different set of experiences, or it may be some fanboi making stuff up. I have no way to know for sure, but I have to go with my experience.
I'm not saying there aren't the IT departments that love Microsoft, but I've work as a software developer and a consultant for a long time. I did a stint at a banking software company a number of years ago. We were selling an NT server solution. The IT guys at Bank of America HATED that it ran on Microsoft, but they didn't have many other options. So, we sold it IN SPITE of it running on Microsoft NT. That's monopoly hatred.
As alternatives become more and more generally accepted, the monoculture will break down. In fact, I predict that in the next few years, you'll see Microsoft less than 70% of computers.
Large companies very rarely switch "seat by seat". They like monoculture, it makes it easier to run the whole damn thing.
This is not really true, and it is the most interesting aspect of it all. They HATE the monoculture, they want interoperability. They would love word processors that merely work on documents, not specif types of documents or specific programs to do so.
The "browser" is the model that EVERY COMPUTER USER wants. Competition of programs to best operate with data. Why does a word document have to be different than an OpenOffice document? Its what the companies want, not what the users want.
The monoculture is something forced on companies and IT departments by Microsoft. They do it because they are stuck with it. If they could be "un-stuck" they would.
It is moving slowly, but it is happening.
However, the corporate monoculture lock-in is one of the main reasons for the continued "success" of windos.
And as alternatives like macintosh become more popular, the monoculture will go away and we'll have a competitive environment again.
Counter example: me. We're strictly a Linux shop at work, but I run Vista at home.
I'm not sure I believe you, no offense, but is counter to things that I do know about.
I don't know anyone, aside from yourself of course, that is proficient in Linux or Macintosh and claims to use Windows at home (except out of necessity -- monopoly driven necessity). It seems counter to every experience I have had in 13~14 years using Linux. So I am forced to accept what you say as true, or believe my own personal observations over the years.
I am suspicious of the "pro-windows" posts from supposed nerds. (Slashdot - news for nerds). Again, I don't know any "nerds" that like Windows. I know plenty, myself included, who write software targeting Windows, but personally, I wish it would disappear tomorrow. The limitations, the problems, the cost, and crap that comes with it just sucks.
I used to be the family member that had to answer all computer problems. I upgraded everyone to Macintosh, and now, I never get calls. My experience is a common one. So, you'll forgive me if I don't believe you.
Not what you'd call statistically significant, but OTOH I don't see what all the defensiveness is about. In fact, I'd expect that there are more linux desktops in businesses, where you probably have a competent administrator.
I'm 45 years old and I hate the computing infrastructure that we are stuck with. In the early 80s there was variety, IBM, Apple, CP/M etc. it was fun. It also forced software developers to use more generic and portable practices. The programs were, IMHO, better written back then.
Because of Micreosoft's FUD, anti-competitive misconduct, back-room deals, bribes, astro-turf, and so on, we are at a point where they control most of the computing infrastructure of the world. It is gratifying to see them losing share as "competition" makes for a better environment.
The "defensiveness" is nothing more than fighting lemming-like group-think where people defend Microsoft. Sometimes its astro-turfers, sometimes it is fan-bois, but either way, this study shows what we all know, users generally don't like Windows, no matter how much advertisement Microsoft pays for. As users discover that there *is* choice, we find they don't chose Windows.
All our laptops have windows
That's because of brain-dead IT departments. They are only capable enough of supporting one configuration and because Microsoft donates money to the universities what OS do you think that is?
There are two ways to look at that figure. The other is that Microsoft is better in the business environment.
And that simply ignores what we know to be true from the multiple anti-trust actions against Microsoft.
That is neither a legally valid nor a very good definition of a monopoly.
You should read the Sherman Anti-Trust Act before you comment.
I'm sure Hannah Montana has a few good songs, given that she doesn't write any of them. Pop stars have their songs written and performed for them by real musicians.
I feel like the ACLU here, I don't want to defend "pop" music and child stars, but your statement needs to be addressed.
Yes, the studio media produced child stars "generally" just lip sync and prance on the stage. That is basically true. There are however important exceptions.
Christine Agulara vs Britney Spears. Britney is a talentless media whore who can't sing, can't arrange her own music, or anything.
Agulara, on the other hand, has a fantastic voice, arranges her own music, and generally has talent if not taste for music.
While I can't speak with any authority, I would suspect that Myley Cyrus is probably a little more talented given who her father is.
(Can you tell I have a daughter?)
Linux NATIVELY supports more devices than Vista ?
Yes. many OEMs have dropped support for fairly new devices and will not be supporting Vista.
Or Linux simply wraps the Windows version driver and then claims it counts as "1 more we support" ?
I'm sorry, I can't get too excited about differentiating something like ndiswrapper vs native implementation. If it works, it works.
as long as one person uses linux at work, and uses windows at home, this IS a fact.
Not true, your statement was:
There are quite a few people who use Linux workstations at work, but have windows PCs at home
The phrase "quite a few" would have to mean statistically significant in some way, don't you think? So "one" does not qualify as "quite a few."
Back it up or take it back.
OPEC? Oh but they're not a monopoly,
they are also not subject to U.S. law so it is not even relevant.
it usually takes closer to two weeks, and even then he is happy to accept that only 90% of everything works properly, because "hey it's free, what do you expect".
This is pure FUD. Plain and simple, here's why:
No operating system is perfect, this is a fact. However, if we were to assume that universal support of devices were some sort of benchmark to quality, then Vista would have a HUGE problem. (Well, another one, anyway) Linux supports more devices than Vista.
I'd rather have 90% support from something that was free than less support from something I'd have to pay for.
Or we could say that it's a proof that OS X is poorly suited for corporate work desktop environments. Funny how the words can be twisted either way if you really want to, eh?
That only works if you wish to ignore the body of knowledge about Windows. Through the various anti-trust actions against Microsoft we learn that they have made it very difficult to be interoperable with other systems. They have made illegal (monopolistic) deals with companies and governments to maintain their ill-acquired market share.
People *have* to use Windows at work because of Microsoft's monopoly and misconduct. The evidence suggests that people are choosing not to use Windows at home.
Therefore, my point still stands. Windows sucks.
This year, Hannah Montana outsold John Coltrane albums. Which, in your opinion, is better?
In my opinion, I'm sort of partial to Pink Floyd and B.B. king, but to the tween girls, Hannah Montana rocks.
I'm not implying that Windows is the John Coltrane of computers.
More like the "Bee Gees" of operating systems.
I am implying that Apple is the Hannah Montana of technology. (popular, pretty, over-hyped, etc)
Well, say what you want, Miley Cirus has some musical blood and as "child stars" go, is probably more talented than, say, Britney Spears.
Its easy to dump on "pop," but even the Monkees had a few cool songs. Popularity != bad. Apple is better than Windows in every reasonable metric.
IMHO, Linux is as good if not better than Mac on many desktop usability issues. While it lacks some of the finish it more than makes up for it in other areas like device support and flexibility.
Though every time I have installed Linux on a computer at home I spend so much time trying to install drivers and software I usually give up after a week.
There is no way to politely respond to this statement because it presents only two alternatives. Either the author is an idiot or the author is lying. Either way, it would not be nice to point that out.
Instead, I'll say maybe Linux is not for you.
conspire with who? That requires more than one business- but a monopoly is just one business. So, again, conspire with who?
Oh, you know....
Dell, HP, Sony, et al they *all* conspire to remove choice from the consumer.
CPM/86, DrDOS, DesqView, DoubleDOS, GemDesktop, Go, BeOS, etc. have all been victims of Microsoft conspiring to keep them out of the P.C. market.
It is well documented in DOJ proceedings how Microsoft maked special deals with the OEMs to preload DOS and then Windows on their P.C.s to keep customers from choosing the competition.
So Windows isn't niche, it's not stylish, it doesn't express your personality much. It's plain middle of the road "use what everybody else is using" product.
So, you agree, Windows sucks. Good.
There are quite a few people who use Linux workstations at work, but have windows PCs at home
Back up that statement with facts please. In my experience, Linux users who have Linux work stations at work have Linux machines at home and for family members, either Linux or Mac. That is not something I'd assert as fact, but is has more foundation in my portion of the observable universe.
"Windows' share typically falls on weekends and after work hours, as users surf from home computers, a larger percentage of which run Mac OS X than do work machines."
So, what they are saying is that people would rather use something else, and do so at home. In effect, people don't want windoze but are forced to use it at work.
Windows sucks and there's your proof.
Just curious, but at what point is Microsoft no longer considered a monopoloy? At what percentage are they legally allowed to start pulling the dirty tricks again?
when they no longer conspire to dominate the market through misconduct.
Not to stir the conspiracy pot, but I find it odd that we've been in a recession for a year, but we only hear about it a month after an election. One could postulate that the administration worked very hard to keep this announcement quiet in order to not look worse.
Up until a few months ago, the republicans have been saying the economy is strong and NOT in a recession. OK, so now they lose, and we find out the truth.
It could be innocent timing, but given the record of this administration I suspect it was known for some time.
VMS had it decades ago.
It is hard to know what we used to have and have lost because Microsoft's monopolistic and destructive practices,
Say all you want, but every 40+ computer engineer knows exactly what microsoft destroyed in our industry.
I wish there was a windows remote desktop equivalent.
I find it hard to understand what you are talking about. In KDE, at least, there is a built in VNC based remote desktop for an active session on display :0. It works perfectly. The Mac remote desktop is based on VNC as well.
There is a vncserver for stand-alone sessions.
Yah, but the Registry also enables reasonably-intelligent remote administration in Windows, which isn't really currently available in Linux (or OS X).
I can't find a single part of this sentence that is true in any sense.
It also deals reasonably-intelligently with race conditions, i.e. two simultaneously-running instances of the same program saving over each other's settings.
Umm, really? Can you think of a single instance where this operation would NOT result in unexpected behavior .
The registry might not be the best implementation in the world, but it's certainly not a bad idea.
ok, back that statement up because I 100% disagree. Text files in well defined directories is far more flexible. Can be edited, managed, backed up, and differentially compared using standard tools. The *only* reason I can see for the Windows registry is to allow Microsoft to hide configuration settings that can't be edited unless you have their tools.
"Barely working?" Have you actually tried it, or are you talking out of your ass?
I have and it is slow and a security risk as implemented.