I still don't quite get your point. Why would anybody market
proprietary software to just one distro? VMWare sells Workstation
for 189 dollars (last I checked) and it isn't marketed to any one
distro in particular. When Valve releases Steam later this year,
it's unlikely to be just for Ubuntu or anybody else. So, what you
say is demonstrably true however, what exactly is the point other
than the self-evidence?
I'm not even going to bother arguing with you but I will leave you
with this thought experiment:
Go write some software and start a company. Charge whatever you
want for your stuff. When tax time rolls around, I want you to
claim all of these "losses" to the IRS.
At least a Windows user can install a network driver from the disc packed in the box.
I have a scanner and a video card that both came with Windows CD's
yet will not work on Windows 7. I'm sure you can deduce why.
Both of those hardware devices are humming along perfectly with
Ubuntu 10.04 no CD required.
I think you'll find the same thing is happening in the Media industry. People's ability to download movies, songs, books for free is devaluing the time and wages of the creators.
Are you trying to say that downloading and using open source software
is equivalent to mass copyright infringement of music, books, and movies?
That's patently ridiculous.
Proprietary software writers aren't "losing" money because somebody
chooses a competitor. It wasn't their money in the first place and
historic profits do not grant you the undying right to future profits.
The only way closed source software writers lose money is if someone
actually pirates their stuff that would have paid had the pirated copy not been available. FLOSS has
absolutely nothing to do with that at all.
Exactly. It's a negative for Red Hat but better overall
as the economy runs just that much more efficiently and we all benefit
just a little bit. Hence a net positive.
That's the system working. If, as in the summary says, a 50
billion dollar software company can be replaced with a 5 billion
dollar one then that 45 billion in capital that businesses
would have spent on bits can be reallocated for
employee's salaries, business upgrades, etc. making for a more
efficient economy. I've always seen this as one of the primary
benefits of open source and have a hard time seeing how it can
be realistically spun as a net negative.
All you have to do is pop-in a CD and install. After that the system usually has everything the user needs (web browser, Microsoft Office, etc).
I don't know where you're getting your Windows CD's but I've never
seen one that came with a preinstalled copy of Office. However, practically
every copy of Linux comes with OpenOffice.org.
my Linux laptop refuses to execute flash websites (like disney.com or tv.com)
Which Linux? Which Browser? I've never seen Ubuntu fail to install
and run Flash and version 6 of the Chrome Browser comes with
Flash nowadays.
And I can't get it to talk to my Netscape ISP.
I can't get Windows 7 to talk to my scanner. I'll talk to my scanner
manufacturer and you talk to your ISP.
At the risk of redundancy, this was how I interpreted the
experiment too. The fact that if any Googlers stray to Bing after
this, the first thing they will be reminded of is the hated Google Image
day and instantly be turned off. Brilliantly played.
While I do like Google, it's impossible to say whether Google remains dominant because people really do prefer it over the alternatives, or simply because it's dominant and people either 1) don't know about the alternatives, or 2) assume that Google's search results will be the best because it's dominant.
When people go and buy a new computer, what is the default search
engine on the vast majority of them? When people update IE (a
browser with ~60 percent market share), what is
the search engine that it asks you if you'd like to use? Seeing as
most computer users have done one or both of these things, I'd say
that a) they're definitely aware that there is something else and
b) despite this, they use Google anyway.
So go on and ask your moderators if I am posting from the same ip addresses as apk is.
If you don't know what a proxy server is, you aren't qualified to even be in this conversation. But, what the hell...
Infoworld even alludes to that going on here, so that is good enough for me.
So, uh, some people started a web site and said some stuff. Welcome to the internet, Mr. not-apk *wink wink*.
So no one reading this gets duped by your feigned ignorance, I'll
summarize the situation for you. Apk brought up the secunia
statistics for every linux kernel since 2003 and compared them to
Windows 7. This is fallacious for several reasons, among them, 7 uses
virtually the same kernel as Vista so why didn't he include the Vista number?
Also, nobody is using a kernel from 2003 so it's irrelevant anyway.
Also, the severity of the security advisories between Linux and
Windows don't even compare so the raw numbers are useless for a real
comparison between the two.
This, of course, was all brought up in
subsequent posts so apk just moved on to the red herring of Linux+KDE/Gnome/Bash/thekitchensink as if that wasn't an even worse argument. First
of all, it depends on the validity of the first argument which has been
debunked here and elsewhere ad nauseum. But, for arguments sake, it was examined anyway. As there are
practically no reliable comparisons, it was brought up that the last
pwn2own competition that included osx, windows, and linux, only Linux
was left standing at the end.
So, he was answered and debunked repeatedly but like the typically
incessant crank he has proved to be over the years, he just kept repeating
the same crap. He's like the little kid that says why everytime you
answer him. Eventually you get sick of it just stop answering.
Dude, if you're taking this message board so seriously that you are going to "defend" yourself by posting more ac comments and pretending
to be somebody else, you need psychiatric help.
Trouble is, as you can see with my post going from +1 INFORMATIVE, to +2 INTERESTING, & now down to 0 (but with the "good ratings upwards" still in place in INFORMATIVE for now @ least while I post this?) Those same "/. samurai" have to resort to what I call their "last weapon" in the effete & unjustified "mod down" (as usual with my posts like these)... they only prove this point for me, everytime, lol... apk
Yeeeah, it's just a big old conspiracy against apk. I mean, surely
it doesn't have anything to do with his flawed arguments that have
been thoroughly debunked and dismissed by myself and others. It's just
the "slashdot samurai" (lol) out to get you.
Plus, you've already said that 2-3x or so, by now (that you were leaving & not responding here anymore, gee I wonder why (NOT)), while you avoid a SIMPLE QUESTION I ASKED OF YOU HERE 2-3x now too, see above...
What can I say? I'm a sucker for a troll.
See that post, & answer the questions there (mainly the one regarding IF Linux's only PARTIAL LIST of kernel/core level errors only, 11 left (not counting ones probably present in LINUX 2.6x's Window managers, KDE/GNOME shells, &/or BA$H + other tty terminal consoles too possibly & more) are as easily "worked around" as those in Windows 7 are?)
I've already told you why your argument is too stupid to even respond
to but, here. Now scurry back under your little bridge, little troll and chew on that for a while as that's about the best actual apples to apples comparison that
I could find where Windows and Linux were in the same room.
You're RIGHT - so, IF I was to add on the KNOWN SECURITY VULNERABILITIES in the remaining parts of LINUX not noted (such as KDE or GNOME, or even BA$H, to name only a FEW parts omitted in my fair analysis of the LINUX KERNEL/CORE ONLY mind you, vs. the rest of it that folks use regularly/usually, which DO GET ANALYZED IN WINDOWS 7 &/or MacOS X?)?
Why don't we just compare apples to apples and see what the results
are when Windows goes head to head against the most popular Linux distro
with some of the best hackers in the world trying to break in.
Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy & only show that when one has to use that? They are on "the ropes", losing badly... pretty simple!
Ad hominems are also useful when your opponent's arguments are so
utterly ridiculous and unconvincing to the audience that it is utterly pointless to refute them point
by point...
To whit, you have no idea what you are talking about and I'm not
going to even bother wasting time arguing with you anymore.
It's a troll for one very simple reason. He's including 2.6 kernels
from 2003 and comparing them to Windows 7 which uses the NT 6.1 kernel which
is a derivative of the NT 6 kernel used in Vista. Intentionally
distorting facts to support your argument is trolling. Furthermore,
he's bringing up secunia stats as if that is the whole story without
mentioning the relative severities. Of course, it's a red herring anyway
as I've already pointed out.
I was comparing the "latest/greatest" from Apple, Microsoft, & the LINUX camp
If you're including linux from 2003, you have an odd and erroneous definition of "latest/greatest". Not only that, Windows 7 is an OS, Linux is not.
And, furthermore, if you are comparing kernels, you have to include the
Vista kernel to the 7 kernel which you did not.
I'm not going to bother
refuting the rest of your drivel since it all rests on this one blatant fabrication.
If you want to attack Linux's security record, at least do it in
good faith then people might be willing to listen to your arguments.
Your original post is little more than noise and it just sets you up
for ad hominems and derision as no one can really take you seriously.
It doesn't make sense to compare a line of kernels dating back to
2003 to an operating system that came out last year. The 7 kernel
is just a derivative of the Vista kernel, for example. And in '03,
XP was still going strong. Furthermore, 2.6 or whatever is just a name.
I am running 2.6.32. How does the NT 6.1 you are presumably running
compare to that?
I'm not sure which version of Kubuntu you were using but I had
very little difficulty installing IHTC in Kubuntu 10.04 and getting
rid of the darn cashew.
However, this isn't a reasonable option for a casual user. At best, they can buy a prebuilt box with Linux preinstalled on it (though even that isn't that easy to find). But the moment they go and buy some external gadget for it - anything, from USB WiFi stick, as in my case, to printer or webcam - they will have a hard time finding compatible stuff, and ensuring that it is, indeed, compatible.
As market share increases, so will peripheral support. We are already
seeing this in printers with HP's longstanding and Lexmark's sudden
embrace of Linux.
You have to start somewhere and with a little
help, there isn't a single class of consumer hardware that doesn't
have brands that support Linux just as well or better than Windows.
Just throwing your hands up and saying it's hopeless completely
ignores the long history of incumbent products that have been
supplanted by newer upstarts. Besides, there are pros and cons
to any purchasing decision. The people I've switched to Linux sure
do enjoy being able to use the internet without unwittingly installing
the latest malware du jour. And I like not having to fix their
computers after they do. Win/win.
You probably buy most of your computers with a Windows OS on them.
If you build your own, you probably buy motherboards, etc., with
a Windows driver CD in the box. If you're not doing that with
Ubuntu then going on Slashdot and bitching about your hardware
not working the way you want it to, while your gripe is legitimate, is not really giving it a
fair shake. Buy supported hardware and if it stops working then
sing it on the mountain, but if you're not willing to do that, your
criticism at least in the context of your post doesn't mean much.
Slashdot Mirror
I still don't quite get your point. Why would anybody market proprietary software to just one distro? VMWare sells Workstation for 189 dollars (last I checked) and it isn't marketed to any one distro in particular. When Valve releases Steam later this year, it's unlikely to be just for Ubuntu or anybody else. So, what you say is demonstrably true however, what exactly is the point other than the self-evidence?
I'm not even going to bother arguing with you but I will leave you with this thought experiment:
Go write some software and start a company. Charge whatever you want for your stuff. When tax time rolls around, I want you to claim all of these "losses" to the IRS.
I wanted to reply to you but I couldn't make any sense out of what you were trying to say. Could you clarify basically all of it for me?
At least a Windows user can install a network driver from the disc packed in the box.
I have a scanner and a video card that both came with Windows CD's yet will not work on Windows 7. I'm sure you can deduce why. Both of those hardware devices are humming along perfectly with Ubuntu 10.04 no CD required.
I think you'll find the same thing is happening in the Media industry. People's ability to download movies, songs, books for free is devaluing the time and wages of the creators.
Are you trying to say that downloading and using open source software is equivalent to mass copyright infringement of music, books, and movies? That's patently ridiculous.
Proprietary software writers aren't "losing" money because somebody chooses a competitor. It wasn't their money in the first place and historic profits do not grant you the undying right to future profits.
The only way closed source software writers lose money is if someone actually pirates their stuff that would have paid had the pirated copy not been available. FLOSS has absolutely nothing to do with that at all.
Exactly. It's a negative for Red Hat but better overall as the economy runs just that much more efficiently and we all benefit just a little bit. Hence a net positive.
That's the system working. If, as in the summary says, a 50 billion dollar software company can be replaced with a 5 billion dollar one then that 45 billion in capital that businesses would have spent on bits can be reallocated for employee's salaries, business upgrades, etc. making for a more efficient economy. I've always seen this as one of the primary benefits of open source and have a hard time seeing how it can be realistically spun as a net negative.
I've very interested in reading the study that supports your numbers. Could you provide a link?
All you have to do is pop-in a CD and install. After that the system usually has everything the user needs (web browser, Microsoft Office, etc).
I don't know where you're getting your Windows CD's but I've never seen one that came with a preinstalled copy of Office. However, practically every copy of Linux comes with OpenOffice.org.
my Linux laptop refuses to execute flash websites (like disney.com or tv.com)
Which Linux? Which Browser? I've never seen Ubuntu fail to install and run Flash and version 6 of the Chrome Browser comes with Flash nowadays.
And I can't get it to talk to my Netscape ISP.
I can't get Windows 7 to talk to my scanner. I'll talk to my scanner manufacturer and you talk to your ISP.
At the risk of redundancy, this was how I interpreted the experiment too. The fact that if any Googlers stray to Bing after this, the first thing they will be reminded of is the hated Google Image day and instantly be turned off. Brilliantly played.
While I do like Google, it's impossible to say whether Google remains dominant because people really do prefer it over the alternatives, or simply because it's dominant and people either 1) don't know about the alternatives, or 2) assume that Google's search results will be the best because it's dominant.
When people go and buy a new computer, what is the default search engine on the vast majority of them? When people update IE (a browser with ~60 percent market share), what is the search engine that it asks you if you'd like to use? Seeing as most computer users have done one or both of these things, I'd say that a) they're definitely aware that there is something else and b) despite this, they use Google anyway.
I know I shouldn't but it's so much fun watching him squirm.
So go on and ask your moderators if I am posting from the same ip addresses as apk is.
If you don't know what a proxy server is, you aren't qualified to even be in this conversation. But, what the hell...
Infoworld even alludes to that going on here, so that is good enough for me.
So, uh, some people started a web site and said some stuff. Welcome to the internet, Mr. not-apk *wink wink*.
So no one reading this gets duped by your feigned ignorance, I'll summarize the situation for you. Apk brought up the secunia statistics for every linux kernel since 2003 and compared them to Windows 7. This is fallacious for several reasons, among them, 7 uses virtually the same kernel as Vista so why didn't he include the Vista number? Also, nobody is using a kernel from 2003 so it's irrelevant anyway. Also, the severity of the security advisories between Linux and Windows don't even compare so the raw numbers are useless for a real comparison between the two.
This, of course, was all brought up in subsequent posts so apk just moved on to the red herring of Linux+KDE/Gnome/Bash/thekitchensink as if that wasn't an even worse argument. First of all, it depends on the validity of the first argument which has been debunked here and elsewhere ad nauseum. But, for arguments sake, it was examined anyway. As there are practically no reliable comparisons, it was brought up that the last pwn2own competition that included osx, windows, and linux, only Linux was left standing at the end.
So, he was answered and debunked repeatedly but like the typically incessant crank he has proved to be over the years, he just kept repeating the same crap. He's like the little kid that says why everytime you answer him. Eventually you get sick of it just stop answering.
Dude, if you're taking this message board so seriously that you are going to "defend" yourself by posting more ac comments and pretending to be somebody else, you need psychiatric help.
Trouble is, as you can see with my post going from +1 INFORMATIVE, to +2 INTERESTING, & now down to 0 (but with the "good ratings upwards" still in place in INFORMATIVE for now @ least while I post this?) Those same "/. samurai" have to resort to what I call their "last weapon" in the effete & unjustified "mod down" (as usual with my posts like these)... they only prove this point for me, everytime, lol... apk
Yeeeah, it's just a big old conspiracy against apk. I mean, surely it doesn't have anything to do with his flawed arguments that have been thoroughly debunked and dismissed by myself and others. It's just the "slashdot samurai" (lol) out to get you.
Plus, you've already said that 2-3x or so, by now (that you were leaving & not responding here anymore, gee I wonder why (NOT)), while you avoid a SIMPLE QUESTION I ASKED OF YOU HERE 2-3x now too, see above...
What can I say? I'm a sucker for a troll.
See that post, & answer the questions there (mainly the one regarding IF Linux's only PARTIAL LIST of kernel/core level errors only, 11 left (not counting ones probably present in LINUX 2.6x's Window managers, KDE/GNOME shells, &/or BA$H + other tty terminal consoles too possibly & more) are as easily "worked around" as those in Windows 7 are?)
I've already told you why your argument is too stupid to even respond to but, here. Now scurry back under your little bridge, little troll and chew on that for a while as that's about the best actual apples to apples comparison that I could find where Windows and Linux were in the same room.
You're RIGHT - so, IF I was to add on the KNOWN SECURITY VULNERABILITIES in the remaining parts of LINUX not noted (such as KDE or GNOME, or even BA$H, to name only a FEW parts omitted in my fair analysis of the LINUX KERNEL/CORE ONLY mind you, vs. the rest of it that folks use regularly/usually, which DO GET ANALYZED IN WINDOWS 7 &/or MacOS X?)?
Why don't we just compare apples to apples and see what the results are when Windows goes head to head against the most popular Linux distro with some of the best hackers in the world trying to break in.
Damn.
Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy & only show that when one has to use that? They are on "the ropes", losing badly... pretty simple!
Ad hominems are also useful when your opponent's arguments are so utterly ridiculous and unconvincing to the audience that it is utterly pointless to refute them point by point...
To whit, you have no idea what you are talking about and I'm not going to even bother wasting time arguing with you anymore.
That's not a troll post.
Even if his post is false,
It's a troll for one very simple reason. He's including 2.6 kernels from 2003 and comparing them to Windows 7 which uses the NT 6.1 kernel which is a derivative of the NT 6 kernel used in Vista. Intentionally distorting facts to support your argument is trolling. Furthermore, he's bringing up secunia stats as if that is the whole story without mentioning the relative severities. Of course, it's a red herring anyway as I've already pointed out.
I was comparing the "latest/greatest" from Apple, Microsoft, & the LINUX camp
If you're including linux from 2003, you have an odd and erroneous definition of "latest/greatest". Not only that, Windows 7 is an OS, Linux is not. And, furthermore, if you are comparing kernels, you have to include the Vista kernel to the 7 kernel which you did not.
I'm not going to bother refuting the rest of your drivel since it all rests on this one blatant fabrication. If you want to attack Linux's security record, at least do it in good faith then people might be willing to listen to your arguments. Your original post is little more than noise and it just sets you up for ad hominems and derision as no one can really take you seriously.
Linux 2.6x KERNEL SECURITY VULNERABILITIES
It doesn't make sense to compare a line of kernels dating back to 2003 to an operating system that came out last year. The 7 kernel is just a derivative of the Vista kernel, for example. And in '03, XP was still going strong. Furthermore, 2.6 or whatever is just a name. I am running 2.6.32. How does the NT 6.1 you are presumably running compare to that?
I'm not sure which version of Kubuntu you were using but I had very little difficulty installing IHTC in Kubuntu 10.04 and getting rid of the darn cashew.
If this has X11, I doubt it will be especially lightweight.
Er, the Nokia n series including the 770, n8x0 and n900 all use X11. Works fantastically.
However, this isn't a reasonable option for a casual user. At best, they can buy a prebuilt box with Linux preinstalled on it (though even that isn't that easy to find). But the moment they go and buy some external gadget for it - anything, from USB WiFi stick, as in my case, to printer or webcam - they will have a hard time finding compatible stuff, and ensuring that it is, indeed, compatible.
As market share increases, so will peripheral support. We are already seeing this in printers with HP's longstanding and Lexmark's sudden embrace of Linux.
You have to start somewhere and with a little help, there isn't a single class of consumer hardware that doesn't have brands that support Linux just as well or better than Windows. Just throwing your hands up and saying it's hopeless completely ignores the long history of incumbent products that have been supplanted by newer upstarts. Besides, there are pros and cons to any purchasing decision. The people I've switched to Linux sure do enjoy being able to use the internet without unwittingly installing the latest malware du jour. And I like not having to fix their computers after they do. Win/win.
Best Buy
Do yourself a favor next time.