If you don't like their uninstaller don't install it? Are you crazy? This stuff gets installed illegally most of the time. I own a small business and I clean this stuff all the time. The 180 solutions and Zango is some of the worst violators and some of the hardest to remove. When I question how it got installed the customers have no idea.
These people didn't get fined $3 million for doing legit installs bro. They've been fined for installing it in a rogue way and then of course, for the illegal actions they take once it is installed.
The fine should have been $30 million and maybe you should be responsible for paying some of it since you seem to be telling others that a malware application is ok to install if you like their uninstaller. Seriously, tho, it is pretty bad you write comments with such utter lack of common sense in them.
The author clearly stated that it wasn't Linux he was talking about. He stated it was competent. I take that to mean the installation of the OS on a computer. He clearly stated it was the platform. That may not seem a literal term to you but it does to me.
I am not going to reiterate what he's saying. I'm going to say clearly he's talking about the drivers, games, and other software.
If Linux holds a small percentage of the computer user base and windows holds the vast majority both had to get into those positions somehow. Granted, Microsoft acted in an illegal monopolistic way, but they would never have gotten Linux to that same position if they acted in the same way only with Linux as their OS wielding the same ideology as many in the Linux community.
The reason is that too many of you think that smarts and intelligence denotes someone willing to put in the hours to learn and make a Linux box work (most probably from scratch). The answer is that you'll never get people to do that so you need to stop trying. You're a zealot and you need to go make baby carriages so you can give the rest of the world some room to breath and make carriages more cheaply for families near poverty.
Microsoft, albeit with illegal monopolistic practices, did create an OS that everyone can use out of the box. In the vast majority of cases the OS installs with little or no problems and even an 80 year old woman can do it. With the likes of Ubuntu the same could be said. But that's not even the issue.
It is with end-user applications. It is about how easily it is to install a core program. In windows you get your install CD of say Peachtree accounting and everything you need is installed. In Linux to install an equivalent you may need to install a bunch of other dependency related files that you don't have access to. Take a non-internet connected computer and install windows then do the same with Linux. This works. Take that same non-internet connected computer and install an end-user program. Under windows it will work most of the time out of the box. Under Linux it will not work most of the time.
Linux depends on repositories, which most often are maintained by just some Joe that didn't write the programs stored there and may be trying to maintain (to some degree) two or 3 repositories at one time. He has to compile or set up those repositories based on every version of every one of the programs that he maintains for every distro he maintains a repository for.
He can make mistakes on one or more of those programs. He may not have the knowledge or skills to build them all correctly. For each repository and for each version the possible errors grow.
Not only that, he may not have the version you want so you have to go out and find the version yourself and then potentially compile it to run on your system, which will require a lot more knowledge and skill just to get an end-user program working.
The author of that article and many others have said or implied "out of box". That means you can give a customer a box containing the software and when they do the install it works without the need to get other pieces from other places. What would turn the Linux community around would be a mechanism just like the Macintosh OS X where you simply drag an icon and it is installed.
Those of you who are hurt by this idea just need to bite your tongues and if you can't accept it you need to move on to something else. Maybe you could help out with poverty or help with starvation in Africa or you could go and fight terrorism. I'm not disrespecting you. I'm trying to speak from the heart. Those would be more worthy endeavors than trying to get everyone in the world to come up to your standards of smartness and intelligence.
If you can hold people to the same standard as you set for intelligence and smartness then they should be able to hold you to the same standard. For instance, the guy that makes the refrigerators should be able to hold you to the standard tha
And it is automatic download by default. Check a new install.
For those out there with their apish gruntary about who knows what: well, the average person doesn't know what a codec is and has absolutely no clue about how their computer works. Most don't know how to use most of the software on their computer and have problems understanding directories vs. partitions.
So, come down to reality here and realize that it is MS's issue and it needs to be addressed. Listen, it's a computer. What computers do are repetitive tasks. That's what sandboxing does. It is taking the repetitive function of having to constantly check whether this or that program is good or bad. Sandboxing eliminates that--because the computer is A COMPUTER. The human is prone to errors and misinterpretation which is why half the computers get infected.
It could be nothing further from the truth. They are simply pulling a page out of the Iran book of how to fuck with the world diplomatically. Sanction them, make it hard, make it affect everyone. Destroy their facilities in the middle of the night on bombing raids. Move American war ships over into that area and get ready to pound them into oblivion. Making nuclear weapons is illegal so unmake them as soon as possible, even if it means force.
Flat out it is theft. You bought the software. You are entitled to use it any way you wish. Microsoft is acting in a monopolistic fashion and are only able to do this because of the monopoly status they enjoy. If there was competition there would be no practice such as this.
It is the same code. It is like saying you can only watch a movie 2 times and then you have to buy the movie again. It is like saying you can only listen to a song 5 times then you have to buy the song again. It is like saying you can only drive your car 30,000 miles and then you have to buy a new car. It is like saying you can only take 1000 calls on your phone then you must buy a new phone. It is like saying you can only turn your monitor on 1500 times then you must buy a new monitor. It is like saying you can erase your HDD only 2 times then you must buy a new HDD.
Essentially, if we allow Microsoft to do this then we allow every other software vendor to do that too. It opens the door for every digital form of data to be managed in the same way. This is software rental in disguise.
The code is exactly the same. The programs are exactly the same.
This is just an attempt by Microsoft to keep their revenue stream flowing. It is a deceptive practice. There is no reason to force you to purchase such an expensive piece of software over and over.
Windows XP support USB keyboards and mice in the base install. The XP installer fully supports a PS2 keyboard and mouse.
Your sound and video were the gimped versions that are installed with the Linux distro. You still need to go out and download the proper 3d accelerated optimized drivers from the chipset vendors. Same for sound. Sorry, but that's just a fact of life for Linux, at least it was the last time I installed it.
If you didn't have support for your USB keyboard or mouse you had non-standard components. Albeit rare, some are out there. My customers are always told to buy for something other than price. In other words, never buy that el-cheapo mouse that is not a recognizable name or you'll pay in time and gas trying to get it to work and then driving back to the store to return it.
The issues described in his posting are demonstrative of a lack of experience and/or prioritization.
After 5 years of distribution with a large number of new products released over that half decade it would be no wonder that some people have problems with some new components and their drivers.
XP HAS NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH PS2 DRIVERS, EVER.
If you have a problem it is your problem not XP.
I do not in any way support Microsoft and I do not care to protect their name or business. It isn't my job to police for them and I don't care what anyone I encounter does with XP legal or otherwise. It just isn't my problem.
I do dislike the fact that Microsoft has stolen, deceived, and broken so many laws to get and maintain their monopoly. I hate monopoly companies. But I can honestly say that those comparative stories about XP vs. Linux are not giving the fully story to the readers, so I am commenting.
None of his problems were XP related. They were inexperience or prioritization. Windows fully supports PS2 connectors and he doesn't need SP2 to get going. On the contrary, his Linux box did not install vendor optimized fully capable drivers for video or sound. In order to make that work he would need to visit his friendly chipset vendor and download their drivers for linux and install them. He's running gimped drivers to start on a fresh install of Linux because the chipset manufacturers won't provide commercial free driver installs with the OS.
It should have taken you a couple of hours of an afternoon to do all that you talk about. Also, you may not have given any thought to the CD that came with your motherboard. If you have an add-on video card you might have wanted to look at the download section of the company that manufacturers the chipset. Just those few things would get you up and running in no time.
I build custom machines for a living and often I'll be installing 3-4 machines at a time. I own the business and I do this on my own. I prioritize well so things go fast.
On a Linux box I can spend more time than a XP box. It isn't because of the lack of things it is because things aren't readily available and I have to search far and wide to get what I want.
There absolutely is no compelling reason to buy Vista. No one needs to buy that program to solve any problem they have. The security features are no guarantee that in 6 months after Vista's release we won't be back to the same ole crap dealing with viruses and adware/spyware/malware. In fact, it has been made abundantly clear that the end user can just as easily install malware on their computer as they could under XP. Ridding the machine of it is going to be exactly the same series of steps and take just as long if not longer. Patch days from MS will remain and they will be just as large as XP.
What you get with Vista is a DRM infected nightmare and a pretty interface that you will pay dearly for in order to run it. You don't mind upgrading your computer video, memory, and hard drive just so you can use the translucent windows and reorganized structure to the programs?
Let's hope that most people understand that the Dell hype of Vista is just that--hype. I wish he'd stop disseminating inaccurate information. But hey, Dell is suffering pretty bad financially and needs to sell more hardware. They have been selling these el-cheapo boxes that won't take advantage of the only feature Vista has to offer (the translucent windows), so Dell gets to sell higher priced boxes again. Those price wars were eating up Dell and their market position. Hell, even some of the el-cheapo enthusiast built boxes were better performers, more standardized, and and more easily upgraded than some most of the mid-range Dells and even some of the high end Dells.
My customers see my custom computers see their long manufacturer warranties and know that Dell is just crap. I never dispute that Dell makes good solid notebooks. But their desktops are atrocious.
The bundled software in Dells are weak and usually trial versions that expire in 90 days. They use el-cheapo parts and their connectors, powersupplies, and mountings to the motherboards are very proprietary. Dell knows this. They planned it. But they also know they will sell many more costly machines now that Vista requires so much more power to operate.
But your experience with an XP Pro install is not common, in fact it is rare. With better prioritization you could get any box up and running in a matter of a couple of hours, including the complete assembly process.
The math that their copy protection is based on is widely available. Part of his goal is to allow the music to play on other players while allowing ipods to play other protected song formats.
One of the articles I read clearly stated that DRM will only lock you down into one companies technology and if that company goes then you are in possession of a technology similar to the 8-track tapes.
Bottom line, something has to be done because if we can't get rid of this DRM crap we are going to be locked into certain companies. I'm sure you don't want to have your 200+ songs locked into the player from a company you may no longer wish to support. Apple, for instance, is no more immune to bad conduct than any other.
The current GUI in XP is more than valid and works well doing everything you would expect it to do. The GUI in Vista is all that is has to offer. Well, some exceptione, are the DRM infection, the restrictive EULA, and the built-in spyware.
What troubles me is that somehow so many industry pundits are pushing this thing as something special and worthy of the billions spent to develop it. Most of these must be looking at a picture of increased sales of hardware, more magazine articles (thus advertisers), etc. I personally think alot of these guys have been paid off by Microsoft.
Just looking at the OS for a few days can clearly demonstrate that alot of what is being said just isn't true. One guy I read that got alot of press professed massive hardware support while my experience with it has been very common and found little hardware support overall. One would not expect neglect of IDE drivers, modems, etc., but would would expect that great effort to make wireless as trouble free as possible is much a minimum.
Microsoft touts their sleep mode features, but in reality their implementations of these features have been severely lacking and extremely problemmatic over the years with little to instill any sense of confidence in me toward that feature and thus Microsoft. I think if the average person was going to save $50-$75 a year we should all jump up in the air and wave our hands in joy. Frankly we'd save more money if we'd just turn the buggers off at night.
Guess what? We all thrashed Microsoft in the area of Genuine Advantage Notification and yet they have implemented this feature in spades under Vista. Anyone buying it will have to accept that up front. That means they are going to be spying on you and your use of Windows. Not only that they seem to think they are entitled to this. They seem to think they can interfere with the use of our computers.
I have 15+ legit copies of XP and I have good solid hardware that runs it. My small business does just fine. What exactly is Vista going to give me? Anyone using XP currently has to ask that one question and be serious about it. I know many will find reasons to upgrade but from a productivity stand point, from a usage stand point, from a feature stand point, there's really nothing that complells anyone to upgrade. You like the latest greatest then fine do it for that but not because Vista is giving you anything special because it isn't. One must also ask themselves if it is worth giving up your privacy to the spying the Microsoft will be implementing. Not only that are you willing to give that up to a monopoly that has been convicted of crimes? Are you going to give that up to the company that stole the technology to do on-line activation of Windows and Office? Are you willing to give that up to a company that then used gorilla tactics in court to bury the court and the plaintiff in paper work in an effort to hide the evidence proving the plantinff's case?
Microsoft has alot of power to influence and they get more free marketing than any other company on the planet, now and throughout history. But to be honest with you it only takes a concerted effort by people such as you and I to tell others how what has been happening and what they are doing with Vista to bring things back to reality.
Why does Microsoft think they are the only ones that can produce a spying program that can disable even legitimate licenses? Who is Microsoft to tell us that after we pay upwards of $400.00 that we are not entitled to install this on any given machine we so choose? Do they not think that the average person who purchased Windows Vista is going to put up with "sorry, you have to buy a new Vista because your motherboard went out and you need it replaced"? What do you think will happen to system upgrades?
That sort of license restriction caters to the likes of the big companies selling computers such as HP, Dell, etc. It doesn't help the average guy who is trying to make computers cheaper and better than HP or Dell.
You would not want this guy on your debate team. No offense meant. There's too much ad homenin in the posts.
The concept of "better" isn't always based soley on price/performance. Again, one has to consider other USPs. Price should not be the USP especially in a near monopoly market. There are alot of reason to buy AMD. One may be that for some the fact that they already have a significant investment in them. For others it may be their stock. For some it may be unethical conduct of a monopoly. Some may just like the way they do business. Others might like the idea of the tail wagging the dog. Others know that it is more than just AMD making Core 2 Duo possible. AMD brought alot of value over the years--hence brand loyalty. For others it could mean that the only reason Core 2 Duo exists is the same reason that AMD inevitably will surpass Intel again--due to the fact that it takes an AMD to motivate Intel rather than Intel being motivated by the consumer wishes.
Now if AMD consistently failes upon execution and we don't see benefits over the next couple years then yeah I'd say there's a problem and that should motivate others to switch. Realistically there's no reason anyone with any other reason to buy AMD (besides price/performance) to switch to Intel.
What I see consistently argued is that AMD had the price/performance crown for the past several years and that irked alot of Intel fans because they felt AMD fans were throwing that in their face. Right now Intel holds the price/performance crown and the Intel fans want to throw that back at AMD fans. What I see as the flaw in this is that people do buy for other reasons than price performance. That's a major flaw because had that been the case those buying would have switched from Intel to AMD over the past couple of years.
It shifts things and never destroys it because just like arguments where no two people have identical ones there are no two people that consider their decisions exactly the same. The only way it could possibly hurt competition is if everyone agreed and we know that is never about to happen. No matter how much you consider your choices, and even if you switch, others will switch too and in the opposite direction for any number of reasons.
AMDs current situation isn't likely to destroy it. You don't hear AMD saying that they were totally taken by this and that they have no plans. AMD has been in this position before. They have some of the best engineers around to develop new technologies. To even consider AMDs demise at this point is completely irrational.
Your implication is that it is the only rational thing. Postulating that everyone should do it is irrational. It isn't a valid argument to suggest that if one does it everyone should because someone made a rational argument. You are just missing the idea that there are alot of rational arguments to every conclusion. There are also alot of irrational arguments to every conclusion.
What is missing is the concept of Unique Selling Proposition (USP). USPs should never be price. In processors it seems to be price/performance. AMD has other USPs than price/performance, although it has been the primary USP.
Luckily the average man knows he has more than one reason for buying any given product.
It also lies to the fact that people do prefer one company over the other. If we all bought the best price/performance as is laid out in his post we'd all be driving the same car or watching the same TV sets or even buying Dells. But to those that know the ins and outs know why one buys a different TV or car or processor.
AMD is no where near dying. That's like saying Apple is dead. I don't think so. Apple is not the best price/performance and probably never will be.
The answer is that most never buy for the price/performance thing--they buy what they like, who they like, and for alot of different unique selling propositions. Invariably we all suffer dissonance and I'm sure when the next release of AMD processors come out that beat Intel there'll be dissonance.
AMD fans that buy Intel processors are good for the industry just like Intel fans that buy AMD processors are good for the industry. Buy what you like when you like.
AMD and Intel both know what each other have planned, at least in more specialized terms than general ones, albeit not each specific plan. With that in mind, neither AMD nor Intel are working on solely their next competing product. Each is working on technologies far beyond that. AMD could never have had the performance leadership for the past 2 years without having known what Intel was up to for years before they released these products. Just as Intel knows what AMD is up to. This exchange in leadership will continue for years and years.
I think what I'm reading in this thread are alot of Intel fans that are just wishing that AMD dies because of how AMD trounced Intel these past few years.
We all should remember that without AMD we would never have had the advancements we have today. It is unlikely we'd be anywhere near the power/performance curve we have today without AMD. It is also highly unlikely that AMD will give up the desktop processor market focusing primarily on servers.
Nor should you have to investigate every one. It is the same argument against the linux zealots that believe you suck because you don't build your own kernel or compile your own programs. You don't say people suck because they don't do these things, any more than you would say the linux zealots suck because they didn't build their own TV or make their own refrig or assemble their own car.
You don't need to investigate every one because you can't. The main thing here is that every producer has suppliers that may nor may not be unethical, and we could never know them all. What we can do is try to recognize the bigger most visual offenders. Everyone may not oppose every unethical company but enough people can see with in the scope of their own comfort zone and deny those that have particularly offended them. In our case here on/. it is about techy stuff (primarily but not exclusively). We see the bigger tech names and we focus on them and if they are unethical we do cease or slow our activity with them or move on to some other.
Microsoft is based in WA State where the laws have been changed by Microsoft to make programming positions exempt. This means that you won't get overtime pay (for hours over 40 in a week) and marginal compensatory time. On top of that if you don't put in 60-80 hours a week you will be passed over for stock options. There was a time when programming positions were considered hourly. If you consider the idea that you will be creating with your mind the products they sell and they can demand you work 60-80 hours a week you are getting paid squat for making their billions.
I can't speak for Google. I know that I almost never hear bad things about Google yet I hear bad things about Microsoft all the time. I am not uneducated nor am I new to the industry. In fact, I have followed the goings on in the industry for 20 years and I can say unequivocally that if you want a future where you can have a chance to change the world still you should go with the company capable of doing that. I'm positive that Microsoft is not that company. I don't know about Google's chance.
One thing they could do to sell more ipods is to make their ipods work more independently of itunes. I use my ipod not to play itunes purchased music but to play back mp3s created from my CD collection. I do not care for itunes at all. A couple of things. I can't just copy a picture onto my ipod. I have to sync a folder. I can't just delete a song from the player I want I have to delete it from itunes and then sync the player. I can't just delete a picture either right from the ipod. In fact, I can't do any sort of file management at all from the player. If I copy a song on there and I don't want to keep it any longer I should just be able to click a button or two and have it deleted, period.
In that regard iPods suck. If they want to sell more ipods then they can simply give me control over my songs so I don't have to play their stupid itunes game. I have a collection of my music on an external sata drive and I don't want to copy my music from their to the itunes library just to get them onto my ipod.
Don't get me started on videos. This stuff should just be as simple as dragging a file onto my ipod and having it classify the item and allow me to play it back at will, but no...it isn't even easy to figure out.
I am currently using anapod explorer but those guys too have some real problems. What's with these apple-style developers not understanding development of software on the PC. I'm not saying all of them are this way but some are.
The anapod explorer software can mess up the hardware settings in windows if you pull the cable before it says you are allowed to pull the cable. No software program should do that to an OS driver. I know it is the anapod explorer causing it because I have had to uninstall it, get the ipod back, and then reinstall anapod explorer.
The system tray icons for anapod explorer suck. You right click on them and it brings up the sys tray icon for their program but it also brings up the sys tray menu as well. That's cooky and shows how poorly written their software is. Even with their software I can't explore photo's on the ipod but at least I can copy individual photos over without much heartache. I can also edit tags while the song is on the player and I can rename and manipulate the files in other ways.
iTunes just sucks all over unless you want to purchase apple DRM based songs which you can't transfer to any other sort of player. You are committed to Apple when you buy their DRM based songs.
I would pay more for a better player if one came out that wasn't Microsoft. I am eager to get this DRM crap out of my computer (current and future computers) forever. I don't want to give MS or any of the others license to make any further inroads into locking me out of my own content.
What the iPod has a neat little package. For their nifty user interface they recently paid $100 million to Creative to continue to use. Point being it is nice and small, well integrated into their store, but it sucks that they have such crappy file management, for tasks as simple as just delete a song you don't like and don't want. Syncing on a 30gig iPod takes a long time and getting things done on it are confusing. I can only imagine how my elderly retired friend feels trying to get her basic tasks done. She doesn't even want to hear the argument about DRM and IP rights and Apple's attempt to secure store sales. She just wants to listen to her music.
I wrote a long article about how important DRM control was to content and content distribution. I even wrote out how some of the historical events over the past 10 years has made for Microsoft's monopoly. I then correlated the DRM to future market control and the building of a greater foundation upon which they will maintain their monopoly status.
I erased it all because some of the younger crowd probably would see it as some sort of conspiracy theory. Those that lived through the 80s and 90s working in the industry know how Microsoft got into their monopoly position.
Suffice it to say that DRM locks you into a company and props up their profits. For example, if you buy Microsoft's products you are locked into their DRM, and hence in order to change (for any valid reason) you either give up all you purchased and move on, or you stay with them realizing that over the years you may have purchased hundreds if not thousands of dollars of DRM conent from one providor. The only thing you can do to keep from being locked in is to purchase your content from multiple sources (and hence be stuck with multiple incompatible content, and players). For instance, you could buy Zune and an iPod and purchase content on both. You can't interchange those sorry to say. DRM and the laws that protect that (such as the DCMA) keep you from moving that content to a better player, a more competitive company, etc. Maybe someday Congress will see that and change the laws once they realize what they created by allowing such an Act to be created.
Anyway, we all know how Microsoft controls the Office market by virtue of controlling the windows API. We see the same thing in interoperability standards for networking--the very thing that the EU has been on MS about. The secretive portions of the API are just like having DRM in a way.
Microsoft doesn't control the networking world but they did gain significant inroads into the market overnight taking away Novell's 90% marketshare (overnight). The same thing happened with word processing and spreadsheets. Granted, the companies that were the defacto standards back then are responsible too. We know though that Microsoft has used it's position in control of the OS to manipulate the office productivity and networking markets and lock to vendors and consumers.
If Zune grabs any significant portion of the market expect the MS DRM to do the same thing to content creation, IP rights holders, and you the consumer. Everyone who chose them will be locked into a convicted monopolist's way of doing things.
Consider for yourself how many times you would be willing to repurchase the same music or videos (even after years of using one vendor's products). I doubt many of you would want to do that. Imagine the iPod owner that has filled their iPod up with Apple music store purchases. Can you image a 30 gig iPod filled with 7,500 songs at $.99 a piece? Would you, if you were in the same position consider giving that up to go with another vendor knowing you can't transfer that content?
I don't think any time before Apple's iTunes store and the iPod has a vendor/reseller ever held such control over the pricing of products in the way Apple has been recognized to have. (IP rights holders wanted a sliding scale based on popularity and Apple called them greedy and got them to concede to its' pricing plan). In reality it was Apple who was greedy and had there been another mechanism as easy to distribute and collect payment as Apple had we would not have seen that happen. Microsoft sees this and knows that they can gain participation due to their name and resources. One wrong move by Apple and BAM! Microsoft will be their to offer their service. They know that once they control the content via DRM you are stuck with them. They also know that Apple is very very strong and it will be hard to use any Apple mistake to their advantage.
Linux, no matter how much you like it is still not ready for the masses. It lacks the ability to easily install programs such as the Macintosh and Windows has. Online repositories are not the answers as they are maintained by individuals who do not write the programs themselves. Repositories are specific to a distro and sometimes even a version of a distro.
Computers were never meant to be used solely by the likes of those who love to tear things apart. That is the second of two major roadblocks keeping Linux out of the main stream.
Get programs to install as easily as they do on OSX and Windows and rid the community of the mentality that you are a noob and weak if you don't want to play the game at the lowest disassembled level.
Ubuntu is no where near as good as it could be. The developers have given up on the idea of making it simple and strong and capable for your grandmother to use and maintain by herself.
Drivers are still a problem. There's alot of proprietariness out there that the Linux community can't handle. Much of the video driver capabilities (for example) are left out of the generic drivers installed during the setup. Much of those left out capabilities will always be left out because they are precisely that, proprietary.
I've run Linux for 3 years and I can only say that I spend significantly more time maintaining it than I do any other OS (my OSX boxes and my Windows boxes). The online repository never worked and it relies on high bandwidth to do its job. The vast majority of people still are on dial-up. Some can't afford high speed and others can't get it. Those majority won't ever be able to use linux when the idea is that the updates should come from on line.
To expect, nay demand, that the users have a compiler on their computer is the worst notion in the idea of personal computers. Remember these are personal computers. You can't and should not be telling others what they can or should be doing with them. That's why they are called "personal". You do what your person wants to do.
The notion of insulting people because they choose one distro over another is ludicrious. Why is that? It is because most of you are noobs at virtually everything in life. You can't design your own refrigerator. You won't design your own home. You don't know the laws, regulations, and codes necessary to build anything. You won't put together your own car nor will you assemble your own TV. You can't make your own medicine. You don't know how to repair your plumbing, you can't figure out how to make electricty. You can't make paper, nor ink, nor most anything that you use regularly in life.
SO WHY THE HELL ARE YOU CALLING OTHER NOOBS?
Most of the zealots can't even think through the above argument to give a solid reasonable applicable reply. I'm not insulting people. I'm trying to get across that you expect people to build their own OS, compile code, debug the issues, as a granny or a teenager. You don't even understand the fundamentals of most people's lives (marriage, children, education, transportation, etc are the primary concern of people's lives), allt he while you disrespect those that want to use their computer to do a task rather than making the computer the task.
If you can't get on the bandwagon and apply your own real-life issues and recognize others have their own, then you are a retard.
I know this post will get me some negative karma because alot of people really support linux here. I'm not saying linux is bad at all. I'm just saying it is not ready for mainstream use. Over the past couple of years there's been alot said about that. There's been this on-going debate abou whether Linux is desktop ready.
The kernel is a fine piece of work. It is a spectacular piece of work. It is at the top of the dog pile when it comes to stability. But the average user doesn't seen the kernel. They don't want to see the kernel. They just want the computer and their programs to work. They don't want to sit an
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't like their uninstaller don't install it? Are you crazy? This stuff gets installed illegally most of the time. I own a small business and I clean this stuff all the time. The 180 solutions and Zango is some of the worst violators and some of the hardest to remove. When I question how it got installed the customers have no idea.
These people didn't get fined $3 million for doing legit installs bro. They've been fined for installing it in a rogue way and then of course, for the illegal actions they take once it is installed.
The fine should have been $30 million and maybe you should be responsible for paying some of it since you seem to be telling others that a malware application is ok to install if you like their uninstaller. Seriously, tho, it is pretty bad you write comments with such utter lack of common sense in them.
The author clearly stated that it wasn't Linux he was talking about. He stated it was competent. I take that to mean the installation of the OS on a computer. He clearly stated it was the platform. That may not seem a literal term to you but it does to me.
I am not going to reiterate what he's saying. I'm going to say clearly he's talking about the drivers, games, and other software.
If Linux holds a small percentage of the computer user base and windows holds the vast majority both had to get into those positions somehow. Granted, Microsoft acted in an illegal monopolistic way, but they would never have gotten Linux to that same position if they acted in the same way only with Linux as their OS wielding the same ideology as many in the Linux community.
The reason is that too many of you think that smarts and intelligence denotes someone willing to put in the hours to learn and make a Linux box work (most probably from scratch). The answer is that you'll never get people to do that so you need to stop trying. You're a zealot and you need to go make baby carriages so you can give the rest of the world some room to breath and make carriages more cheaply for families near poverty.
Microsoft, albeit with illegal monopolistic practices, did create an OS that everyone can use out of the box. In the vast majority of cases the OS installs with little or no problems and even an 80 year old woman can do it. With the likes of Ubuntu the same could be said. But that's not even the issue.
It is with end-user applications. It is about how easily it is to install a core program. In windows you get your install CD of say Peachtree accounting and everything you need is installed. In Linux to install an equivalent you may need to install a bunch of other dependency related files that you don't have access to. Take a non-internet connected computer and install windows then do the same with Linux. This works. Take that same non-internet connected computer and install an end-user program. Under windows it will work most of the time out of the box. Under Linux it will not work most of the time.
Linux depends on repositories, which most often are maintained by just some Joe that didn't write the programs stored there and may be trying to maintain (to some degree) two or 3 repositories at one time. He has to compile or set up those repositories based on every version of every one of the programs that he maintains for every distro he maintains a repository for.
He can make mistakes on one or more of those programs. He may not have the knowledge or skills to build them all correctly. For each repository and for each version the possible errors grow.
Not only that, he may not have the version you want so you have to go out and find the version yourself and then potentially compile it to run on your system, which will require a lot more knowledge and skill just to get an end-user program working.
The author of that article and many others have said or implied "out of box". That means you can give a customer a box containing the software and when they do the install it works without the need to get other pieces from other places. What would turn the Linux community around would be a mechanism just like the Macintosh OS X where you simply drag an icon and it is installed.
Those of you who are hurt by this idea just need to bite your tongues and if you can't accept it you need to move on to something else. Maybe you could help out with poverty or help with starvation in Africa or you could go and fight terrorism. I'm not disrespecting you. I'm trying to speak from the heart. Those would be more worthy endeavors than trying to get everyone in the world to come up to your standards of smartness and intelligence.
If you can hold people to the same standard as you set for intelligence and smartness then they should be able to hold you to the same standard. For instance, the guy that makes the refrigerators should be able to hold you to the standard tha
And it is automatic download by default. Check a new install.
For those out there with their apish gruntary about who knows what: well, the average person doesn't know what a codec is and has absolutely no clue about how their computer works. Most don't know how to use most of the software on their computer and have problems understanding directories vs. partitions.
So, come down to reality here and realize that it is MS's issue and it needs to be addressed. Listen, it's a computer. What computers do are repetitive tasks. That's what sandboxing does. It is taking the repetitive function of having to constantly check whether this or that program is good or bad. Sandboxing eliminates that--because the computer is A COMPUTER. The human is prone to errors and misinterpretation which is why half the computers get infected.
It could be nothing further from the truth. They are simply pulling a page out of the Iran book of how to fuck with the world diplomatically. Sanction them, make it hard, make it affect everyone. Destroy their facilities in the middle of the night on bombing raids. Move American war ships over into that area and get ready to pound them into oblivion. Making nuclear weapons is illegal so unmake them as soon as possible, even if it means force.
This is not new. Those two you mention have had their products, for the most part, on Linux for at least a couple of years. So, it is the status quo.
Flat out it is theft. You bought the software. You are entitled to use it any way you wish. Microsoft is acting in a monopolistic fashion and are only able to do this because of the monopoly status they enjoy. If there was competition there would be no practice such as this.
It is the same code. It is like saying you can only watch a movie 2 times and then you have to buy the movie again. It is like saying you can only listen to a song 5 times then you have to buy the song again. It is like saying you can only drive your car 30,000 miles and then you have to buy a new car. It is like saying you can only take 1000 calls on your phone then you must buy a new phone. It is like saying you can only turn your monitor on 1500 times then you must buy a new monitor. It is like saying you can erase your HDD only 2 times then you must buy a new HDD.
Essentially, if we allow Microsoft to do this then we allow every other software vendor to do that too. It opens the door for every digital form of data to be managed in the same way. This is software rental in disguise.
The code is exactly the same. The programs are exactly the same.
This is just an attempt by Microsoft to keep their revenue stream flowing. It is a deceptive practice. There is no reason to force you to purchase such an expensive piece of software over and over.
You mean Dill chips?
But you know you are a sound company and you buy up all that cheap stock and make huge profits once the manufacturing issues are worked out.
Windows XP support USB keyboards and mice in the base install. The XP installer fully supports a PS2 keyboard and mouse.
Your sound and video were the gimped versions that are installed with the Linux distro. You still need to go out and download the proper 3d accelerated optimized drivers from the chipset vendors. Same for sound. Sorry, but that's just a fact of life for Linux, at least it was the last time I installed it.
If you didn't have support for your USB keyboard or mouse you had non-standard components. Albeit rare, some are out there. My customers are always told to buy for something other than price. In other words, never buy that el-cheapo mouse that is not a recognizable name or you'll pay in time and gas trying to get it to work and then driving back to the store to return it.
The issues described in his posting are demonstrative of a lack of experience and/or prioritization.
After 5 years of distribution with a large number of new products released over that half decade it would be no wonder that some people have problems with some new components and their drivers.
XP HAS NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH PS2 DRIVERS, EVER.
If you have a problem it is your problem not XP.
I do not in any way support Microsoft and I do not care to protect their name or business. It isn't my job to police for them and I don't care what anyone I encounter does with XP legal or otherwise. It just isn't my problem.
I do dislike the fact that Microsoft has stolen, deceived, and broken so many laws to get and maintain their monopoly. I hate monopoly companies. But I can honestly say that those comparative stories about XP vs. Linux are not giving the fully story to the readers, so I am commenting.
None of his problems were XP related. They were inexperience or prioritization. Windows fully supports PS2 connectors and he doesn't need SP2 to get going. On the contrary, his Linux box did not install vendor optimized fully capable drivers for video or sound. In order to make that work he would need to visit his friendly chipset vendor and download their drivers for linux and install them. He's running gimped drivers to start on a fresh install of Linux because the chipset manufacturers won't provide commercial free driver installs with the OS.
It should have taken you a couple of hours of an afternoon to do all that you talk about. Also, you may not have given any thought to the CD that came with your motherboard. If you have an add-on video card you might have wanted to look at the download section of the company that manufacturers the chipset. Just those few things would get you up and running in no time.
I build custom machines for a living and often I'll be installing 3-4 machines at a time. I own the business and I do this on my own. I prioritize well so things go fast.
On a Linux box I can spend more time than a XP box. It isn't because of the lack of things it is because things aren't readily available and I have to search far and wide to get what I want.
There absolutely is no compelling reason to buy Vista. No one needs to buy that program to solve any problem they have. The security features are no guarantee that in 6 months after Vista's release we won't be back to the same ole crap dealing with viruses and adware/spyware/malware. In fact, it has been made abundantly clear that the end user can just as easily install malware on their computer as they could under XP. Ridding the machine of it is going to be exactly the same series of steps and take just as long if not longer. Patch days from MS will remain and they will be just as large as XP.
What you get with Vista is a DRM infected nightmare and a pretty interface that you will pay dearly for in order to run it. You don't mind upgrading your computer video, memory, and hard drive just so you can use the translucent windows and reorganized structure to the programs?
Let's hope that most people understand that the Dell hype of Vista is just that--hype. I wish he'd stop disseminating inaccurate information. But hey, Dell is suffering pretty bad financially and needs to sell more hardware. They have been selling these el-cheapo boxes that won't take advantage of the only feature Vista has to offer (the translucent windows), so Dell gets to sell higher priced boxes again. Those price wars were eating up Dell and their market position. Hell, even some of the el-cheapo enthusiast built boxes were better performers, more standardized, and and more easily upgraded than some most of the mid-range Dells and even some of the high end Dells.
My customers see my custom computers see their long manufacturer warranties and know that Dell is just crap. I never dispute that Dell makes good solid notebooks. But their desktops are atrocious.
The bundled software in Dells are weak and usually trial versions that expire in 90 days. They use el-cheapo parts and their connectors, powersupplies, and mountings to the motherboards are very proprietary. Dell knows this. They planned it. But they also know they will sell many more costly machines now that Vista requires so much more power to operate.
But your experience with an XP Pro install is not common, in fact it is rare. With better prioritization you could get any box up and running in a matter of a couple of hours, including the complete assembly process.
The math that their copy protection is based on is widely available. Part of his goal is to allow the music to play on other players while allowing ipods to play other protected song formats.
One of the articles I read clearly stated that DRM will only lock you down into one companies technology and if that company goes then you are in possession of a technology similar to the 8-track tapes.
Bottom line, something has to be done because if we can't get rid of this DRM crap we are going to be locked into certain companies. I'm sure you don't want to have your 200+ songs locked into the player from a company you may no longer wish to support. Apple, for instance, is no more immune to bad conduct than any other.
The current GUI in XP is more than valid and works well doing everything you would expect it to do. The GUI in Vista is all that is has to offer. Well, some exceptione, are the DRM infection, the restrictive EULA, and the built-in spyware.
What troubles me is that somehow so many industry pundits are pushing this thing as something special and worthy of the billions spent to develop it. Most of these must be looking at a picture of increased sales of hardware, more magazine articles (thus advertisers), etc. I personally think alot of these guys have been paid off by Microsoft.
Just looking at the OS for a few days can clearly demonstrate that alot of what is being said just isn't true. One guy I read that got alot of press professed massive hardware support while my experience with it has been very common and found little hardware support overall. One would not expect neglect of IDE drivers, modems, etc., but would would expect that great effort to make wireless as trouble free as possible is much a minimum.
Microsoft touts their sleep mode features, but in reality their implementations of these features have been severely lacking and extremely problemmatic over the years with little to instill any sense of confidence in me toward that feature and thus Microsoft. I think if the average person was going to save $50-$75 a year we should all jump up in the air and wave our hands in joy. Frankly we'd save more money if we'd just turn the buggers off at night.
Guess what? We all thrashed Microsoft in the area of Genuine Advantage Notification and yet they have implemented this feature in spades under Vista. Anyone buying it will have to accept that up front. That means they are going to be spying on you and your use of Windows. Not only that they seem to think they are entitled to this. They seem to think they can interfere with the use of our computers.
I have 15+ legit copies of XP and I have good solid hardware that runs it. My small business does just fine. What exactly is Vista going to give me? Anyone using XP currently has to ask that one question and be serious about it. I know many will find reasons to upgrade but from a productivity stand point, from a usage stand point, from a feature stand point, there's really nothing that complells anyone to upgrade. You like the latest greatest then fine do it for that but not because Vista is giving you anything special because it isn't. One must also ask themselves if it is worth giving up your privacy to the spying the Microsoft will be implementing. Not only that are you willing to give that up to a monopoly that has been convicted of crimes? Are you going to give that up to the company that stole the technology to do on-line activation of Windows and Office? Are you willing to give that up to a company that then used gorilla tactics in court to bury the court and the plaintiff in paper work in an effort to hide the evidence proving the plantinff's case?
Microsoft has alot of power to influence and they get more free marketing than any other company on the planet, now and throughout history. But to be honest with you it only takes a concerted effort by people such as you and I to tell others how what has been happening and what they are doing with Vista to bring things back to reality.
Why does Microsoft think they are the only ones that can produce a spying program that can disable even legitimate licenses? Who is Microsoft to tell us that after we pay upwards of $400.00 that we are not entitled to install this on any given machine we so choose? Do they not think that the average person who purchased Windows Vista is going to put up with "sorry, you have to buy a new Vista because your motherboard went out and you need it replaced"? What do you think will happen to system upgrades?
That sort of license restriction caters to the likes of the big companies selling computers such as HP, Dell, etc. It doesn't help the average guy who is trying to make computers cheaper and better than HP or Dell.
You would not want this guy on your debate team. No offense meant. There's too much ad homenin in the posts.
The concept of "better" isn't always based soley on price/performance. Again, one has to consider other USPs. Price should not be the USP especially in a near monopoly market. There are alot of reason to buy AMD. One may be that for some the fact that they already have a significant investment in them. For others it may be their stock. For some it may be unethical conduct of a monopoly. Some may just like the way they do business. Others might like the idea of the tail wagging the dog. Others know that it is more than just AMD making Core 2 Duo possible. AMD brought alot of value over the years--hence brand loyalty. For others it could mean that the only reason Core 2 Duo exists is the same reason that AMD inevitably will surpass Intel again--due to the fact that it takes an AMD to motivate Intel rather than Intel being motivated by the consumer wishes.
Now if AMD consistently failes upon execution and we don't see benefits over the next couple years then yeah I'd say there's a problem and that should motivate others to switch. Realistically there's no reason anyone with any other reason to buy AMD (besides price/performance) to switch to Intel.
What I see consistently argued is that AMD had the price/performance crown for the past several years and that irked alot of Intel fans because they felt AMD fans were throwing that in their face. Right now Intel holds the price/performance crown and the Intel fans want to throw that back at AMD fans. What I see as the flaw in this is that people do buy for other reasons than price performance. That's a major flaw because had that been the case those buying would have switched from Intel to AMD over the past couple of years.
It shifts things and never destroys it because just like arguments where no two people have identical ones there are no two people that consider their decisions exactly the same. The only way it could possibly hurt competition is if everyone agreed and we know that is never about to happen. No matter how much you consider your choices, and even if you switch, others will switch too and in the opposite direction for any number of reasons.
AMDs current situation isn't likely to destroy it. You don't hear AMD saying that they were totally taken by this and that they have no plans. AMD has been in this position before. They have some of the best engineers around to develop new technologies. To even consider AMDs demise at this point is completely irrational.
Your implication is that it is the only rational thing. Postulating that everyone should do it is irrational. It isn't a valid argument to suggest that if one does it everyone should because someone made a rational argument. You are just missing the idea that there are alot of rational arguments to every conclusion. There are also alot of irrational arguments to every conclusion.
What is missing is the concept of Unique Selling Proposition (USP). USPs should never be price. In processors it seems to be price/performance. AMD has other USPs than price/performance, although it has been the primary USP.
Luckily the average man knows he has more than one reason for buying any given product.
It also lies to the fact that people do prefer one company over the other. If we all bought the best price/performance as is laid out in his post we'd all be driving the same car or watching the same TV sets or even buying Dells. But to those that know the ins and outs know why one buys a different TV or car or processor.
AMD is no where near dying. That's like saying Apple is dead. I don't think so. Apple is not the best price/performance and probably never will be.
The answer is that most never buy for the price/performance thing--they buy what they like, who they like, and for alot of different unique selling propositions. Invariably we all suffer dissonance and I'm sure when the next release of AMD processors come out that beat Intel there'll be dissonance.
AMD fans that buy Intel processors are good for the industry just like Intel fans that buy AMD processors are good for the industry. Buy what you like when you like.
AMD and Intel both know what each other have planned, at least in more specialized terms than general ones, albeit not each specific plan. With that in mind, neither AMD nor Intel are working on solely their next competing product. Each is working on technologies far beyond that. AMD could never have had the performance leadership for the past 2 years without having known what Intel was up to for years before they released these products. Just as Intel knows what AMD is up to. This exchange in leadership will continue for years and years.
I think what I'm reading in this thread are alot of Intel fans that are just wishing that AMD dies because of how AMD trounced Intel these past few years.
We all should remember that without AMD we would never have had the advancements we have today. It is unlikely we'd be anywhere near the power/performance curve we have today without AMD. It is also highly unlikely that AMD will give up the desktop processor market focusing primarily on servers.
Only inferior insofaras the most recent product. Did we see these same arguments the other way around when Intel processors were inferior to AMDs?
Nor should you have to investigate every one. It is the same argument against the linux zealots that believe you suck because you don't build your own kernel or compile your own programs. You don't say people suck because they don't do these things, any more than you would say the linux zealots suck because they didn't build their own TV or make their own refrig or assemble their own car.
/. it is about techy stuff (primarily but not exclusively). We see the bigger tech names and we focus on them and if they are unethical we do cease or slow our activity with them or move on to some other.
You don't need to investigate every one because you can't. The main thing here is that every producer has suppliers that may nor may not be unethical, and we could never know them all. What we can do is try to recognize the bigger most visual offenders. Everyone may not oppose every unethical company but enough people can see with in the scope of their own comfort zone and deny those that have particularly offended them. In our case here on
Only insofaras the most recent chip releases. Intel didn't become a monopoly since their new chip release.
What he gave you is bad advice.
Microsoft is based in WA State where the laws have been changed by Microsoft to make programming positions exempt. This means that you won't get overtime pay (for hours over 40 in a week) and marginal compensatory time. On top of that if you don't put in 60-80 hours a week you will be passed over for stock options. There was a time when programming positions were considered hourly. If you consider the idea that you will be creating with your mind the products they sell and they can demand you work 60-80 hours a week you are getting paid squat for making their billions.
I can't speak for Google. I know that I almost never hear bad things about Google yet I hear bad things about Microsoft all the time. I am not uneducated nor am I new to the industry. In fact, I have followed the goings on in the industry for 20 years and I can say unequivocally that if you want a future where you can have a chance to change the world still you should go with the company capable of doing that. I'm positive that Microsoft is not that company. I don't know about Google's chance.
One thing they could do to sell more ipods is to make their ipods work more independently of itunes. I use my ipod not to play itunes purchased music but to play back mp3s created from my CD collection. I do not care for itunes at all. A couple of things. I can't just copy a picture onto my ipod. I have to sync a folder. I can't just delete a song from the player I want I have to delete it from itunes and then sync the player. I can't just delete a picture either right from the ipod. In fact, I can't do any sort of file management at all from the player. If I copy a song on there and I don't want to keep it any longer I should just be able to click a button or two and have it deleted, period.
In that regard iPods suck. If they want to sell more ipods then they can simply give me control over my songs so I don't have to play their stupid itunes game. I have a collection of my music on an external sata drive and I don't want to copy my music from their to the itunes library just to get them onto my ipod.
Don't get me started on videos. This stuff should just be as simple as dragging a file onto my ipod and having it classify the item and allow me to play it back at will, but no...it isn't even easy to figure out.
I am currently using anapod explorer but those guys too have some real problems. What's with these apple-style developers not understanding development of software on the PC. I'm not saying all of them are this way but some are.
The anapod explorer software can mess up the hardware settings in windows if you pull the cable before it says you are allowed to pull the cable. No software program should do that to an OS driver. I know it is the anapod explorer causing it because I have had to uninstall it, get the ipod back, and then reinstall anapod explorer.
The system tray icons for anapod explorer suck. You right click on them and it brings up the sys tray icon for their program but it also brings up the sys tray menu as well. That's cooky and shows how poorly written their software is. Even with their software I can't explore photo's on the ipod but at least I can copy individual photos over without much heartache. I can also edit tags while the song is on the player and I can rename and manipulate the files in other ways.
iTunes just sucks all over unless you want to purchase apple DRM based songs which you can't transfer to any other sort of player. You are committed to Apple when you buy their DRM based songs.
I would pay more for a better player if one came out that wasn't Microsoft. I am eager to get this DRM crap out of my computer (current and future computers) forever. I don't want to give MS or any of the others license to make any further inroads into locking me out of my own content.
What the iPod has a neat little package. For their nifty user interface they recently paid $100 million to Creative to continue to use. Point being it is nice and small, well integrated into their store, but it sucks that they have such crappy file management, for tasks as simple as just delete a song you don't like and don't want. Syncing on a 30gig iPod takes a long time and getting things done on it are confusing. I can only imagine how my elderly retired friend feels trying to get her basic tasks done. She doesn't even want to hear the argument about DRM and IP rights and Apple's attempt to secure store sales. She just wants to listen to her music.
I wrote a long article about how important DRM control was to content and content distribution. I even wrote out how some of the historical events over the past 10 years has made for Microsoft's monopoly. I then correlated the DRM to future market control and the building of a greater foundation upon which they will maintain their monopoly status.
I erased it all because some of the younger crowd probably would see it as some sort of conspiracy theory. Those that lived through the 80s and 90s working in the industry know how Microsoft got into their monopoly position.
Suffice it to say that DRM locks you into a company and props up their profits. For example, if you buy Microsoft's products you are locked into their DRM, and hence in order to change (for any valid reason) you either give up all you purchased and move on, or you stay with them realizing that over the years you may have purchased hundreds if not thousands of dollars of DRM conent from one providor. The only thing you can do to keep from being locked in is to purchase your content from multiple sources (and hence be stuck with multiple incompatible content, and players). For instance, you could buy Zune and an iPod and purchase content on both. You can't interchange those sorry to say. DRM and the laws that protect that (such as the DCMA) keep you from moving that content to a better player, a more competitive company, etc. Maybe someday Congress will see that and change the laws once they realize what they created by allowing such an Act to be created.
Anyway, we all know how Microsoft controls the Office market by virtue of controlling the windows API. We see the same thing in interoperability standards for networking--the very thing that the EU has been on MS about. The secretive portions of the API are just like having DRM in a way.
Microsoft doesn't control the networking world but they did gain significant inroads into the market overnight taking away Novell's 90% marketshare (overnight). The same thing happened with word processing and spreadsheets. Granted, the companies that were the defacto standards back then are responsible too. We know though that Microsoft has used it's position in control of the OS to manipulate the office productivity and networking markets and lock to vendors and consumers.
If Zune grabs any significant portion of the market expect the MS DRM to do the same thing to content creation, IP rights holders, and you the consumer. Everyone who chose them will be locked into a convicted monopolist's way of doing things.
Consider for yourself how many times you would be willing to repurchase the same music or videos (even after years of using one vendor's products). I doubt many of you would want to do that. Imagine the iPod owner that has filled their iPod up with Apple music store purchases. Can you image a 30 gig iPod filled with 7,500 songs at $.99 a piece? Would you, if you were in the same position consider giving that up to go with another vendor knowing you can't transfer that content?
I don't think any time before Apple's iTunes store and the iPod has a vendor/reseller ever held such control over the pricing of products in the way Apple has been recognized to have. (IP rights holders wanted a sliding scale based on popularity and Apple called them greedy and got them to concede to its' pricing plan). In reality it was Apple who was greedy and had there been another mechanism as easy to distribute and collect payment as Apple had we would not have seen that happen. Microsoft sees this and knows that they can gain participation due to their name and resources. One wrong move by Apple and BAM! Microsoft will be their to offer their service. They know that once they control the content via DRM you are stuck with them. They also know that Apple is very very strong and it will be hard to use any Apple mistake to their advantage.
Linux, no matter how much you like it is still not ready for the masses. It lacks the ability to easily install programs such as the Macintosh and Windows has. Online repositories are not the answers as they are maintained by individuals who do not write the programs themselves. Repositories are specific to a distro and sometimes even a version of a distro.
Computers were never meant to be used solely by the likes of those who love to tear things apart. That is the second of two major roadblocks keeping Linux out of the main stream.
Get programs to install as easily as they do on OSX and Windows and rid the community of the mentality that you are a noob and weak if you don't want to play the game at the lowest disassembled level.
Ubuntu is no where near as good as it could be. The developers have given up on the idea of making it simple and strong and capable for your grandmother to use and maintain by herself.
Drivers are still a problem. There's alot of proprietariness out there that the Linux community can't handle. Much of the video driver capabilities (for example) are left out of the generic drivers installed during the setup. Much of those left out capabilities will always be left out because they are precisely that, proprietary.
I've run Linux for 3 years and I can only say that I spend significantly more time maintaining it than I do any other OS (my OSX boxes and my Windows boxes). The online repository never worked and it relies on high bandwidth to do its job. The vast majority of people still are on dial-up. Some can't afford high speed and others can't get it. Those majority won't ever be able to use linux when the idea is that the updates should come from on line.
To expect, nay demand, that the users have a compiler on their computer is the worst notion in the idea of personal computers. Remember these are personal computers. You can't and should not be telling others what they can or should be doing with them. That's why they are called "personal". You do what your person wants to do.
The notion of insulting people because they choose one distro over another is ludicrious. Why is that? It is because most of you are noobs at virtually everything in life. You can't design your own refrigerator. You won't design your own home. You don't know the laws, regulations, and codes necessary to build anything. You won't put together your own car nor will you assemble your own TV. You can't make your own medicine. You don't know how to repair your plumbing, you can't figure out how to make electricty. You can't make paper, nor ink, nor most anything that you use regularly in life.
SO WHY THE HELL ARE YOU CALLING OTHER NOOBS?
Most of the zealots can't even think through the above argument to give a solid reasonable applicable reply. I'm not insulting people. I'm trying to get across that you expect people to build their own OS, compile code, debug the issues, as a granny or a teenager. You don't even understand the fundamentals of most people's lives (marriage, children, education, transportation, etc are the primary concern of people's lives), allt he while you disrespect those that want to use their computer to do a task rather than making the computer the task.
If you can't get on the bandwagon and apply your own real-life issues and recognize others have their own, then you are a retard.
I know this post will get me some negative karma because alot of people really support linux here. I'm not saying linux is bad at all. I'm just saying it is not ready for mainstream use. Over the past couple of years there's been alot said about that. There's been this on-going debate abou whether Linux is desktop ready.
The kernel is a fine piece of work. It is a spectacular piece of work. It is at the top of the dog pile when it comes to stability. But the average user doesn't seen the kernel. They don't want to see the kernel. They just want the computer and their programs to work. They don't want to sit an