Zipp0 1
Recommended Posts
Linux will always be an operating system developed by developers, for developers.
Windows will always be an operating system developed by developers, for users.
Due to the nature of open-source, Linux distro's and the software developed to run on them will never be as standardized, and honestly... as quality, as those programs developed to run on the Microsoft or Apple platforms. Why? Because there isn't any money in open-source development. There isn't any money because the target market isn't even paying for the platform. And the only VIABLE market is in network servers. And frankly, Microsoft has a strong hold on the server market as well. Why? Because they developed a superior product, and that product required far more resources to develop, had more access to said resources, and was done by people that obviously do their job well enough to warrant getting paid.
At the end of the day, an operating system that is as dependent on the competency of the user as Linux is, will never succeed in a market where the user is more often than not, incompetent. Many times I've show people websites that don't display properly in Firefox yet display just fine in IE. The open-source kiddies will open up Firefoxes little source editor and spend some time fixing the code. Then with a smirk on their face they say "It's not Firefox's fault, it's the coder's fault." I say to them, it doesn't matter whether it's the coder's or the browser's fault. It still ends up being a user's problem. If one piece of software can correctly compensate for the inadequacy, thereby allowing the user to remain oblivious that there is a problem, and one piece of software can't, the user will probably lean towards the one that makes the problem remain transparent.
User's don't want to spend time configuring a computer outside of changing their theme and wallpaper. They sure as hell don't want to have to configure programs and hardware to make sure shit works right.
That is all.
Windows will always be an operating system developed by developers, for users.
Due to the nature of open-source, Linux distro's and the software developed to run on them will never be as standardized, and honestly... as quality, as those programs developed to run on the Microsoft or Apple platforms. Why? Because there isn't any money in open-source development. There isn't any money because the target market isn't even paying for the platform. And the only VIABLE market is in network servers. And frankly, Microsoft has a strong hold on the server market as well. Why? Because they developed a superior product, and that product required far more resources to develop, had more access to said resources, and was done by people that obviously do their job well enough to warrant getting paid.
At the end of the day, an operating system that is as dependent on the competency of the user as Linux is, will never succeed in a market where the user is more often than not, incompetent. Many times I've show people websites that don't display properly in Firefox yet display just fine in IE. The open-source kiddies will open up Firefoxes little source editor and spend some time fixing the code. Then with a smirk on their face they say "It's not Firefox's fault, it's the coder's fault." I say to them, it doesn't matter whether it's the coder's or the browser's fault. It still ends up being a user's problem. If one piece of software can correctly compensate for the inadequacy, thereby allowing the user to remain oblivious that there is a problem, and one piece of software can't, the user will probably lean towards the one that makes the problem remain transparent.
User's don't want to spend time configuring a computer outside of changing their theme and wallpaper. They sure as hell don't want to have to configure programs and hardware to make sure shit works right.
That is all.
QuoteLinux will always be an operating system developed by developers, for developers.
Windows will always be an operating system developed by developers, for users.
I was really tempted to stop reading after these really mediocre and baseless predictions. I'm glad I didn't because the long paragraphs had surprisingly intelligent analysis.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
QuoteQuoteLinux will always be an operating system developed by developers, for developers.
Windows will always be an operating system developed by developers, for users.
I was really tempted to stop reading after these really mediocre and baseless predictions. I'm glad I didn't because the long paragraphs had surprisingly intelligent analysis.
I knew the opening lines were relatively weak predictions, but to date, that is the current setup. Linux is for developers and script kiddies, Windows is for everyone who doesn't like Mac.
I just remember a kid coming in to work with his laptop so he could use it while waiting for his car to get done. He comes in asking if there's anything special he has to do to connect to our wireless internet. I tell him there isn't. He comes back 5 minutes later "Are you sure there isn't a problem with the wireless?" My co-worker has his Dell laptop running and connected. I show the kid how the Dell is connected just fine. I intuitively asked "What operating system are you using?"
Response:
"Well my friend installed Linux on this last week."
Yeah I bet your "friend" did. I told him I couldn't help him because I don't know anything about wireless networking with Linux. He was sad and put his laptop back up after doing what I presume was playing snake for a few minutes.
Zipp0 1
Quote
User's don't want to spend time configuring a computer outside of changing their theme and wallpaper. They sure as hell don't want to have to configure programs and hardware to make sure shit works right.
A system pre-configured with Mandrake Linux, running the KDE desktop is just as easy/user friendly for the dumb end user as Windows. Heck, most users can't fix windows when they run into a problem, so why would Linux be any different.
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
sorry, your definition of 'quality' is suspect. When you point to IE browsers working better than Firefox (or Opera or lynx, or ...), that's a case in point. IE allows a lot of slop, and a lot of non standard extensions. In some aspects of html it's totally broken. It's a shame that the new Perris web site requirres both a very recent version of flash and apparently IE as well to function. I liked the old site much better on all accounts. MS's history of embrace and extend of standards is the best justification for the continous litigating against them. It's the definition of monopolistic practices.
Superior products include apache, openssh, dhcp, samba, nfs, gallery ... the list goes on. As Windows evolved into tcp/ip networking it has done its best to mimmick the unix world, but that's being generous for the most part. In this process they've suffered every sort of security flaw that was addressed in the 90s by unix. Not learning a thing from history.
The biggest failings in opensource centers around target audience and documentation. It's written for people that have a higher degree of understanding. Yet unfortunately, the documentation is often not even adequete for those folks - can be incomplete, or obsolete.
and then you have the Stallman camp with marxist notions that all code should be free. Hell, I don't even like emacs - why should my editor be an OS?
BTW, Apple is based on Freebsd, so again I question your notion of 'quality.'
Superior products include apache, openssh, dhcp, samba, nfs, gallery ... the list goes on. As Windows evolved into tcp/ip networking it has done its best to mimmick the unix world, but that's being generous for the most part. In this process they've suffered every sort of security flaw that was addressed in the 90s by unix. Not learning a thing from history.
The biggest failings in opensource centers around target audience and documentation. It's written for people that have a higher degree of understanding. Yet unfortunately, the documentation is often not even adequete for those folks - can be incomplete, or obsolete.
and then you have the Stallman camp with marxist notions that all code should be free. Hell, I don't even like emacs - why should my editor be an OS?
BTW, Apple is based on Freebsd, so again I question your notion of 'quality.'
QuoteQuote
User's don't want to spend time configuring a computer outside of changing their theme and wallpaper. They sure as hell don't want to have to configure programs and hardware to make sure shit works right.
A system pre-configured with Mandrake Linux, running the KDE desktop is just as easy/user friendly for the dumb end user as Windows. Heck, most users can't fix windows when they run into a problem, so why would Linux be any different.
Zipp0
LOL - my aunt proves this every two days. I just moved her out of the stoneage from webtv to dsl with a windows laptop.
If connecting to your wireless network requires no steps on a new user's part - 1) you're lying, and 2) you have no security.
QuoteQuote
User's don't want to spend time configuring a computer outside of changing their theme and wallpaper. They sure as hell don't want to have to configure programs and hardware to make sure shit works right.
A system pre-configured with Mandrake Linux, running the KDE desktop is just as easy/user friendly for the dumb end user as Windows. Heck, most users can't fix windows when they run into a problem, so why would Linux be any different.
Zipp0
Errors/configuration of the OS isn't the biggest problem Linux has, it's software accessibility, compatibility, and useability.
The biggest problem a user has with trying to break into Linux is the availability of productivity software that provides 100% compatibility with the MS flavors.
I don't know if you've ever used OpenOffice, but I did, and it sucked. Specifically the Excel knockoff. It just didn't have the features of functionality I easily found in MSOffice.
It would work if you need something and have no money or ways to acquire better software for free, but again, when given two choices, people will normally take the better one.
Essentially, the things that people use a computer for, have software already developed on MS and Mac platforms that essentially sets the standard for everything else. Again, this goes back to the resources the software had for development.
I'm not saying it's impossible for Linux to become a mainstream end-user OS, I'm saying it's unlikely for previously mentioned reasons. The biggest of which is standardization.
Quotesorry, your definition of 'quality' is suspect. When you point to IE browsers working better than Firefox (or Opera or lynx, or ...), that's a case in point. IE allows a lot of slop, and a lot of non standard extensions. In some aspects of html it's totally broken. It's a shame that the new Perris web site requirres both a very recent version of flash and apparently IE as well to function. I liked the old site much better on all accounts. MS's history of embrace and extend of standards is the best justification for the continous litigating against them. It's the definition of monopolistic practices.
Superior products include apache, openssh, dhcp, samba, nfs, gallery ... the list goes on. As Windows evolved into tcp/ip networking it has done its best to mimmick the unix world, but that's being generous for the most part. In this process they've suffered every sort of security flaw that was addressed in the 90s by unix. Not learning a thing from history.
The biggest failings in opensource centers around target audience and documentation. It's written for people that have a higher degree of understanding. Yet unfortunately, the documentation is often not even adequete for those folks - can be incomplete, or obsolete.
and then you have the Stallman camp with marxist notions that all code should be free. Hell, I don't even like emacs - why should my editor be an OS?
BTW, Apple is based on Freebsd, so again I question your notion of 'quality.'
Again, I don't knock the ability of Non-MS based products to achieve results superior to that of MS based products. No disagreement here that some of Microsoft's large scale networking infrastructures are... lacking to say the least.
But in terms of end-user operation... MS and Mac have it down.
BTW, being "based" is a world of difference from being something.
EDIT: I never said IE worked better than FF
EDIT2: But I do like IE better. I use Opera for forum browsing (their gesture feature is unbeatable) and IE for everything else. I've never experienced any negative effects from browsing in IE that weren't fixed with say... Google Toolbar for pop-ups and Adaware for spyware. I haven't even had to run Adaware for a few months now. I don't use anti-virus (I have more problems with the AV software than I've ever had with spyware) and the most of a firewall I've ever ran was windows built-in plus whatever weak firewall my router had.
I've never had a virus that I didn't consciously know I was going to contract, disregarding that time i turned on IIS.
Quote
It would work if you need something and have no money or ways to acquire better software for free, but again, when given two choices, people will normally take the better one.
I take Photoshop over the Gimp. I prefer Dvico's badly mangled HDTV capture package over Myth. Though neither of these have anything to do with MS. I think the only MS product I prefer over alternatives is their mouse. I use Office or office file format readers only when forced to. Between Firefox and IE it's no contest. Why pick the bloatware? Maybe IE7 will bridge the gap, but frankly I doubt it. I use it when I have to, and curse those vendors.
Quote
Essentially, the things that people use a computer for, have software already developed on MS and Mac platforms that essentially sets the standard for everything else. Again, this goes back to the resources the software had for development.
Excel may be your answer, but I can't think of a single MS product that has set the standard, besides that mouse. Apple might be able to make a claim - the suite of software like iVideo, iTunes, iWhatever has been very well received.
and there's no getting past the security implications of a system that was designed around the user running with root level priviledges.
JackC 0
You're right, software availability and support for other formats is a problem. That's still one of the reasons I continue using windows. It's easier to find good quality windows software than linux software evn though some linux apps are really good. I also think the linux/UNIX plaform is better suited to doing some of the number crunching/coding I need to do and have traditionally done on UNIX workstations.
Many of the good linux apps also have windows versions and if not you can always use use Cygwin which is a unix emulator for windows. Setting it up is a major headache but you almost get the best of both worlds in one box.
As far as security issues go, linux can be better if it is well sorted but windows can be made relatively secure with the right firewall/filtering software. Good enough for most users anyway.
Many of the good linux apps also have windows versions and if not you can always use use Cygwin which is a unix emulator for windows. Setting it up is a major headache but you almost get the best of both worlds in one box.
As far as security issues go, linux can be better if it is well sorted but windows can be made relatively secure with the right firewall/filtering software. Good enough for most users anyway.
Guest
Hmmm...methinks some of the more important parts of the article have been overlooked in the OS battle.
One of the most important pieces of news in the story is that HARDWARE manufacturers are either being pressured or are cooperating willingly to lock their products so that they won't run anything other than a particular OS (think of digital signing for hardware, as software is digitally signed [read-encrypted] by Microsoft). With Windows or Mac, we don't own the OS (when you buy a copy of Windows, you don't own it, just a license to use it).
If the powers that be have their way, we won't even own the hardware anymore, just a license to use it. That's what I came away with in the article.
So try to get off the OS jihad for a moment and look a little deeper and a little farther down the road, because it's where we're heading.
Examples of "locked" or "Pwned" products you probably already own are DVD players, with their "region" codes (and yes I know they can be cracked, but most of the biomass isn't clever enough to do that, and that's what the industry is counting on).
It will be interesting to see whether "alternative" hardware gets created in the same way that Linux evolved as an answer to the monolithic Unix systems that were out of the reach of those who wanted to learn about them.
One of the most important pieces of news in the story is that HARDWARE manufacturers are either being pressured or are cooperating willingly to lock their products so that they won't run anything other than a particular OS (think of digital signing for hardware, as software is digitally signed [read-encrypted] by Microsoft). With Windows or Mac, we don't own the OS (when you buy a copy of Windows, you don't own it, just a license to use it).
If the powers that be have their way, we won't even own the hardware anymore, just a license to use it. That's what I came away with in the article.
So try to get off the OS jihad for a moment and look a little deeper and a little farther down the road, because it's where we're heading.
Examples of "locked" or "Pwned" products you probably already own are DVD players, with their "region" codes (and yes I know they can be cracked, but most of the biomass isn't clever enough to do that, and that's what the industry is counting on).
It will be interesting to see whether "alternative" hardware gets created in the same way that Linux evolved as an answer to the monolithic Unix systems that were out of the reach of those who wanted to learn about them.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
Zipp0 1
Quote
I take Photoshop over the Gimp.
OK, But it kinda makes it harder to justify the high price of Photoshop. The GIMP rocks.
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
There will always be DIY parts available, so the X86 (intel or AMD) will always be available for opensolaris, linux, or xbsd installs. There's no danger of all of this ending.
MS wouldn't dare change that equation either - right now they can truthfully claim that people have alternatives, even if they're essentially geek friendly alternatives.
MS wouldn't dare change that equation either - right now they can truthfully claim that people have alternatives, even if they're essentially geek friendly alternatives.
crwtom 0
Quote
A system pre-configured with Mandrake Linux, running the KDE desktop is just as easy/user friendly for the dumb end user as Windows. Heck, most users can't fix windows when they run into a problem, so why would Linux be any different.
at least a couple of years ago Mandrake was considered fairly
bleeding edge - which also means less stable. The 8.1 I used a
few years back I would NOT have recommended to a novice.
But I suppose things have changed and parts of French
government (law enforcemtn, etc) are using Mandrake/Madriva
now.
I've since moved to SUSE/Novell - installation was plug and go
and even the wireless worked out of the box. It manages to be
pretty stable and thorough about configurations and at the same
time features a large variety of the most recent application.
(The other distro that seems to get a lot of praise lately is Unbuntu
but I never tried it.)
Some people predict that we will see a good amount of competition
between distros in the near future with subsequent consolidations
into just a couple of standard distros.
T
*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true
crwtom 0
Quote
I don't know if you've ever used OpenOffice, but I did, and it sucked. Specifically the Excel knockoff. It just didn't have the features of functionality I easily found in MSOffice.
if someone would ask me to come up with a concrete example why
open source is a good thing OpenOffice, particularly, the OOCalc
spreadsheet application would be the first thing that would come to
my mind.
As coordinator of a large course I recently made OOCalc the
mandatory standard in scorekeeping for all teaching assistants.
The main reasons were:
- it runs on any platform: Our department runs MACs as well as
Linux/Unix machines and many have Windows at home. Excel
does not run Linux/Unix machines and I don't know how good
the MAC support is.
- It is free. I cannot expect instructors to pay big bucks to pay for
M$-Office give they low pay some are already getting. There is
a way for GTAs to get their hands on Office but it's a
cumbersome process where you have to go throgh licensing
paper work.
- For me perhaps the most imporatnt reason was that OOCalc
files are basically straight foward xml code. That made it
possible to create online utilities with which GTA could upload
their spreadsheet directly into the data base of the course
management system we're using. All you needed are a bunch
of perl/php scripts to parse the xml. With Excel I don't have the
first clue how to extract data within scripts.
- Finally, OOCalc supports the maximal about of formats. That is,
it can also import/export Excel sheets - there may be a few
specialized high-end features that may not go through properly
though I never encoutered a problem with it. As far as I know
Excel does not allow OOo import/exports.
Especially since I was worried that people would complain who
are used to Excel I looked around for opinions on the web where
people compared the two before I instroduced my standard. It
seemed for every Excel advocate there was at least one OOCalc
fan. There were also many accounts of small businesses that
went OOo and seemed to be happy with it.
Per academic year we're recording/uploading over 50'000 scores
in our course and OOCalc has worked without any major hang-ups.
(The excepetion was NeoOffice/J which we eventually got rid of)
T
*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true
crwtom 0
Quote.
Examples of "locked" or "Pwned" products you probably already own are DVD players, with their "region" codes (and yes I know they can be cracked, but most of the biomass isn't clever enough to do that, and that's what the industry is counting on).
in most recent Linux distros you can play even encrypted DVDs
without any further hacks right out of the box. It used to be that
you had to downloadthe particular libs from those people in
scandinavia that broke the codes, but somehow that doesn't seem to
be necessary anymore - no idea how they got around the legal
issues but it works.
T
*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true
Guest
That is because a couple of years ago, the RIAA and their butt-buddies in the DVD industry finally realized that the DECSS genie was out of the bottle and wasn't going back in.
That's when they decided to collaborate on Blue-Ray technology, which promises much stronger encryption than DECSS.
mh
That's when they decided to collaborate on Blue-Ray technology, which promises much stronger encryption than DECSS.
mh
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
Zipp0 1
Quote
That's when they decided to collaborate on Blue-Ray technology, which promises much stronger encryption than DECSS.
mh
LOL. They will crack blu-ray in less than a month. And there are already 20 ways around the encryption. Take the video/audio out and feed to HD VHS recorder. From there feed it to consumer HD video camera. Then firewire out to hard drive.
They have been trying to stop sharing and copying of music and movies since they were invented. Give it up already!
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
Guest
QuoteQuote
That's when they decided to collaborate on Blue-Ray technology, which promises much stronger encryption than DECSS.
mh
LOL. They will crack blu-ray in less than a month. And there are already 20 ways around the encryption. Take the video/audio out and feed to HD VHS recorder. From there feed it to consumer HD video camera. Then firewire out to hard drive.
They have been trying to stop sharing and copying of music and movies since they were invented. Give it up already!
Zipp0
For the techno-savvy, it's a fait accompli...DOA, one might say.
But what of the biomass? The clueless consumers are just going to get bent over even more.
Here in Kosovo, Intellectual Property is unheard of. One can walk into any shop on the street in the town near here and pay just a few Euros for software that retails for thousands in the USA or the EU.
There is a disconnect here that I keep trying to emphasize. The concentration of techology in the hands of the few means that the many must make do with whatever they can get, or do without.
The cabal of entertainment creators and technology makers succeeds in pressing out the dollars from the biomass in places where laws exist to protect IP (read: The industrialized nations). The RIAA and MPAA lawyers don't come to places like this. Follow the money.
This thread seems to keep drifting. The focus of the article was upon things that consumers buy, but somehow do not own, thanks to IP abuse.
If the cabal had its way, bypassing the regional coding in one's DVD player would be a felony.
It's my belief that the cabal wants everything connected, but distributed, so that they retain absolute control over the technology.
Imagine the Feds showing up at your door because you loaded a bootleg application on your PC.
THAT is where this is not far from.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
Quote
in most recent Linux distros you can play even encrypted DVDs
without any further hacks right out of the box. It used to be that
you had to downloadthe particular libs from those people in
scandinavia that broke the codes, but somehow that doesn't seem to
be necessary anymore - no idea how they got around the legal
issues but it works.
T
This is not true for Redhat/Fedora. I believe they realize they are the distribution most likely to be able to pay a settlement, so they're doing nothing to invite the movie industry to come looking.
I don't think anything has changed here.
I still run a Windows machine as well, and I have a Mac at the ready, but if I had to switch completely, I could.
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites