The funny thing is, once you step outside the bubble that is slashdot, people are generally happy with Vista. I run Vista at home and work, and considering how often I reboot, it could take 5 minutes and I wouldn't care. The boot time issues and other Vista issues is greatly exasperated here on slashdot, in almost equal proportion that which Linux shortcomings are overlooked.
What is the big deal with boot times?? Really?? With all the catching up to do in the desktop arena, this is what they're focusing on?? No wonder desktop Linux has fizzled out. What a joke. You have a display manager that doesn't have a proper driver model, the only decent driver is a blob that is a hack to bypass x.orgs own facilities to get full blown acceleration, and they're focusing on BOOT TIMES??
The outrage! I'm not sure why I'm mad, all I know is that slashdot posted another MS article and my natural reaction is to be pissed! I will not read TFA or actually research for an informed opinion, as it may extinguish my righteous indignation and as a result my day will be far less interesting. I will rant on about Microsoft crippling their software which is intended for poor and developing nations at a fraction of the cost of a standard license. I will make the assumption that it is intended for mass consumption, or that it will be available for purchase off the shelf. I am a tool. I am a slashdot drone.
Create an anti-self-fulfilling prophecy by making anyone feel bad for doing what they should do. E.g., "pointing out this fact will get me modded as a troll..."
I'll be the first to admit, you are absolutely right. I've found that by omitting such statements, I will get modded troll. So, in the end, do you blame me?
Frankly, I'm getting tired of the overhead associated with Windows
Look, if you have a lean system, XP will run just as good as any equally featured version of Ubuntu. Vista was never meant for older systems, and I like the fact that it puts my ram to use. I have 4 gigs, 2693 megs are in use. Any application I typically open is cached and will open immediately. I never understood the Linux users pride in watching their ram go unused. As far as overall UI responsiveness, I've never felt linux was better than Windows on equally powered hardware. I think your point is largely irrelevant.
You can't call something that is EVER CHANGING like Linux stagnant
Yes I can. Linux, the kernel, is constantly changing. Which, to be honest, isn't a very good thing when you want mass adoption of a Linux-based desktop OS.
I take it, then, that you've never tried Linux, or at least, not recently. I've been using Fedora Linux as my only OS, now, for over a year.
I have, and I've used it daily as a desktop OS, as a highly technical person who has all the facilities required to get the most out of it. At the end of the day, I'd still use XP/Vista just because, to steal from Apple, everything "just works." All my hardware is supported. All my software works. It is *far* easier to develop for (which is my biggest issue with Linux). I don't hold an allegiance to any software license or company. I've even put recent (as in, the most recent) version of Ubuntu on a relatives computer whose main use is simply internet. After a week they wanted Windows back.
So he's asking people to get a recent Ubuntu build instead of Vista?
It's getting pretty comical, watching Linux zealots cling onto the idea that Ubuntu is anywhere near production quality (for the desktop), let alone better than XP/Vista. Sure, pointing out this fact will get me modded troll and just perpetuate your false perceptions, but that's what slashdot is all about -- holding Linux back by failing to recognize its shortcomings and the delusional thinking that the competition is inferior. It's paradoxical and I would find it funny if I didn't want Linux on the desktop to succeed.
The overall lack of objectivity and the cynicism toward anything Microsoft displayed by the slashdot crowd is a stunning display of ignorance. You are pigeon-holed by a flawed ideology, and as Microsoft (and Apple) continue to evolve their products Linux remains stagnant. The Microsoft bashing used to be relevant, but is now nothing more than echoed sentiments which are now largely baseless. Linux is the joke now. You are in denial. The first step to recovery is to recognize you have a problem. And maybe, just maybe, to recognize that Microsoft has a point here.
Overall it seems to me that Apple, following in Microsoft's steps, doesn't care all that much about security
Vista implements security features not yet seen in Linux or OS X that make it inherently more secure than the latter two systems. Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) was quoted as the difference maker in the pwn2own contest, according to the hacker who took down OS X within minutes. Also quoted was IE8's sand boxing (process per tab) which behaves much like Chrome, although I think IE8 implemented it first. I know this is slashdot, but for the sake of objectivity, give credit where credit is due.
There is no such thing as an "average" user. You must also consider that there are typically more than one user to a computer. Also, the fact that you say most users would be fine with Linux if all they needed was Firefox and Flash is certainly no testament to Linux. If anything it's an ironic statement, to say this "free and open" operating system is just fine in a limited capacity.
The reason Linux hasn't really caught on yet is mostly unavailability, in my opinion.
Linux hasn't gone anywhere because it's a terrible platform for ISV's to develop on. OSS software cannot replace commercial software completely, and as such, until GNU/Linux makes an effort to make life easier for commercial developers, Linux on the desktop will never amount to anything.
If the superiority of Mac OS X was relevant to the majority of home computer users
I love how you say this as if it is implied truth. My experience has shown that Mac users tend to delude themselves into believing OS X is way better than it is. They seem to overlook its many shortcomings because to recognize them would be blasphemous or something. I used OS X as my primary desktop for two years. The one thing going for it is that it's pretty. Other than that, it's unnecessarily slow, has a shitty filesystem, is no more stable than XP and certainly not Vista, always had issues sleeping and waking, ilife was buggy (specifically iPhoto), is only secure through obscurity (as we've seen with the recent pwn2own contest).
If you really want to know why OS X has a small marketshare, it's because it only appeals to people who want to take far more pride in a hardware company than anyone should, and Apple gives them that outlet with trendy, flashy products. Everybody else just wants to go about their day, using whatever is most convenient, easy and accessible.
The funny thing about Wisconsin is it is very blue collar and conservative in large part... and then you have Madison, considered to be one of the most liberal cities in the country.
Moz Corp doesn't really give a crap about Linux, they make their coin on Windows.
Actually, the real problem is that GNU/Linux doesn't care about developers. There is no standardization and antiquated development tools. No attempt to maintain backwards compatibility. And then the kicker of course, a negligible user base. Where does this sense of entitlement come from?
The problem with marketing Linux, or at least *Linux* people marketing Linux, is that they seem to think that your typical layperson will place value in the same things that a technical Linux user does.
What we have here is an overly-vague advert that places emphasis on it being "free and open" and "choices." A typical end-user does not care about these things. They want a complete, integrated product that works. Free and open means little if nothing to these people.
Where people advocating the wider adoption of Linux truly fail is in realizing what people want, and instead trying to tell them what they want and what they should place value in. What makes Linux so great for some people is what makes it less adoptable for most. The real question is, does your desire for wider Linux adoption trump your desire for an loosely coupled OS with little integration and many choices?
PEOPLE like YOU give linux a BAD name because you SOUND like an IDIOT and don't make COMPELLING arguments, just spit TIRED, NON-FACTUAL rhetoric that has very LITTLE to do with the SUBJECT at hand.
They fielded a loser OS at a time in computing history that they really needed a home run.
You don't get it. Vista shipped as a good operating system. Where Vista got its bad rep was driver support. In overhauling the driver model from XP->Vista, many Vista drivers were immature and unstable. This reflected poorly on Vista, fair or not. Since then, drivers in Vista have improved significantly, however, the negative stigma persists. Windows 7 isn't so much a new operating system as it is a re-branding of Vista. The driver model is the same, therefore Windows 7 will be perceived from the start as a good OS, just as Microsoft intends.
There really is nothing compared to VS, and yes, I've tried Mono.
Comparing VS to Mono is like comparing apples and oranges. One is an IDE, one is a framework. FWIW, Mono is great. But I think what you were implying is that there is no IDE that comes close to Visual Studio, which I'd definitely agree with.
Slashdot Mirror
The funny thing is, once you step outside the bubble that is slashdot, people are generally happy with Vista. I run Vista at home and work, and considering how often I reboot, it could take 5 minutes and I wouldn't care. The boot time issues and other Vista issues is greatly exasperated here on slashdot, in almost equal proportion that which Linux shortcomings are overlooked.
Awesome, yet another abstraction layer (*cough*HACK*cough*) to glue together the pieces. Why don't you brag about pulse audio while you're at it?
You probably mean the pre-GEM drivers...
No, I mean every driver except Nvidia drivers, which does its own direct rendering because x.org sucks so hard.
What is the big deal with boot times?? Really?? With all the catching up to do in the desktop arena, this is what they're focusing on?? No wonder desktop Linux has fizzled out. What a joke. You have a display manager that doesn't have a proper driver model, the only decent driver is a blob that is a hack to bypass x.orgs own facilities to get full blown acceleration, and they're focusing on BOOT TIMES??
Note that annoying UAC prompts that give you no information whatsoever as to what action you're authorizing do not count.
UAC is different from sudo how? Oh yeah, it's not, and is required just as much.
Windows has been safer for a while. If Desktop Linux had the market share that Windows boxes did, hackers would make swiss cheese of it.
The best rapper is white.
The best golfer is black.
Windows is more secure than Linux.
The outrage! I'm not sure why I'm mad, all I know is that slashdot posted another MS article and my natural reaction is to be pissed! I will not read TFA or actually research for an informed opinion, as it may extinguish my righteous indignation and as a result my day will be far less interesting. I will rant on about Microsoft crippling their software which is intended for poor and developing nations at a fraction of the cost of a standard license. I will make the assumption that it is intended for mass consumption, or that it will be available for purchase off the shelf. I am a tool. I am a slashdot drone.
Create an anti-self-fulfilling prophecy by making anyone feel bad for doing what they should do. E.g., "pointing out this fact will get me modded as a troll..."
I'll be the first to admit, you are absolutely right. I've found that by omitting such statements, I will get modded troll. So, in the end, do you blame me?
Frankly, I'm getting tired of the overhead associated with Windows
Look, if you have a lean system, XP will run just as good as any equally featured version of Ubuntu. Vista was never meant for older systems, and I like the fact that it puts my ram to use. I have 4 gigs, 2693 megs are in use. Any application I typically open is cached and will open immediately. I never understood the Linux users pride in watching their ram go unused. As far as overall UI responsiveness, I've never felt linux was better than Windows on equally powered hardware. I think your point is largely irrelevant.
You can't call something that is EVER CHANGING like Linux stagnant
Yes I can. Linux, the kernel, is constantly changing. Which, to be honest, isn't a very good thing when you want mass adoption of a Linux-based desktop OS.
I take it, then, that you've never tried Linux, or at least, not recently. I've been using Fedora Linux as my only OS, now, for over a year.
I have, and I've used it daily as a desktop OS, as a highly technical person who has all the facilities required to get the most out of it. At the end of the day, I'd still use XP/Vista just because, to steal from Apple, everything "just works." All my hardware is supported. All my software works. It is *far* easier to develop for (which is my biggest issue with Linux). I don't hold an allegiance to any software license or company. I've even put recent (as in, the most recent) version of Ubuntu on a relatives computer whose main use is simply internet. After a week they wanted Windows back.
"Open source your software, then spend development time porting it to our platform so we can use it for free!"
My favorite example is Chrome.
"Companies should open source their code so the community can port it!"
Google open sources Chrome.
"Google doesn't care about Linux! They won't port their OPEN SOURCED code for us!"
Google ports Chrome to Linux.
"I'll stick with firefox until they release adblock for Chrome, thus circumventing their primary revenue stream!
Step 4: Profit?
Oh you guys are too funny...
So he's asking people to get a recent Ubuntu build instead of Vista?
It's getting pretty comical, watching Linux zealots cling onto the idea that Ubuntu is anywhere near production quality (for the desktop), let alone better than XP/Vista. Sure, pointing out this fact will get me modded troll and just perpetuate your false perceptions, but that's what slashdot is all about -- holding Linux back by failing to recognize its shortcomings and the delusional thinking that the competition is inferior. It's paradoxical and I would find it funny if I didn't want Linux on the desktop to succeed.
The overall lack of objectivity and the cynicism toward anything Microsoft displayed by the slashdot crowd is a stunning display of ignorance. You are pigeon-holed by a flawed ideology, and as Microsoft (and Apple) continue to evolve their products Linux remains stagnant. The Microsoft bashing used to be relevant, but is now nothing more than echoed sentiments which are now largely baseless. Linux is the joke now. You are in denial. The first step to recovery is to recognize you have a problem. And maybe, just maybe, to recognize that Microsoft has a point here.
Overall it seems to me that Apple, following in Microsoft's steps, doesn't care all that much about security
Vista implements security features not yet seen in Linux or OS X that make it inherently more secure than the latter two systems. Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) was quoted as the difference maker in the pwn2own contest, according to the hacker who took down OS X within minutes. Also quoted was IE8's sand boxing (process per tab) which behaves much like Chrome, although I think IE8 implemented it first. I know this is slashdot, but for the sake of objectivity, give credit where credit is due.
I run both XP and Mac OSX on my macbook and for most tasks OSX has been faster
I don't know what your setup looks like, but I don't run any AV software, which always slows things down.
There is no such thing as an "average" user. You must also consider that there are typically more than one user to a computer. Also, the fact that you say most users would be fine with Linux if all they needed was Firefox and Flash is certainly no testament to Linux. If anything it's an ironic statement, to say this "free and open" operating system is just fine in a limited capacity.
The reason Linux hasn't really caught on yet is mostly unavailability, in my opinion.
Linux hasn't gone anywhere because it's a terrible platform for ISV's to develop on. OSS software cannot replace commercial software completely, and as such, until GNU/Linux makes an effort to make life easier for commercial developers, Linux on the desktop will never amount to anything.
If the superiority of Mac OS X was relevant to the majority of home computer users
I love how you say this as if it is implied truth. My experience has shown that Mac users tend to delude themselves into believing OS X is way better than it is. They seem to overlook its many shortcomings because to recognize them would be blasphemous or something. I used OS X as my primary desktop for two years. The one thing going for it is that it's pretty. Other than that, it's unnecessarily slow, has a shitty filesystem, is no more stable than XP and certainly not Vista, always had issues sleeping and waking, ilife was buggy (specifically iPhoto), is only secure through obscurity (as we've seen with the recent pwn2own contest).
If you really want to know why OS X has a small marketshare, it's because it only appeals to people who want to take far more pride in a hardware company than anyone should, and Apple gives them that outlet with trendy, flashy products. Everybody else just wants to go about their day, using whatever is most convenient, easy and accessible.
The funny thing about Wisconsin is it is very blue collar and conservative in large part... and then you have Madison, considered to be one of the most liberal cities in the country.
I take it you weren't from Madison.
Moz Corp doesn't really give a crap about Linux, they make their coin on Windows.
Actually, the real problem is that GNU/Linux doesn't care about developers. There is no standardization and antiquated development tools. No attempt to maintain backwards compatibility. And then the kicker of course, a negligible user base. Where does this sense of entitlement come from?
The problem with marketing Linux, or at least *Linux* people marketing Linux, is that they seem to think that your typical layperson will place value in the same things that a technical Linux user does.
What we have here is an overly-vague advert that places emphasis on it being "free and open" and "choices." A typical end-user does not care about these things. They want a complete, integrated product that works. Free and open means little if nothing to these people.
Where people advocating the wider adoption of Linux truly fail is in realizing what people want, and instead trying to tell them what they want and what they should place value in. What makes Linux so great for some people is what makes it less adoptable for most. The real question is, does your desire for wider Linux adoption trump your desire for an loosely coupled OS with little integration and many choices?
PEOPLE like YOU give linux a BAD name because you SOUND like an IDIOT and don't make COMPELLING arguments, just spit TIRED, NON-FACTUAL rhetoric that has very LITTLE to do with the SUBJECT at hand.
They fielded a loser OS at a time in computing history that they really needed a home run.
You don't get it. Vista shipped as a good operating system. Where Vista got its bad rep was driver support. In overhauling the driver model from XP->Vista, many Vista drivers were immature and unstable. This reflected poorly on Vista, fair or not. Since then, drivers in Vista have improved significantly, however, the negative stigma persists. Windows 7 isn't so much a new operating system as it is a re-branding of Vista. The driver model is the same, therefore Windows 7 will be perceived from the start as a good OS, just as Microsoft intends.
There really is nothing compared to VS, and yes, I've tried Mono.
Comparing VS to Mono is like comparing apples and oranges. One is an IDE, one is a framework. FWIW, Mono is great. But I think what you were implying is that there is no IDE that comes close to Visual Studio, which I'd definitely agree with.
Some people have a gene to...
If only every study came with this caveat because by and large, genetics determine how and to what extent anything will affect you.