"The author is off base, Linux isnt free when presented with the same features as Windows ie codecs. Thats why we have $$$ distributions that sort all that out for the consumer. What is an issue are people downloading free versions of Linux then being stupidly surprised that the $$$ bits are missing."
I bet you live on USA where you cant get those as free. Oh well, all other countries are ahead US when it's about a freedom.
"and there's no way to slipstream or download those for the other 3 computers I'm installing later..."
A nit:
Just copy downloaded updates from that machine what you just updated, to other PC's with CD/DVD/ExternalHD/USB-stick and command update from there. No need to download all again.
If you want to slipstream those, many distributions already offers a "OEM" disk, so, Ubuntu isn't any different Distribution, get OEM disk (alternative), run it as Live mode (no HD install needed), upgrade it as you like (updates, new software, remove unwanted, configurate OS and desktop/software as you want), generate install disk ISO and burn it to CD and install other PC's via it. You get everything just like you want.
PCLinuxOS distribution offers same but it's called "Remaster" and many other popular distribution does same, after you have installed OS, no need to update everything, just newest updates what has come after a remastered installer disk...
If you just know on what environment you are working, everything is easy. Easier than on Windows environment usually on today.
Sorry, my mistake, somehow dropped "we have MORE DRM and all other stuff..." HD DVD just have one while Blu-ray has more than one technology to prevent users do what they like to do with their disk. I dont like it... and yes, it's not a standard, it's just a possibility to add DRM to disk if wanted, and most producers wants to do that.
The Good news, format war is over, the end. The Bad news, better format lost the war, the end.
It's bretty typical that bad choises will always win the first round. Now, we have DRM and all other stuff in our hands what we wouldn't have with HD DVD.
If Sony would be wice, it would allow HD DVD to be movie standard, leaving Blu-ray for console games only and leave Blu-ray burning drives off, so there couldn't be piracy by that way. And then Microsoft and Nintendo could take Blu-Ray for their disk too and etc etc.
First MS develope "whitehat virus" what will "upgrade" your software. But they dont desing it to windows OS beucase there are these nasty evil anti-virus software.
They develope it for Linux/MacOSX/BSD platform.
Because MacOSX/BSD/Linux OS's can run on x86 platform, virus just checks is hardware x86 or not. If it isx86, it's takes some money from you account and then "upgrades" that computer to latest Microsoft windows.
And on court, Microsoft can just say "Hey, we told it will deliver upgraded to your software!"
Yah, but kernel isn't OS, it is just a kernel, OS is what is build around a kernel and Distribution is what is build around OS. Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS and all other distributions ain't different Operting systems, because the OS is same under Desktop enviroment, applications etc, when normal Linux users use Linux OS, actually they dont see OS (or kernel either), they only see desktop enviroment and it's applications and other applications what they install to OS or are already installed by default.
Windows desktop, IE and WMP software are part of os because those are integrated to OS and ain't different layers top of OS. This is problem that when users comes from windows side, they have learned that everything what is installed when they install windows/buy preinstalled, is "the os".
On Linux side, they dont understand that Operting system and distribution are different synonyms and distribution includes (gnu)linux OS (OS what includes Linux) and very big amount of different applications like Gnome/KDE, those applications what came with those and very much other software what distribution makers has chosen to be installed by default.
For normal user, it is same what OS is under theid KDE, Linux or BSD, because they dont notice that change if just all basic stuff works, like when they connect camera or ipod to their machine, it's same OS for them.
Yes, Linus controls only a Linux but for most users Linux is THE OS.
BUT new problem evolvs and it now looks like there is new "style" to say that "distributions are dead" and there ain't over 400 distributions, there are over 400 different Operating Systems what just use Linux kernel and just the only reason to call them as "Linux".
I have readed that few guys yelling around different forums that Ubuntu is Different OS than Debian or Fedora and OpenSUSE, because that OS name is Ubuntu. And reason for this is because when you boot your Computer, you see this big "Ubuntu" trademark there and when you open help center, there is big phrase "Ubuntu is complete Operating system".
And they even say that hardware/software manufactures should only build everything for Ubuntu because it's much better OS than any other OS on market. Oh yes, and they even say that OpenOffice.org and Firefox are part of OS like Internet Explorer and Windows Mediaplayer are on windows. Extacly, they say that everything what comes on installer media and installs by default, is part of OS and that makes those a different OS's too and not somekind "nerd distributions".
And one reason for that OS is that whole complete package, is that because all code what you write, can be run on every OS when you just compile it again from source (and claim is why Ubuntu is different OS than Fedora, is because you cant install Ubuntu binary on Fedora etc), like directX and all windows games could be run on all "linux based OS's" if developers just would compile them from source against Ubuntu or any other OS, no need to touch code..... and these guys, they claim they are coders...
And then there are these journalist who writes these colums, or what ever they do, never looking history or technical data why something is *something*.
"for scientific or educational use, and only when such use is not for profit."
And what is educational use? I think there is somewhere a law what tells it is for education when it is used on schools or any other official educational usage. But not on personal usage, what would still be illegal.
My point is simply that a browser can get 80% or more of the market without being bundled with an OS. There's no guarantee that IE usage will drop to a minority share just because it becomes unbundled from Windows.
Yes, browser CAN get 80% or more share without being integrated with OS.
But question is, CAN browser get 80% or more if (and when) competitor browser IS integrated to OS?
Netscape got 80% marketshare because none of browser did come bundled or integrated to OS. Netscape lost it's marketshare because Microsoft integrated browser to their OS what already had biggest market share.
30% (and here in finland biggest share) share is not that all firefox users has downloaded browser. Firefox comes bundled (not integrated!) with many distributions and by that way, has got bigger marketshare. Why? because you cannot get IE for GNU/Linux OS.
IMO Firefox share about 1/3 is GNU/Linux users and 2/3 are windows users so it has got better share by users who has downloaded it.
But they didn't download new browser because it was just "better", that share has come when Microsoft has those terrible times when all kind worms were "killing" Internet Explorer and users wanted more secure browser without pop-ups, without malware.
Without all kind crap for IE, i doupt that Firefox would got so big marketshare in firstplace. Now IE7 is bretty secure and it's seems that there aint big "wave" what would bring more Firefox users. Because windows users just dont have anykind reason to install firefox unless they need somekind firefox plugins, adblock aint one of them because Opera and IE has same ability, pop-up blocker is in every browser etc...
So IMO, Internet Explorer is still needed to get removed from windows, it can be bundled to OS installation media but is needed to install after Windows is installed, so if user has other browser, he can use it. And it would much better if ISP/ADSL/WLAN, every network device driver CD would come with firefox, opera and internet explorer and more can get installed to that CD if needed by other browser developers, and then Windows wouldn't come with IE bundled on Windows media and browser would be needed to get installed from one of network device/connection disk. Without network, you dont need browser or do you?
Yes, if Microsoft would like to compare Operating System, they should just compare it with OS what is GNU/Linux and leave all other applications what different distributions brings along and do compare then.
But that would just make Vista look terrible because their OS includes Internet Explorer, Windows Mediaplayer and all other applications because those are integrated to OS level.
But now Microsoft just compare three different Operating System, Windows Vista, MacOSX (Tiger or Leopard?) and GNU/Linux. And same time it compare Windows Vista for GNU/Linux Operating System two different distributions, Ubuntu and Red Hat, and claims Vista is more secure than all those "OS's" are! Ubuntu and Red Hat ain't OS's but Distributions (Even that distribution includes GNU/Linux OS but it is distribution because it includes all kind stuff more, than just a pure OS).
Mayby i should sell new OEM version of windows and i would bundle 3000 different software with Vista OS and then i would blame that Vista is less secure OS than Ubuntu or OpenSUSE!
This is just problem because Microsoft wants that normal users believe that different distributions are different OS's so it can do this kind studies to "proof" that MS OS is better and sell it again to profit!
But hey! I like that Vista is secure and i hope it will stay like that, because if most users would move to Vista, we all could benefit from that situation because we other OS's users (GNU/Linux, BSD or MacOSX) would get less spam and virus epidemics would drop etc etc.
Study is just wrong, Vista is less secure Operating system than GNU/Linux but Microsoft is right there that Vista does not have so much patches when comparing Vista Operating System and GNU/Linux Distribution!
Yes, now US goverment has "proof" that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan has WMD and can attack there or can show us how these countries did sell these documents to Iran and it is developing WMD.
Biggest threat to whole world is U.S and it's supporters "anti-terrorist" war itself!!
"How many of the billion or so users on this planet give a damn about the formal definition of an OS?"
Does it matter if 90% of humans thinks that world is flat and 10% knows it's sphere? Is it then right to call flat world as fact definition because most users say so?
I tought that reason to have definition was that everyone knows what are people talking about. Just like we have words and grammar, so everyone can understand what others mean when they says "a car", "house is on fire" or "you are idiot!".
And because we are talking about technology, it is very clear that we cannot take a definition what is already given for something and change it because most users just dont understand what it means because they dont even care why it is gave in first place. Thats why we have schools so we understand what world really is what why something is working as it is working.
I can almost make a bet that most students thinks that they dont have any use of math when they graduate. But still they use all that learned things whole their lives, even they would not ever calculate anything with numbers. They have learned to estimate ranges and weights etc.
And then we should start changing math definitions because most humans dont care or even know anything about math?
If most of U.S citizens believes that God is on their side because every goverment declaration ends to "...and God bless we all" or "God is on our side" etc, it just dont make any reasons to kill other people because US citizens believe that a God has told them to do so or God agree that their terrorism against humanity is blessed. Because all countries has somekind religion, it dosn't make sense that their God is better than others. But hey! It's just religion stuff and not technology:-D
"Firefox has proven that is possible to break out and actually compete with MS products, but they had to establish name recognition with consumers."
I dont think that Firefox would own that market share what it currently has if IE6 would not be infected so easily with spyware and Windows would not be so infected by worms. Without all those big security holes, i dont think no one would care what browser their system has.
Firefox came popular by good timing (with luck). IE5 > IE6 were so bad by security that those who first time made sure their computers are safe, changed to better browser and hacked add ons to it. Then these users converted other users to use firefox because of security. That time Opera was under payment and users wanted free as beer because their unsecure browser was "free" too to them.
If firefox would start now competition against IE, it would crush against wall as Opera because Opera ain't coming up because it is secure ("most secure" browser for windows platform) or because it is free. It aint coming up either because it has widgets and it's fast to render. "No one" cares about those things. Firefox just was lucky to be in right place and right time and got good welcome from windows user to save their unsecure internet.
Only thing what matters for users who dont really know what difference is with firefox, opera and internet explorer, dont change internet explorer away because it is already installed. Why they would like to fix something what ain't broken? IE7 in current state is good enough to proof every normal user that they dont need other browser.
If browser would be taken away and first time when user opens PC and gets pop up asking IE, Opera or Firefox, they would need to choose and then it would be just matter of product name, icon and how familiar it is.
If we would like to have every customer to install browser what is good for them, they would only get list of things what browsers brings and they would choose about those options and then in last state, they would know what browser is best for them.
But, we live in this world where Microsoft has monopoly and because internet explorer (and other software) is bundled to windows, normal users dont care unless things gets REALLY bad for them.
What, you need to download something to your mac and then INSTALL it?
This kind software has be there long time ago and there is nothing new to see here. Market share is still smaller than GNU/Linux and it is not having this kind problems, wait, it has.
Come back again when F-secure and others have proof for worm or virus what works like windows platform, automatically.
Yes, bundling mediaplayer to OS to get in mediaplayer market, is illegal if company has example > 85% share of OS market. (If company has ruled to be a monopoly by goverment etc).
Apple isn't doing anything illegal if they bundle image manipulation program to their OS and it is better than photoshop. It's not illegal even if that program would not get removed from OS. Why? Because Apple doesn't have monopoly. Then if on next year Apple gets monopoly on OS market, they dont need to remove that image manipulation application if they dont use it as advance. But if then Apple adds non-linear PRO video editor to their OS, they use OS market as advance and it is illegal.
If Apple would like to play sure for that image manipulation software dont bring any problems to corporation, they would remove it from OS and have it as Add-on on same media but it ain't installed by default. Then they could do what ever they want because every user has option to install that image manipulation application or get another one. And this keeps competition open for everyone.
So if Microsoft would now like to get away from these EU accusations, it would be enought just to un-bundle Internet Explorer and Windows mediaplayer from OS. They can come with install media but should not be installed by default but later, like if user goes to add/remove panel and clicks from there IE + WMP to have installed. This way user/OEM manufacture can sell/add/remove any other sofware instead IE/WMP/Windows Movie maker etc and all other smaller companies could make deals with bigger OEM sellers.
Reasons why just Microsoft is under looking glass? Because Microsoft is monopoly. If one company can control market how it likes, it's bad for everyone. That's why many things are allowed by non-monopoly companies but not for monopoly.
What would happend if Microsoft would need to open API's for everyone (not even single secret API) and IE + WMP and other would be add-ons what would need to be installed by later? It would force Microsoft to develope those applications much more to have better reasons to get their applications installed.
Now when Microsoft has OS Monopoly, it has bundled and integrated many applications to their OS (integrated to kernel or to libc) and has build many technologies based them, Micorosoft has got that way a big foothold to many different markets, like web browsing and DRM music market's (not so big as Apple). And by those technologies, Microsoft can force user to install Microsoft Windows OS.
Example, if user want to use WMA DRM files, it is needed to own Microsoft windows because windows mediaplayer and use it. There would not be problem if windows media player would be available for any other OS's like GNU/Linux, BSD and MacOSX and WMP would be allowed to remove from Windows too. But then MS would need to develope that application more and push resources and lots of money there and it could slow down money flow to shareholders and they would be unhappy and big boys could possible get fired etc etc.
So mayby everyone could now thing how things would be if OS market share would be on current state but instead Apple invented iPod/iTunes, Microsoft would done that and have same market share as iTunes/iPod has with Windows Mediaplayer and Zune.....
Every PC would come with Windows (like now) and with Windows Mediaplayer (like now) and how easily it would be to get those market? Has Microsoft get good start with Zune on portable mediaplayers where iPod rules? No... Has GNU/Linux got good start with desktop market's? No.... What if Apple would start selling iPods as same start as MS started to sell Zune, would it be clear that iPod gets so big market share because it is so much better or is there reason that Apple started that so long time ago? I thing it would be samekind war as HD DVD and Blu-Ray.
Later on, Microsoft will fall and it might be BIG one or it can be nice one where MS market share drops somewhere 50% and then MS can again do what they want, if they just can be competive for others... mayby not....
a) GNU/Linux ain't monopoly b) And cannot be a monopoly because there are _many_ corporations who distribute GNU/Linux c) GNU/Linux is open source, every single person or corporation can distribute (sell or give) it. d) GNU/Linux is pure OS and distributions are whole software systems where is GNU/Linux OS+software e) No one owns Open Source as Microsoft owns Windows XP or Windows Vista. f) Anyone can package own distribution or build own software for GNU/Linux and sell own software with that distribution or for those distributions.
Open Source is so important thing on this case because it just prevents that no one cannot get monopoly on that OS market. Different thing in example is, if Adobe ports Photoshop to GNU/Linux, packages own disribution and sells this whole thing as Adobe "OS". They can get monopoly on graphic software area but not on OS area, because they cannot take away GPL license.
Just like if now Red Hat would get monopoly, CentOS is exactly same as RedHat but it would be free to use and everyone could use their hardware where RH is and get support from somewhere else.
GPL and Open Source just prevents that one corporation can get monopoly because that corporation cannot control source code.
This is just great! If we get Internet Explorer, Windows Mediaplayer, Windows shell (GUI) and few others ripped off from Operating System, we would get a great platform.
No, this dont mean that Microsoft could not sell them or develope those. Just that those users who dont need a Microsoft own webbrowser or a WMP. Can remove them. OEM manufactures can install Opera or Firefox or OTHER webbrowser instead IE and VLC or any other mediaplayer instead of WMP.
"An operating system (OS) is the software that manages the sharing of the resources of a computer and provides programmers with an interface used to access those resources. An operating system processes system data and user input, and responds by allocating and managing tasks and internal system resources as a service to users and programs of the system. At the foundation of all system software, an operating system performs basic tasks such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing system requests, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking and managing file systems. Most operating systems come with an application that provides a user interface for managing the operating system, such as a command line interpreter or graphical user interface. The operating system forms a platform for other system software and for application software."
And what we have left if we remove all applications what dosn't remove any of these definition parts? Just pure OS.
It would be much better if a Microsoft would become as two corporation, other to build and sell basic OS and other to sell all other software like WMP, IE, Office, Games, Outlook etc etc. Together user could get windows as it is now and every one would be happy.
And those who needs just windows OS, would get Operating System and nothing more. They could install just their games to it or software what are needed and use computer happily.
"Let's say you want to show the pictures you took of something to your family. Instead of finding a cord or trying to set up W-USB (which I assume requires authentication like bluetooth since its operates of fairly large distances) you just put the camera on the TV and everything works."
Instead you just would sit on couch, turn ON your camera and change television channel for AV to get pictures shown and same time other computers on range notice camera and allows picture downloads if needed.
Sony is a multimedia market a$$hole as Microsoft is IT market a$$hole.
What if ONCE in a lifetime Sony would not reinvent ALREADY IN USE standards by own technology and market it, instead Sony could just come outside and play with other kids. As could Microsoft come out and play nicely with other kids!
Because OS is GNU/Linux, there is since no MS Tax but because distribution is SUSE, there might be somekind connection to Microsoft. But hey! Who cares, that laptop is available to customers by default running a GNU/Linux and not Windows XP or Windows Vista Operating system.
Then when you are telling someone that what is Open Source community and what is GNU/Linux and why it is called Linux and what really is Linux as kernel and what is Operating system, what does mean "Distribution". Somekind troll comes out yelling that "Distribution" is meaningless because distribution = Operating system and there is currently over 400 different Operating system what just use Linux as kernel and normal user cannot install applications by same way to fedora as to Ubuntu and how Operating system really is everything what comes with that installation media (on CD/DVD) and Operating system includes support, brand, different installation method (via RPM or DEB files). And then troll starts telling that how open source has nothing to do with different "Operating systems" (Distributions) and even that GNU/Linux is very modular, operating system is everything and operating system includes web browser, office applications, multimediaplayer etc etc.
And then there you are trying to tell for user who dont know a shit about computers, what really is operating system (linux + libc + bash + few others) and what difference is Microsoft Operating systems and different GNU/Linux distributions. And because it is much easier for new user joe to believe troll because he gives good examples like "diffferent OS is with different interface and different support by different companies" and game is lost. Then "new user joe" sees over 400 different OS and not whole community working together, but against each others and then joe installs windows because it is so easy to know what operating system you have and you get support easily.
Windows file copy ain't always synced, i have many times copied files to usb stick and removed when meter hits 100% and gets closed. Then moved stick to other OS and noticed that files are corrupt because i didnt unmount it first.
I have done same thing with GNU/Linux and it has done same thing.
What is difference? It is almost 2x faster to copy files on same PC from HDD > USB on GNU/LInux than on windows. But, when i umount USB, it's gets umounted without delay and all files on stick is as should be. On windows side, it just takes few clicks more to umount and it takes few seconds. I have seen few GNU/Linux machines where it toke few seconds too but then were transferred about 200Gb data and it was much faster than on windows (backups).
Windows does check something on that transferr what GNU/Linux does not or does just much faster.
Slashdot Mirror
"The author is off base, Linux isnt free when presented with the same features as Windows ie codecs. Thats why we have $$$ distributions that sort all that out for the consumer. What is an issue are people downloading free versions of Linux then being stupidly surprised that the $$$ bits are missing." I bet you live on USA where you cant get those as free. Oh well, all other countries are ahead US when it's about a freedom.
"and there's no way to slipstream or download those for the other 3 computers I'm installing later..."
A nit:
Just copy downloaded updates from that machine what you just updated, to other PC's with CD/DVD/ExternalHD/USB-stick and command update from there.
No need to download all again.
If you want to slipstream those, many distributions already offers a "OEM" disk, so, Ubuntu isn't any different Distribution, get OEM disk (alternative), run it as Live mode (no HD install needed), upgrade it as you like (updates, new software, remove unwanted, configurate OS and desktop/software as you want), generate install disk ISO and burn it to CD and install other PC's via it. You get everything just like you want.
PCLinuxOS distribution offers same but it's called "Remaster" and many other popular distribution does same, after you have installed OS, no need to update everything, just newest updates what has come after a remastered installer disk...
If you just know on what environment you are working, everything is easy. Easier than on Windows environment usually on today.
Sorry, my mistake, somehow dropped "we have MORE DRM and all other stuff..." HD DVD just have one while Blu-ray has more than one technology to prevent users do what they like to do with their disk. I dont like it... and yes, it's not a standard, it's just a possibility to add DRM to disk if wanted, and most producers wants to do that.
The Good news, format war is over, the end.
The Bad news, better format lost the war, the end.
It's bretty typical that bad choises will always win the first round.
Now, we have DRM and all other stuff in our hands what we wouldn't have with HD DVD.
If Sony would be wice, it would allow HD DVD to be movie standard, leaving Blu-ray for console games only and leave Blu-ray burning drives off, so there couldn't be piracy by that way.
And then Microsoft and Nintendo could take Blu-Ray for their disk too and etc etc.
No, this is great idea, Really, listen up!
First MS develope "whitehat virus" what will "upgrade" your software. But they dont desing it to windows OS beucase there are these nasty evil anti-virus software.
They develope it for Linux/MacOSX/BSD platform.
Because MacOSX/BSD/Linux OS's can run on x86 platform, virus just checks is hardware x86 or not. If it isx86, it's takes some money from you account and then "upgrades" that computer to latest Microsoft windows.
And on court, Microsoft can just say "Hey, we told it will deliver upgraded to your software!"
Yah, but kernel isn't OS, it is just a kernel, OS is what is build around a kernel and Distribution is what is build around OS.
Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS and all other distributions ain't different Operting systems, because the OS is same under Desktop enviroment, applications etc, when normal Linux users use Linux OS, actually they dont see OS (or kernel either), they only see desktop enviroment and it's applications and other applications what they install to OS or are already installed by default.
Windows desktop, IE and WMP software are part of os because those are integrated to OS and ain't different layers top of OS.
This is problem that when users comes from windows side, they have learned that everything what is installed when they install windows/buy preinstalled, is "the os".
On Linux side, they dont understand that Operting system and distribution are different synonyms and distribution includes (gnu)linux OS (OS what includes Linux) and very big amount of different applications like Gnome/KDE, those applications what came with those and very much other software what distribution makers has chosen to be installed by default.
For normal user, it is same what OS is under theid KDE, Linux or BSD, because they dont notice that change if just all basic stuff works, like when they connect camera or ipod to their machine, it's same OS for them.
Yes, Linus controls only a Linux but for most users Linux is THE OS.
BUT new problem evolvs and it now looks like there is new "style" to say that "distributions are dead" and there ain't over 400 distributions, there are over 400 different Operating Systems what just use Linux kernel and just the only reason to call them as "Linux".
I have readed that few guys yelling around different forums that Ubuntu is Different OS than Debian or Fedora and OpenSUSE, because that OS name is Ubuntu.
And reason for this is because when you boot your Computer, you see this big "Ubuntu" trademark there and when you open help center, there is big phrase "Ubuntu is complete Operating system".
And they even say that hardware/software manufactures should only build everything for Ubuntu because it's much better OS than any other OS on market.
Oh yes, and they even say that OpenOffice.org and Firefox are part of OS like Internet Explorer and Windows Mediaplayer are on windows. Extacly, they say that everything what comes on installer media and installs by default, is part of OS and that makes those a different OS's too and not somekind "nerd distributions".
And one reason for that OS is that whole complete package, is that because all code what you write, can be run on every OS when you just compile it again from source (and claim is why Ubuntu is different OS than Fedora, is because you cant install Ubuntu binary on Fedora etc), like directX and all windows games could be run on all "linux based OS's" if developers just would compile them from source against Ubuntu or any other OS, no need to touch code..... and these guys, they claim they are coders...
And then there are these journalist who writes these colums, or what ever they do, never looking history or technical data why something is *something*.
"for scientific or educational use, and only when such use is not for profit."
And what is educational use? I think there is somewhere a law what tells it is for education when it is used on schools or any other official educational usage. But not on personal usage, what would still be illegal.
Yes, browser CAN get 80% or more share without being integrated with OS. But question is, CAN browser get 80% or more if (and when) competitor browser IS integrated to OS?
Netscape got 80% marketshare because none of browser did come bundled or integrated to OS. Netscape lost it's marketshare because Microsoft integrated browser to their OS what already had biggest market share.
30% (and here in finland biggest share) share is not that all firefox users has downloaded browser. Firefox comes bundled (not integrated!) with many distributions and by that way, has got bigger marketshare. Why? because you cannot get IE for GNU/Linux OS. IMO Firefox share about 1/3 is GNU/Linux users and 2/3 are windows users so it has got better share by users who has downloaded it.
But they didn't download new browser because it was just "better", that share has come when Microsoft has those terrible times when all kind worms were "killing" Internet Explorer and users wanted more secure browser without pop-ups, without malware.
Without all kind crap for IE, i doupt that Firefox would got so big marketshare in firstplace. Now IE7 is bretty secure and it's seems that there aint big "wave" what would bring more Firefox users. Because windows users just dont have anykind reason to install firefox unless they need somekind firefox plugins, adblock aint one of them because Opera and IE has same ability, pop-up blocker is in every browser etc...
So IMO, Internet Explorer is still needed to get removed from windows, it can be bundled to OS installation media but is needed to install after Windows is installed, so if user has other browser, he can use it. And it would much better if ISP/ADSL/WLAN, every network device driver CD would come with firefox, opera and internet explorer and more can get installed to that CD if needed by other browser developers, and then Windows wouldn't come with IE bundled on Windows media and browser would be needed to get installed from one of network device/connection disk. Without network, you dont need browser or do you?
Yes, i would like to know what malware it is, someone has a inside information?
Yes, if Microsoft would like to compare Operating System, they should just compare it with OS what is GNU/Linux and leave all other applications what different distributions brings along and do compare then.
But that would just make Vista look terrible because their OS includes Internet Explorer, Windows Mediaplayer and all other applications because those are integrated to OS level.
But now Microsoft just compare three different Operating System, Windows Vista, MacOSX (Tiger or Leopard?) and GNU/Linux. And same time it compare Windows Vista for GNU/Linux Operating System two different distributions, Ubuntu and Red Hat, and claims Vista is more secure than all those "OS's" are! Ubuntu and Red Hat ain't OS's but Distributions (Even that distribution includes GNU/Linux OS but it is distribution because it includes all kind stuff more, than just a pure OS).
Mayby i should sell new OEM version of windows and i would bundle 3000 different software with Vista OS and then i would blame that Vista is less secure OS than Ubuntu or OpenSUSE!
This is just problem because Microsoft wants that normal users believe that different distributions are different OS's so it can do this kind studies to "proof" that MS OS is better and sell it again to profit!
But hey! I like that Vista is secure and i hope it will stay like that, because if most users would move to Vista, we all could benefit from that situation because we other OS's users (GNU/Linux, BSD or MacOSX) would get less spam and virus epidemics would drop etc etc.
Study is just wrong, Vista is less secure Operating system than GNU/Linux but Microsoft is right there that Vista does not have so much patches when comparing Vista Operating System and GNU/Linux Distribution!
[Offtopic]
It Is Very Funny Style to Write Topic. Mayby Capitalized Letters Makes It Cooler (or Should I Say It Kooler?)!
[/Offtopic]
Yes, now US goverment has "proof" that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan has WMD and can attack there or can show us how these countries did sell these documents to Iran and it is developing WMD.
Biggest threat to whole world is U.S and it's supporters "anti-terrorist" war itself!!
"How many of the billion or so users on this planet give a damn about the formal definition of an OS?"
:-D
Does it matter if 90% of humans thinks that world is flat and 10% knows it's sphere?
Is it then right to call flat world as fact definition because most users say so?
I tought that reason to have definition was that everyone knows what are people talking about. Just like we have words and grammar, so everyone can understand what others mean when they says "a car", "house is on fire" or "you are idiot!".
And because we are talking about technology, it is very clear that we cannot take a definition what is already given for something and change it because most users just dont understand what it means because they dont even care why it is gave in first place. Thats why we have schools so we understand what world really is what why something is working as it is working.
I can almost make a bet that most students thinks that they dont have any use of math when they graduate. But still they use all that learned things whole their lives, even they would not ever calculate anything with numbers. They have learned to estimate ranges and weights etc.
And then we should start changing math definitions because most humans dont care or even know anything about math?
If most of U.S citizens believes that God is on their side because every goverment declaration ends to "...and God bless we all" or "God is on our side" etc, it just dont make any reasons to kill other people because US citizens believe that a God has told them to do so or God agree that their terrorism against humanity is blessed. Because all countries has somekind religion, it dosn't make sense that their God is better than others. But hey! It's just religion stuff and not technology
"Firefox has proven that is possible to break out and actually compete with MS products, but they had to establish name recognition with consumers."
I dont think that Firefox would own that market share what it currently has if IE6 would not be infected so easily with spyware and Windows would not be so infected by worms. Without all those big security holes, i dont think no one would care what browser their system has.
Firefox came popular by good timing (with luck). IE5 > IE6 were so bad by security that those who first time made sure their computers are safe, changed to better browser and hacked add ons to it. Then these users converted other users to use firefox because of security. That time Opera was under payment and users wanted free as beer because their unsecure browser was "free" too to them.
If firefox would start now competition against IE, it would crush against wall as Opera because Opera ain't coming up because it is secure ("most secure" browser for windows platform) or because it is free. It aint coming up either because it has widgets and it's fast to render. "No one" cares about those things. Firefox just was lucky to be in right place and right time and got good welcome from windows user to save their unsecure internet.
Only thing what matters for users who dont really know what difference is with firefox, opera and internet explorer, dont change internet explorer away because it is already installed. Why they would like to fix something what ain't broken? IE7 in current state is good enough to proof every normal user that they dont need other browser.
If browser would be taken away and first time when user opens PC and gets pop up asking IE, Opera or Firefox, they would need to choose and then it would be just matter of product name, icon and how familiar it is.
If we would like to have every customer to install browser what is good for them, they would only get list of things what browsers brings and they would choose about those options and then in last state, they would know what browser is best for them.
But, we live in this world where Microsoft has monopoly and because internet explorer (and other software) is bundled to windows, normal users dont care unless things gets REALLY bad for them.
What, you need to download something to your mac and then INSTALL it?
This kind software has be there long time ago and there is nothing new to see here.
Market share is still smaller than GNU/Linux and it is not having this kind problems, wait, it has.
Come back again when F-secure and others have proof for worm or virus what works like windows platform, automatically.
Yes, bundling mediaplayer to OS to get in mediaplayer market, is illegal if company has example > 85% share of OS market. (If company has ruled to be a monopoly by goverment etc).
Apple isn't doing anything illegal if they bundle image manipulation program to their OS and it is better than photoshop. It's not illegal even if that program would not get removed from OS. Why? Because Apple doesn't have monopoly. Then if on next year Apple gets monopoly on OS market, they dont need to remove that image manipulation application if they dont use it as advance. But if then Apple adds non-linear PRO video editor to their OS, they use OS market as advance and it is illegal.
If Apple would like to play sure for that image manipulation software dont bring any problems to corporation, they would remove it from OS and have it as Add-on on same media but it ain't installed by default. Then they could do what ever they want because every user has option to install that image manipulation application or get another one. And this keeps competition open for everyone.
So if Microsoft would now like to get away from these EU accusations, it would be enought just to un-bundle Internet Explorer and Windows mediaplayer from OS. They can come with install media but should not be installed by default but later, like if user goes to add/remove panel and clicks from there IE + WMP to have installed. This way user/OEM manufacture can sell/add/remove any other sofware instead IE/WMP/Windows Movie maker etc and all other smaller companies could make deals with bigger OEM sellers.
Reasons why just Microsoft is under looking glass? Because Microsoft is monopoly. If one company can control market how it likes, it's bad for everyone. That's why many things are allowed by non-monopoly companies but not for monopoly.
What would happend if Microsoft would need to open API's for everyone (not even single secret API) and IE + WMP and other would be add-ons what would need to be installed by later? It would force Microsoft to develope those applications much more to have better reasons to get their applications installed.
Now when Microsoft has OS Monopoly, it has bundled and integrated many applications to their OS (integrated to kernel or to libc) and has build many technologies based them, Micorosoft has got that way a big foothold to many different markets, like web browsing and DRM music market's (not so big as Apple). And by those technologies, Microsoft can force user to install Microsoft Windows OS.
Example, if user want to use WMA DRM files, it is needed to own Microsoft windows because windows mediaplayer and use it. There would not be problem if windows media player would be available for any other OS's like GNU/Linux, BSD and MacOSX and WMP would be allowed to remove from Windows too. But then MS would need to develope that application more and push resources and lots of money there and it could slow down money flow to shareholders and they would be unhappy and big boys could possible get fired etc etc.
So mayby everyone could now thing how things would be if OS market share would be on current state but instead Apple invented iPod/iTunes, Microsoft would done that and have same market share as iTunes/iPod has with Windows Mediaplayer and Zune.....
Every PC would come with Windows (like now) and with Windows Mediaplayer (like now) and how easily it would be to get those market? Has Microsoft get good start with Zune on portable mediaplayers where iPod rules? No... Has GNU/Linux got good start with desktop market's? No....
What if Apple would start selling iPods as same start as MS started to sell Zune, would it be clear that iPod gets so big market share because it is so much better or is there reason that Apple started that so long time ago? I thing it would be samekind war as HD DVD and Blu-Ray.
Later on, Microsoft will fall and it might be BIG one or it can be nice one where MS market share drops somewhere 50% and then MS can again do what they want, if they just can be competive for others... mayby not....
GNU/Linux is much more difference because:
a) GNU/Linux ain't monopoly
b) And cannot be a monopoly because there are _many_ corporations who distribute GNU/Linux
c) GNU/Linux is open source, every single person or corporation can distribute (sell or give) it.
d) GNU/Linux is pure OS and distributions are whole software systems where is GNU/Linux OS+software
e) No one owns Open Source as Microsoft owns Windows XP or Windows Vista.
f) Anyone can package own distribution or build own software for GNU/Linux and sell own software with that distribution or for those distributions.
Open Source is so important thing on this case because it just prevents that no one cannot get monopoly on that OS market. Different thing in example is, if Adobe ports Photoshop to GNU/Linux, packages own disribution and sells this whole thing as Adobe "OS". They can get monopoly on graphic software area but not on OS area, because they cannot take away GPL license.
Just like if now Red Hat would get monopoly, CentOS is exactly same as RedHat but it would be free to use and everyone could use their hardware where RH is and get support from somewhere else.
GPL and Open Source just prevents that one corporation can get monopoly because that corporation cannot control source code.
This is just great! If we get Internet Explorer, Windows Mediaplayer, Windows shell (GUI) and few others ripped off from Operating System, we would get a great platform.
No, this dont mean that Microsoft could not sell them or develope those. Just that those users who dont need a Microsoft own webbrowser or a WMP. Can remove them. OEM manufactures can install Opera or Firefox or OTHER webbrowser instead IE and VLC or any other mediaplayer instead of WMP.
How many remembers what is definition of Operating System?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
"An operating system (OS) is the software that manages the sharing of the resources of a computer and provides programmers with an interface used to access those resources. An operating system processes system data and user input, and responds by allocating and managing tasks and internal system resources as a service to users and programs of the system. At the foundation of all system software, an operating system performs basic tasks such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing system requests, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking and managing file systems. Most operating systems come with an application that provides a user interface for managing the operating system, such as a command line interpreter or graphical user interface. The operating system forms a platform for other system software and for application software."
And what we have left if we remove all applications what dosn't remove any of these definition parts? Just pure OS.
It would be much better if a Microsoft would become as two corporation, other to build and sell basic OS and other to sell all other software like WMP, IE, Office, Games, Outlook etc etc. Together user could get windows as it is now and every one would be happy.
And those who needs just windows OS, would get Operating System and nothing more. They could install just their games to it or software what are needed and use computer happily.
"Let's say you want to show the pictures you took of something to your family. Instead of finding a cord or trying to set up W-USB (which I assume requires authentication like bluetooth since its operates of fairly large distances) you just put the camera on the TV and everything works."
Instead you just would sit on couch, turn ON your camera and change television channel for AV to get pictures shown and same time other computers on range notice camera and allows picture downloads if needed.
Sony is a multimedia market a$$hole as Microsoft is IT market a$$hole.
What if ONCE in a lifetime Sony would not reinvent ALREADY IN USE standards by own technology and market it, instead Sony could just come outside and play with other kids. As could Microsoft come out and play nicely with other kids!
Because OS is GNU/Linux, there is since no MS Tax but because distribution is SUSE, there might be somekind connection to Microsoft. But hey! Who cares, that laptop is available to customers by default running a GNU/Linux and not Windows XP or Windows Vista Operating system.
Then when you are telling someone that what is Open Source community and what is GNU/Linux and why it is called Linux and what really is Linux as kernel and what is Operating system, what does mean "Distribution". Somekind troll comes out yelling that "Distribution" is meaningless because distribution = Operating system and there is currently over 400 different Operating system what just use Linux as kernel and normal user cannot install applications by same way to fedora as to Ubuntu and how Operating system really is everything what comes with that installation media (on CD/DVD) and Operating system includes support, brand, different installation method (via RPM or DEB files). And then troll starts telling that how open source has nothing to do with different "Operating systems" (Distributions) and even that GNU/Linux is very modular, operating system is everything and operating system includes web browser, office applications, multimediaplayer etc etc.
And then there you are trying to tell for user who dont know a shit about computers, what really is operating system (linux + libc + bash + few others) and what difference is Microsoft Operating systems and different GNU/Linux distributions.
And because it is much easier for new user joe to believe troll because he gives good examples like "diffferent OS is with different interface and different support by different companies" and game is lost. Then "new user joe" sees over 400 different OS and not whole community working together, but against each others and then joe installs windows because it is so easy to know what operating system you have and you get support easily.
Windows file copy ain't always synced, i have many times copied files to usb stick and removed when meter hits 100% and gets closed. Then moved stick to other OS and noticed that files are corrupt because i didnt unmount it first.
I have done same thing with GNU/Linux and it has done same thing.
What is difference? It is almost 2x faster to copy files on same PC from HDD > USB on GNU/LInux than on windows. But, when i umount USB, it's gets umounted without delay and all files on stick is as should be. On windows side, it just takes few clicks more to umount and it takes few seconds. I have seen few GNU/Linux machines where it toke few seconds too but then were transferred about 200Gb data and it was much faster than on windows (backups).
Windows does check something on that transferr what GNU/Linux does not or does just much faster.
It's open software platform what runs top of GNU/Linux OS and android is founded by Google http://code.google.com/android/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm6Ju0xhUW8
Does someone know is it possible to run android top of other OS like BSD?
Okay, Disney is coming to be a Microsoft client, even Jobs is sitting on Disney? Why isn't Steve offering Apple servers and software for Disney?