I've used both environments over a long period of time on dedicated linux desktops. Both are competent products. Gnome looks good under Ubuntu 9.04. KDE 4.3 looks awesome as well. Both are sufficiently feature rich. Both add features rapidly on an ongoing basis. Both are solid products. The money is being well spent no matter how you look at it. I like that KDE has about a quarter million dollars banked. It shows strength and greater longevity.
My personal favorite, after using gnome for years, is KDE (which I have used since KDE 4.2). On a regular basis I see fixes and upgrades, though there still are some annoying aspects to it. After 25 years in computing and having dealt with Windows for most of that, KDE is probably the best and most well rounded desktop manager, even well beyond windows Win7, and certainly Vista. I have 4 Vista boxes in shop and I have a Win7 RC box for testing. I also have 3 Apple OSX systems. Nothing generally impresses me about them. I've watched compiz, beryl, and kwin turn into super feature rich, well balanced, polished and tailored products that in many ways existed before Vista was released.
Let's just say that I'm very impressed that these two organizations are producing products comparable or better than the competition. It is good to see that they are doing so much with so little.
You have no clue about what's at stake. XP is a highly insecure OS. It's the swiss cheese of OS security. Any holes that can be exploited will. What, we have to have millions of exploited machines before you get off your astroturfing MS ass?
Yes, it is absolutely a security fix. Saying otherwise is a pathetic joke. It is a security fix in that the issue is one of security that affects the TCP/IP stack. Alleged minimization can be overcome by using security software.
Yes, fully aware. And yes, I read where it stated that the code had been developed before XP. I also know that when you start weak you end weak when it comes to software design due to how difficult software is to design.
This doesn't change the fact that they have ample time and resources to fix a significant problem with an OS without forcing consumers to purchase it again just to overcome the issue, even though it is likely only for a short time.
15 year old software is still being supported by other OSes. Unix still has components being developed that are over 15 years old. OSX uses Unix as its core. Linux is updating software (the kernel) even today after over 15 years.
Forking and branching is a non-point. The software is maintained by Microsoft and they have access to it. It means that they'd rather spend their money on something we don't want instead of properly supporting what we do want. You do realize, right, that the vast majority of people use XP and not Vista/Win7?
This will make products such as OSX and Linux more viable. Those products likely will be upgraded and patched well beyond the 15+ years Microsoft claims makes it infeasible.
It's not the age of the software. They've been patching it for years. Essentially they've rewritten XP a couple times over in the time that XP has been out. XP hasn't been out for 15 years, it's only been out for approximately 8. Claims of 15 years for a software stack that's incorporated into an 8 year old OS where other OSes such as Unix and Linux which are older than 8 years and readily patched has to be a clear indicator that maybe the overall architecture of Vista isn't that sound. One would have to begin to question Win7 too as it is done by the same company with the same design issues as XP.
There are a large number of users that don't care whether it has Office on it or not, just so long as they can type their letters. With the advent of Google docs there's no reason anyone should fear. Open Office, in all it's carnations, is a solid product. What you see here, as you see often, are people projecting their own views onto their customers.
As a small business owner I install Open Office on all the machines I repair/upgrade/sell. It's amazing to see how people come back and say that Open Office is a good product that does what they want. When asked if they are happy with it almost all of them say they are, including those that use Office at work or on another computer. They are grateful that they don't have to purchase Office again. When they know they are legal they are happy.
People, as time goes by, will adjust to the idea that there are alternatives to Windows. They will realize that those alternatives are not as frightening as they might have thought.
I remember when we moved from typewriters to computers. Man did people scream bloody murder. We people moved to Word Perfect they too complained and again when we moved from Word Perfect and Lotus to Windows (and the products on that). They really complained. People complained when we moved from DOS to Windows. They didn't want to migrate.
I don't think my posts ruled out external hard drives as a back up medium. Nor did I rule out flash drives nor SSDs. My point is that people do want CD/DVD drives for a number of reasons. Telling them that they don't need one or can't have one goes against most people's grain.
I'm pro open source. But, honestly, people do pay for software. They are also quite literal when it comes to following instructions and when it says to put the CD in the drive they are going to come looking.
First, no one said that 1 gig wasn't enough, yet there are plenty of people that do want more as part of the base unit, and there are those that do add more to these netbooks.
The USB stick is insufficient for performing many tasks. You need a CD/DVD or you can't install a lot of commercial software. Flash memory, though growing in capacity and lowering in price, isn't fool proof and is still much more costly than purchasing CD/DVDs for back up. Most thumb flash drives don't have the capacity to back up all our data. Purchasing lots of flash thumb drives can and will add to confusion. You can't play your store-bought CDs though your flash drive without a CD/DVD first used to rip the music. Not everyone wishes to purchase music on-line.
Adding more RAM doesn't equate to bloatware. Adding a CD/DVD doesn't equate to bloatware. Installation of end-user applications doesn't equate to bloatware, at least from the perspective of the OS.
The purpose behind Microsoft's limitations was to make the netbooks less attractive and to push users to the higher prices notebook models where Microsoft's margins are higher.
When Microsoft was pushing Vista one of the things that they claimed was that the number of available XP product keys had become exhausted. Due to this they decided to remove the SKU from OEM vendors and other retailers, and set support services end dates. Their claim was that since they couldn't issue any more XP product keys you needed to upgrade to Vista instead.
Linux had begun a fast rise in the netbook market and this alarmed Microsoft to the degree that they decided to issue more product keys. This should have negated their argument about the necessity of upgrading to Vista.
There were questions that Microsoft had manufacturers modify the bios of their new models to exclude necessary information that allowed the installation of drivers for hardware (on computer models, not necessarily including the netbooks). This came out in a number of articles and in one case someone showed that the bios of certain machines had some important tables removed pertaining to Linux, making it difficult to install, etc.
The netbook back at the start of this had a large growing population of women in the 45+ range that had never used Linux before but had become users by virtue of it. Many found it to be just fine for what they were doing with it (browsing the web, writing email, watching videos, playing music, using it for programs like skype to communicate, etc). Since these books had Linux pre-installed by the manufacturer there was no need for them to configure drivers, hardware, to install more software, etc.
Microsoft's reaction was to reissue XP product keys and then to set some limits on what the netbook hardware could do. For instance, they limited the amount of ram to 1 gig. They limited the onboard graphics to a certain subset, they limited the hard disk capacity to 160 gig, they limited the display size which also limits the keyboard size. The prohibited the netbook from having a CD/DVD drive. They limited the processor type and speed, they limit the number of USB ports to 3, etc.
Under Linux these limitations don't exist and that is probably a good part of the reason that Dell has chosen to produce some Linux netbooks with some oomph. These limits are only on XP based netbooks whereas the Linux netbooks can be much more powerful if the manufacturer wishes it. It doesn't mean that they will push the power of them, it just means that it is not necessary that they take these considerations in to account.
The OEMs account for the vast majority of netbooks sold. It doesn't mean that you can't purchase one from these OEMs and then upgrade it yourself. If a netbook has a USB port then you can an external drive or DVD/CD burner. You can also add more RAM and a larger HDD if you are willing to tear one of those things apart, and it can be difficult for some models.
Anyone know where a step by step guide for this is and a list of parts. I'd like to do this with some of the kids in the small town I live in, to give them a sense of accomplishment and encourage them to become involved in science.
Those parts of my career that were in support of software, either as a help desk or as network admin with additional duties, required a large amount of support for every program we used. In corporate environments to small business the use of Office required significant support efforts by everyone. Claims that OOo requires more support than others is specious. One can make a heavy bet and know that you'd win in judging that those people making that claim have no experience supporting others on either platform or have never used Open Office. I've watched many firms take OOo, and though there was a learning curve, use it to good advantage.
Because you don't like OOo doesn't mean it doesn't work and do the job it is supposed to do. I use it. Millions of others use it. The few people here disrespecting it (without showing proof they actually know anything about it) demonstrates the specious nature of anything they might write about it or any competing product.
This story piqued my interest because I used to work writing programs to collect statistics for analysis. I am also someone that watches the press regarding piracy claims.
When I read the summary I wasn't concerned about the 136 people being their basis. The concern I had the most with was that the article stated that there were approximately 136 people out of roughly 1100 that admitted to using file sharing programs, yet neither this summary nor the article stated whether these individuals used them for the purpose of copyright infringement. And finally, I don't see it stated anywhere where they advise how the sampling was broken out (i.e., age and profession).
Criminals prefer cars to bicycles. Some even prefer the internet to the telephone. Most importantly they prefer the night to the day, as they are seedy folk after all.
What's to speculate about. At some point in time cell phones became good at everything except be good cellphones. My speculation is that some day we will.
That's not what happened. The judge stated that it was illegal to make certain arguments regarding the lack of use of a patent when there's no law that upholds their position. He ordered them to stop. They continued repeatedly even after repeated orders to stop and threats of contempt of court. When the verdict came in the judge ordered another $40 million in contempt fines for misconduct.
This is certainly not new behavior for Microsoft. They did some similar things which resulted in special damages in the amount of $25 million to a company called Z4 Technologies.
Z4 was a company that had a patent on online activation and validation of software products. As you all know Windows and Office have this same feature. Autocad does as well.
Z4 approached Microsoft and informed them that they held the patent and wanted to make arrangements with Microsoft to license it. Microsoft ignored Z4's attempts at contact. Z4 persisted and finally hired a lawyer to take the case.
During the trial Microsoft buried the court and Z4 in paperwork. One would think this is acceptable behavior, but it is not. There were also other instances of bad behavior.
The night before the trial was to begin Z4 found, in the mound of paperwork, the documents that proved that Microsoft knew they were in violation of the patent. According to the record the judge noted that Microsoft had simply ignored Z4 because they felt Z4 was to small to protect their own property.
The award was for Z4 in the amount of $100 million dollars. On top of that the judge awarded Z4 an additional $25 million in special damages.
When you think about it it really boils down to this: Microsoft was found guilty of stealing the IP which as used to keep *you* from stealing their IP. Then when called on the matter they ignored the IP owner's attempts to license and then participated in numerous acts of misconduct.
Microsoft appealed and lost. They appealed again and lost. The final appeal resulted in the judge stating that the acts of misconduct that were disputed were only a portion of the actual acts of misconduct. The judge stated there were so many that they weren't even all written up in the judgement.
Autocad was sued as well, but they were not cited for any acts of misconduct.
So, you have the world's richest company, the once richest man, a criminally convicted monopolist, trying to destroy a small company that held a patent which Microsoft seems to have stolen to keep you from stealing their property. This is a company you should seriously question the ethics and morals.
Slashdot Mirror
I've used both environments over a long period of time on dedicated linux desktops. Both are competent products. Gnome looks good under Ubuntu 9.04. KDE 4.3 looks awesome as well. Both are sufficiently feature rich. Both add features rapidly on an ongoing basis. Both are solid products. The money is being well spent no matter how you look at it. I like that KDE has about a quarter million dollars banked. It shows strength and greater longevity.
My personal favorite, after using gnome for years, is KDE (which I have used since KDE 4.2). On a regular basis I see fixes and upgrades, though there still are some annoying aspects to it. After 25 years in computing and having dealt with Windows for most of that, KDE is probably the best and most well rounded desktop manager, even well beyond windows Win7, and certainly Vista. I have 4 Vista boxes in shop and I have a Win7 RC box for testing. I also have 3 Apple OSX systems. Nothing generally impresses me about them. I've watched compiz, beryl, and kwin turn into super feature rich, well balanced, polished and tailored products that in many ways existed before Vista was released.
Let's just say that I'm very impressed that these two organizations are producing products comparable or better than the competition. It is good to see that they are doing so much with so little.
You have no clue about what's at stake. XP is a highly insecure OS. It's the swiss cheese of OS security. Any holes that can be exploited will. What, we have to have millions of exploited machines before you get off your astroturfing MS ass?
Yes, it is absolutely a security fix. Saying otherwise is a pathetic joke. It is a security fix in that the issue is one of security that affects the TCP/IP stack. Alleged minimization can be overcome by using security software.
So, YES it IS a security fix.
Yes, fully aware. And yes, I read where it stated that the code had been developed before XP. I also know that when you start weak you end weak when it comes to software design due to how difficult software is to design.
This doesn't change the fact that they have ample time and resources to fix a significant problem with an OS without forcing consumers to purchase it again just to overcome the issue, even though it is likely only for a short time.
15 year old software is still being supported by other OSes. Unix still has components being developed that are over 15 years old. OSX uses Unix as its core. Linux is updating software (the kernel) even today after over 15 years.
Forking and branching is a non-point. The software is maintained by Microsoft and they have access to it. It means that they'd rather spend their money on something we don't want instead of properly supporting what we do want. You do realize, right, that the vast majority of people use XP and not Vista/Win7?
This will make products such as OSX and Linux more viable. Those products likely will be upgraded and patched well beyond the 15+ years Microsoft claims makes it infeasible.
It's not the age of the software. They've been patching it for years. Essentially they've rewritten XP a couple times over in the time that XP has been out. XP hasn't been out for 15 years, it's only been out for approximately 8. Claims of 15 years for a software stack that's incorporated into an 8 year old OS where other OSes such as Unix and Linux which are older than 8 years and readily patched has to be a clear indicator that maybe the overall architecture of Vista isn't that sound. One would have to begin to question Win7 too as it is done by the same company with the same design issues as XP.
Most people do not buy photoshop, period. It is a niche product.
According to Dell and ASUS there were no greater rate of returns for Linux than there were for Windows.
There are a large number of users that don't care whether it has Office on it or not, just so long as they can type their letters. With the advent of Google docs there's no reason anyone should fear. Open Office, in all it's carnations, is a solid product. What you see here, as you see often, are people projecting their own views onto their customers.
As a small business owner I install Open Office on all the machines I repair/upgrade/sell. It's amazing to see how people come back and say that Open Office is a good product that does what they want. When asked if they are happy with it almost all of them say they are, including those that use Office at work or on another computer. They are grateful that they don't have to purchase Office again. When they know they are legal they are happy.
People, as time goes by, will adjust to the idea that there are alternatives to Windows. They will realize that those alternatives are not as frightening as they might have thought.
I remember when we moved from typewriters to computers. Man did people scream bloody murder. We people moved to Word Perfect they too complained and again when we moved from Word Perfect and Lotus to Windows (and the products on that). They really complained. People complained when we moved from DOS to Windows. They didn't want to migrate.
It's in human nature to avoid change.
Linux will be no different. Time wins all.
I don't think my posts ruled out external hard drives as a back up medium. Nor did I rule out flash drives nor SSDs. My point is that people do want CD/DVD drives for a number of reasons. Telling them that they don't need one or can't have one goes against most people's grain.
I'm pro open source. But, honestly, people do pay for software. They are also quite literal when it comes to following instructions and when it says to put the CD in the drive they are going to come looking.
I own and operate a computer shop where I sell computers, repair, and upgrade.
Yes, people are installing lots of software on them. Most of these come with a 160gig HDD. They going to fill it with pictures from their camera?
That's not a wise question.
First, no one said that 1 gig wasn't enough, yet there are plenty of people that do want more as part of the base unit, and there are those that do add more to these netbooks.
The USB stick is insufficient for performing many tasks. You need a CD/DVD or you can't install a lot of commercial software. Flash memory, though growing in capacity and lowering in price, isn't fool proof and is still much more costly than purchasing CD/DVDs for back up. Most thumb flash drives don't have the capacity to back up all our data. Purchasing lots of flash thumb drives can and will add to confusion. You can't play your store-bought CDs though your flash drive without a CD/DVD first used to rip the music. Not everyone wishes to purchase music on-line.
Adding more RAM doesn't equate to bloatware. Adding a CD/DVD doesn't equate to bloatware. Installation of end-user applications doesn't equate to bloatware, at least from the perspective of the OS.
The purpose behind Microsoft's limitations was to make the netbooks less attractive and to push users to the higher prices notebook models where Microsoft's margins are higher.
When Microsoft was pushing Vista one of the things that they claimed was that the number of available XP product keys had become exhausted. Due to this they decided to remove the SKU from OEM vendors and other retailers, and set support services end dates. Their claim was that since they couldn't issue any more XP product keys you needed to upgrade to Vista instead.
Linux had begun a fast rise in the netbook market and this alarmed Microsoft to the degree that they decided to issue more product keys. This should have negated their argument about the necessity of upgrading to Vista.
There were questions that Microsoft had manufacturers modify the bios of their new models to exclude necessary information that allowed the installation of drivers for hardware (on computer models, not necessarily including the netbooks). This came out in a number of articles and in one case someone showed that the bios of certain machines had some important tables removed pertaining to Linux, making it difficult to install, etc.
The netbook back at the start of this had a large growing population of women in the 45+ range that had never used Linux before but had become users by virtue of it. Many found it to be just fine for what they were doing with it (browsing the web, writing email, watching videos, playing music, using it for programs like skype to communicate, etc). Since these books had Linux pre-installed by the manufacturer there was no need for them to configure drivers, hardware, to install more software, etc.
Microsoft's reaction was to reissue XP product keys and then to set some limits on what the netbook hardware could do. For instance, they limited the amount of ram to 1 gig. They limited the onboard graphics to a certain subset, they limited the hard disk capacity to 160 gig, they limited the display size which also limits the keyboard size. The prohibited the netbook from having a CD/DVD drive. They limited the processor type and speed, they limit the number of USB ports to 3, etc.
Under Linux these limitations don't exist and that is probably a good part of the reason that Dell has chosen to produce some Linux netbooks with some oomph. These limits are only on XP based netbooks whereas the Linux netbooks can be much more powerful if the manufacturer wishes it. It doesn't mean that they will push the power of them, it just means that it is not necessary that they take these considerations in to account.
The OEMs account for the vast majority of netbooks sold. It doesn't mean that you can't purchase one from these OEMs and then upgrade it yourself. If a netbook has a USB port then you can an external drive or DVD/CD burner. You can also add more RAM and a larger HDD if you are willing to tear one of those things apart, and it can be difficult for some models.
And it's better when it's better, despite it being free.
Anyone know where a step by step guide for this is and a list of parts. I'd like to do this with some of the kids in the small town I live in, to give them a sense of accomplishment and encourage them to become involved in science.
And software isn't worse just because it's free.
Those parts of my career that were in support of software, either as a help desk or as network admin with additional duties, required a large amount of support for every program we used. In corporate environments to small business the use of Office required significant support efforts by everyone. Claims that OOo requires more support than others is specious. One can make a heavy bet and know that you'd win in judging that those people making that claim have no experience supporting others on either platform or have never used Open Office. I've watched many firms take OOo, and though there was a learning curve, use it to good advantage.
Because you don't like OOo doesn't mean it doesn't work and do the job it is supposed to do. I use it. Millions of others use it. The few people here disrespecting it (without showing proof they actually know anything about it) demonstrates the specious nature of anything they might write about it or any competing product.
Reread the article slower this time.
This story piqued my interest because I used to work writing programs to collect statistics for analysis. I am also someone that watches the press regarding piracy claims.
When I read the summary I wasn't concerned about the 136 people being their basis. The concern I had the most with was that the article stated that there were approximately 136 people out of roughly 1100 that admitted to using file sharing programs, yet neither this summary nor the article stated whether these individuals used them for the purpose of copyright infringement. And finally, I don't see it stated anywhere where they advise how the sampling was broken out (i.e., age and profession).
Criminals prefer cars to bicycles. Some even prefer the internet to the telephone. Most importantly they prefer the night to the day, as they are seedy folk after all.
What's to speculate about. At some point in time cell phones became good at everything except be good cellphones. My speculation is that some day we will.
That's not what happened. The judge stated that it was illegal to make certain arguments regarding the lack of use of a patent when there's no law that upholds their position. He ordered them to stop. They continued repeatedly even after repeated orders to stop and threats of contempt of court. When the verdict came in the judge ordered another $40 million in contempt fines for misconduct.
In Microsoft's view, every patent they hold is valid while every patent held by anyone else is invalid.
And it is likely that a court in some other jurisdiction would have held in i4i favor just as well.
What others and maybe you are saying is that you can't trust the Texas courts.
This is certainly not new behavior for Microsoft. They did some similar things which resulted in special damages in the amount of $25 million to a company called Z4 Technologies.
Z4 was a company that had a patent on online activation and validation of software products. As you all know Windows and Office have this same feature. Autocad does as well.
Z4 approached Microsoft and informed them that they held the patent and wanted to make arrangements with Microsoft to license it. Microsoft ignored Z4's attempts at contact. Z4 persisted and finally hired a lawyer to take the case.
During the trial Microsoft buried the court and Z4 in paperwork. One would think this is acceptable behavior, but it is not. There were also other instances of bad behavior.
The night before the trial was to begin Z4 found, in the mound of paperwork, the documents that proved that Microsoft knew they were in violation of the patent. According to the record the judge noted that Microsoft had simply ignored Z4 because they felt Z4 was to small to protect their own property.
The award was for Z4 in the amount of $100 million dollars. On top of that the judge awarded Z4 an additional $25 million in special damages.
When you think about it it really boils down to this: Microsoft was found guilty of stealing the IP which as used to keep *you* from stealing their IP. Then when called on the matter they ignored the IP owner's attempts to license and then participated in numerous acts of misconduct.
Microsoft appealed and lost. They appealed again and lost. The final appeal resulted in the judge stating that the acts of misconduct that were disputed were only a portion of the actual acts of misconduct. The judge stated there were so many that they weren't even all written up in the judgement.
Autocad was sued as well, but they were not cited for any acts of misconduct.
So, you have the world's richest company, the once richest man, a criminally convicted monopolist, trying to destroy a small company that held a patent which Microsoft seems to have stolen to keep you from stealing their property. This is a company you should seriously question the ethics and morals.
Did he actually say that? I make my living off the problems that Windows has.