...

View Full Version : Will Linux ever replace Windows???



bcarl314
02-19-2003, 01:38 AM
This is not meant to be a "Trash Bill Gates/Microsoft" thread, but rather an intelligent discussion on the future of operating systems.

I've used Linux off and on for a few years now (since Red Hat 6.2) and I've got to say that that the Open Source community has really improved on the usability of Linux for the general public. Since most users are not interested (actually quite terrified) of the command line, the development of a user freindly GUI seems to be the key to breaking into the market place. That and allowing other companies to develop software for your system (which seems to still plague macs).

Now I just installed RH 8.0 on a box and am REALLY impressed. Very user friendly, but still not as "intuitive" as a Windows environment.

Do you think Linux will ever break 10% penetration? 25%? 50%?

jkd
02-19-2003, 01:50 AM
As long as Dell/Gateway/HP/whatever continue selling home pc's with Windows preinstalled, I don't think Linux will break the 10% amount for desktop users.

Linux has nice browsers (Mozilla, Konqueror), nice email clients (Kmail, Mozilla mail, etc), a nice desktop (KDE3), so what is it missing? A nice uniform experience I think... sometimes things just seem meshed together. Plus, call me lame, but I like being able to pop in Warcraft 3, or MoH:AA, and not have to build WineX or whatever from CVS just to install and play ;).

But yes, I am a quite happy user of SuSE 8.0 (but dual booting WinXP SP1).

oracleguy
02-19-2003, 05:57 AM
I visited a high school a few months ago. And the IT guy had outfitted the school all with custom built Linux machines. LCD Panels on them too. They were all thin-clients, all the software was on these linux application servers. About 700 machines.

I thought that was cool. So everyone in that school has exposure to linux.

ionsurge
02-19-2003, 10:36 AM
Well personally, I think that people are beginning to realise what a resource hogger windows is, and how much more resourceful Linux is.

But I agree, as long as it comes pre-installed, it will be the popular one.

mouse
02-19-2003, 01:11 PM
No. When Adobe, Macromedia, Discreet and the legions of game producers start developing for it then maybe. I don't see that happening.

sage45
02-19-2003, 02:14 PM
Exactly, I agree mouse... It's not that M$ has formed their stranglehold on the market themselves, it's the fact that major manufacturers of software/hardware have decided that M$ is the OS for PC systems... Yes, they do build in support for the *ix based OS's (as far as drivers and a few apps) but for the most part that support is very basic...

True, it can be said, that the more demand their is for Linux based systems, the more support there will be, but in the immediate future, as long as M$'s system becomes more and more user friendly, we will never see it overcome...

-saige-

cg9com
02-19-2003, 04:03 PM
i saw a comp. up at an electronics store, that had linux on all of there demo systems ... pretty cool.
however windows is far too widely used now to try and replace it.
if it did happen it would be a slooooow process.

brothercake
02-19-2003, 04:13 PM
If business started using Linux for thin client or general desktops, that would make a big difference to software developers' view of the market; there is already a lot of Office software for Linux - Open Office (which can even read MS Office macros; but not the other way round), Star Office, email clients, messengers, diaries, and so on - enough to do most non-power-user stuff;


But I like Windows. I'm 10 times more productive in it than any other OS; Microsoft have been, and still are, an incredibly innovative company; I just wish they were a bit more ethical .. and that IE6 wasn't so broken :rolleyes:

fan
02-19-2003, 04:28 PM
i don't think so because lots of people don't know what linux is and when you buy a computer (this is for romania) they don't install linux, they install windows. in romanian schools teachers teach you about windows not linux. but linux is a nice OS=(Operating system) and people should try it.

fan

fan
02-19-2003, 04:36 PM
i don't think so because lots of people don't know what linux is and when you buy a computer (this is for romania) they don't install linux, they install windows. in romanian school teachers teach you about windows not linux. but linux is a nice OS=(Operating system) and people should try it.

fan

cg9com
02-19-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by brothercake

But I like Windows. I'm 10 times more productive in it than any other OS;
indeed i like it as well, except for the *ahem* browser :eek:

oracleguy
02-20-2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by brothercake

But I like Windows. I'm 10 times more productive in it than any other OS; Microsoft have been, and still are, an incredibly innovative company

I agree. I mean I'm all for linux and stuff, its just that M$ has worked hard (well maybe not worked... stole perhaps?) to develop an easy user interface. Its simple enough for computer illterate people to start learning it quickly and it has accomidations for power users too.

Linux needs some work on its user interface. I mean maybe its just the few flavors of linux I've used but to do a lot of stuff its all command line. Like to install a program. Its not so bad for me; I remember to good old DOS 3.3 days :) And I'm fond of the command line; however most people are not. Thats why Xerox developed the GUI.

cg9com
02-20-2003, 01:56 AM
its not that the command line is bad, its just that, to have a succesful product you have to appeal to the masses, and that means a mindless interface :D
not to mention, that just like a webpage, you need to accomidate for impatience.

oracleguy
02-20-2003, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by cg9com
its not that the command line is bad

I'm not trying to say that; I actually like the command line (some of the time at least)

jkd
02-20-2003, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by cg9com
its not that the command line is bad, its just that, to have a succesful product you have to appeal to the masses, and that means a mindless interface :D

mm, like comparing:

# tar -xzvf somefile.tar.gz
# ./configure
# make
# make install

To *double-click* :D.

bcarl314
02-20-2003, 11:19 AM
Just a few points I would like to make:

1) most if not all business applications available in Windows have an open source counterpart that runs on Linux, ususally these can save files into a Windows readable format.

Example: OpenOffice, StarOffice

2) Most of this software is free, or extremly inexpensive (although usually has no support)

Also, as a followup question, how many of you have used a Linux system? and wht ype of OSs are you familiar with. Myself, I've used the following:

Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP (DOS if you call that an OS)
Mac OS 7.1, 9, 10.1, Jaguar
Linux RH 6.1, 7.2, 8.0, Mandrake 8.0

Also a little VMS

brothercake
02-20-2003, 12:23 PM
I have Red Hat 8.0, and it's okay. If it's all there was, I'd still be able to do my job. But it wouldn't be my first, or even my second, choice.

I find it very awkward - like when you install something - where is it? It was a while before I realised it's probably in /usr/lib/ ... but why doesn't it add desktop and start menu icons automatically?

And why do I have to go into the preferences pane to change the font size in Konqueror - there should be a button in the toolbar or main menus.

And why doesn't double-clicking the floppy icon make it mount? I have to open the terminal and go mount /mnt/floppy before I can open it.

It's lots of little things like that that put me off. It just isn't very user-friendly for people who aren't skilled in system configuration (like me)



The bottom line, IMO, and the reason why Linux isn't widely used is because it isn't really free, it's often more expensive than running Windows - remember - free is only free when time is worth nothing.

cg9com
02-20-2003, 03:35 PM
id rather double click also jkd, hehe
and yea, linux is more time consuming for sure.

i was agreeing with you oracleguy :thumbsup:
sorry if that came out wrong

oracleguy
02-20-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by bcarl314
(DOS if you call that an OS)


It most certainly is an OS. What do you think they had before windows?

jkd
02-20-2003, 05:12 PM
It's not the software that keeps me from it. I use Mozilla as my browser, and Maple 8 (which I refer to a lot for my Multivariable Calculus class) installs under Linux, and OpenOffice is good stuff. Then we have Vim.

That's everything I use my pc for, right there, except for a few games I never have time to play anyway.

But after.... 7 years? 8 years? of using Win95/98/XP, anything different seems weird. For a while I was using Enlightenment on dual monitors, which effectively gave me 8 desktops easily accessible. I loved it, but took a little getting used to, and Enlightenment was a little buggy with duals, just like KDE2 was (haven't tried in KDE3).

I'll make the switch someday though... or I'll buy an iBook and call Darwin close enough ;).

chrismiceli
03-02-2003, 07:26 PM
i don't think linux will ever take over windows for one reason, ease of use. I am not saying linux is hard to install or use, i use it everyday, but i am saying when someone wants to buy a computer they want to click a link and it will come up, they don't want to have to worry about anything else. I would like to say though that linux is my first choice in an operating system.

oracleguy
03-03-2003, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by chrismiceli
i don't think linux will ever take over windows for one reason, ease of use.

Yep thats pretty much what it boils down to. Until linux is as easy for smacktards to use windows it won't switch. (no offense to anyone intended) Also Microsoft has in their licensing contacts with companies like Dell, that they still have to pay for a copy of windows on the computer even if they ship it with linux... So why would they even send it off with linux?

Bosko
03-03-2003, 02:03 PM
First I have to correct everyone who has posted in this thread,because Linux is the kernel,the whole OS is called GNU/Linux.No one installs Linux on his computer,people install GNU/Linux.Read this essay for more information on this Linux and the GNU Project (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html).


Originally posted by chrismiceli

i don't think linux will ever take over windows for one reason, ease of use. I am not saying linux is hard to install or use, i use it everyday, but i am saying when someone wants to buy a computer they want to click a link and it will come up, they don't want to have to worry about anything else. I would like to say though that linux is my first choice in an operating system.

Explain to me why people can't navigate a link with GNU/Linux?I do it all the time,and I "don't worry about anything else".


Originally posted by brothercake
It's lots of little things like that that put me off. It just isn't very user-friendly for people who aren't skilled in system configuration (like me)
That's just nonsense,because everything you described in your thread has to do with your Desktop Enviroment.I use GNOME 2.x and most programs do add a link to my GNOME menu when I install them (like BlueFish for example).I can mount all disks and partitions (and make a link to them on my desktop) from the Desktop context menu,not to mention that cd/dvd's are mounted automatically.
Furthermore,GNU/Linux is free as in Freedom,not free beer.

brothercake
03-03-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Bosko
That's just nonsense,because everything you described in your thread has to do with your Desktop Enviroment.

Yeah perhaps ... but I didn't know that, and that's the whole point - for most users that's exactly how it is.

Don't get me wrong here - I'm all in favour of open-source, and what it stands for; if the question in this thread were "is Linux a success in its own terms", then I'd probably says yes. But the question was whether it will be widely used, and in that context its philosophical importance doesn't matter - the software will only succeed in the wider market if it matches windows business-metric for business-metric.

Bosko
03-03-2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by brothercake
Yeah perhaps ... but I didn't know that, and that's the whole point - for most users that's exactly how it is.

Don't get me wrong here - I'm all in favour of open-source, and what it stands for; if the question in this thread were "is Linux a success in its own terms", then I'd probably says yes. But the question was whether it will be widely used, and in that context its philosophical importance doesn't matter - the software will only succeed in the wider market if it matches windows business-metric for business-metric.

I'll repeat it again:Linux is a kernel,the OS is called GNU/Linux.Linux is not that great,the GNU Hurd is a much better kernel but almost everyone used the Linux kernel together with GNU.So if you refer to that OS,then call it GNU/Linux.
Second,the philosophy behind it is important because free/opensource software gives people freedom.But giving people acces to the sourcecode also improves the quality of the software,so it's not only about the idealisme but it simply makes the software better too.
Also,the fact that Microsoft forces everyone to use Windows,says nothing about the quality of GNU/Linux.

sage45
03-03-2003, 08:08 PM
Very true comments, however... Any of the *nix based-os's will not catch on in the mass market of computer technology as compared with Windows for a few reasons... (these in no way reflect the OS or the kernel itself)

1. Ease of use for the novice to beginner:
Microsoft, because of it's closed source, has taken away the need for the user setup the base os... You don't need to mount anything and you dont need to know anything about command line. Apple had been doing the same thing (virtually they still are)... All of the *nix based os's do not have the same functionality built-in... In other words, you can take and either create your own changes to the kernel, as with GNU/Linux, or use an add-on program to accomplish... But from the base, the novice to beginner would not be able to accomplish this...

2. Too many cooks spoil the broth/stew:
*nix based os's allow for people (with the right knowledge) to incorporate their own changes into the kernel... This is good but it is also bad... It would be hard for any person/company to create a program that could be widely distributed safely and compatible with all of the versions available... Sure you could create it for the base version, however, by doing so you lock out the open source portion... How??? Well simply by saying, this program is designed to work with the base version of GNU/Linux or OpenBSD...

3. Capitalism:
When it comes down to it, money talks... Free means no support...


But giving people acces to the sourcecode also improves the quality of the software,so it's not only about the idealisme but it simply makes the software better too.

This goes back to the too many cooks spoils the broth/stew...


Also,the fact that Microsoft forces everyone to use Windows,says nothing about the quality of GNU/Linux.

Microsoft does not force you to use their software... If it did then we would not be having this conversation...

In closing, anyone can build a car, but not everyone does because of the following reasons:

Money, Skills and Support... Sometimes it is a combination of some or all of them, other times it is just one of them... OS building can be related to this by the same concept...

-sage-

Bosko
03-03-2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by sage45
Very true comments, however... Any of the *nix based-os's will not catch on in the mass market of computer technology as compared with Windows for a few reasons... (these in no way reflect the OS or the kernel itself)

1. Ease of use for the novice to beginner:
Microsoft, because of it's closed source, has taken away the need for the user setup the base os... You don't need to mount anything and you dont need to know anything about command line. Apple had been doing the same thing (virtually they still are)... All of the *nix based os's do not have the same functionality built-in... In other words, you can take and either create your own changes to the kernel, as with GNU/Linux, or use an add-on program to accomplish... But from the base, the novice to beginner would not be able to accomplish this...

First,not only the kernel is free (as in freedom,not free beer),but the whole OS is free.
Second,what are you talking about?Install Red Hat 8 and you'll see what's incorrect about your statement.



2. Too many cooks spoil the broth/stew:
*nix based os's allow for people (with the right knowledge) to incorporate their own changes into the kernel... This is good but it is also bad... It would be hard for any person/company to create a program that could be widely distributed safely and compatible with all of the versions available... Sure you could create it for the base version, however, by doing so you lock out the open source portion... How??? Well simply by saying, this program is designed to work with the base version of GNU/Linux or OpenBSD...

Again:
not only the kernel is free (as in freedom,not free beer),but the whole OS is free.
It seems like you don't know much about what you are talking about.What do you mean?GNU/Linux is much more stable and secure than MS Windows.



3. Capitalism:
When it comes down to it, money talks... Free means no support...

It is free as in Freedom,not free beer.No one said that GNU/Linux has to cost nothing. Second,what is wrong with paying for support,you do that with proprietary software companies too....



This goes back to the too many cooks spoils the broth/stew...



Microsoft does not force you to use their software... If it did then we would not be having this conversation...

Yes,they did.Because you can only buy home computers with MS Windows.That's why I had to buy MS WIndows,eventhough Windows sucks and I didn't want it.I have installed GNU/Linux afterwards,but still I paid for WIndows when I got my computer.Hence I was forced to buy Windows.This is called a monopoly.
Sure there are Macs,but they are 1% of the computers in the stores,plus they are more expensive and diferent type of hardware.



In closing, anyone can build a car, but not everyone does because of the following reasons:

Money, Skills and Support... Sometimes it is a combination of some or all of them, other times it is just one of them... OS building can be related to this by the same concept...

-sage-
What?Ehm..
The fact that you can modify the sourcode,doesn't mean that you should.If you are not a programmer,then someone else will do that for you.I am not a good C/C++ programmer yet,so I personally can't hack Mozilla,but someone else can (and did) and that's why I use a useragent based on Mozilla (Galeon).
And to continue on your car analogy,who would ever want to buy a car with the hood wielded shut?What if you have problems with your car?Then you can't acces your engine and fix it.

sage45
03-04-2003, 04:01 PM
Ok, before I comment on anything that you posted, please go back and read my whole post rather than the parts that you want to see or dont want to see... If you do that your own questions will be answered...


First,not only the kernel is free (as in freedom,not free beer),but the whole OS is free.
Second,what are you talking about?Install Red Hat 8 and you'll see what's incorrect about your statement.

Nowhere did I say that anything in any of the *nix based OS's cost a single penny nor did I make a reference to cost association... Secondly, I did and I quote say "All of the *nix based os's do not have the same functionality built-in... In other words, you can take and either create your own changes to the kernel, as with GNU/Linux, or use an add-on program to accomplish... But from the base, the novice to beginner would not be able to accomplish this..." In other words, I was admitting to some of the same functionality that Microsoft has incorporated being built-in to some of but not all of the *nix based OS's/Kernel's...


Again:
not only the kernel is free (as in freedom,not free beer),but the whole OS is free.
It seems like you don't know much about what you are talking about.What do you mean?GNU/Linux is much more stable and secure than MS Windows.

HUH??? Did you not grasp the concept of what I was pointing out??? Again, nothing about price or cost was mentioned... Let me try another explanation... *nix based operating system's, by way of their open source licenses, allow for people (of any knowledge level) to re-write the base code of the kernel/OS... In this way, it allows for to many variable's in an equation of "How do I make my software compatible with your Operating System and garuntee that it will run safely on said Operating System?" Now as for the last part of that comment of yours... Stable yes, secure no... We will not see eye to eye on this one because the first thing you are going to say is "why do people constantly hack blah blah..." First of all, there is no perfect lock, we can at least agree on that... A *nix based OS can be hacked just as easily as a Microsoft based OS... The main problem here is that there are currently more systems with Microsoft available (making them the big fish) and if I am any sort of an angler, I will always go after the big fish... If that doesn't make sense how about this one, my hacking or exposing flaws or creating virii for any OS other than a Microsoft based OS would be like a bank robber robbing a quick trip/convenience store/gas station that is sitting right next to the largest bank in the country...


It is free as in Freedom,not free beer.No one said that GNU/Linux has to cost nothing. Second,what is wrong with paying for support,you do that with proprietary software companies too....

You love that phrase don't you??? I never said that a person should not pay for the support, but what I am saying is that the support will be either:

A.) Very Costly
or
B.) Very Limited

Let me explain something, yes, because of our capitalistic society, everyone wants to make a buck, however, if a company can buy a piece of software and get garunteed support over paying someone to create a program with little to no support then nine times out of ten, then that company will most likely pay for the software...


Yes,they did.Because you can only buy home computers with MS Windows.That's why I had to buy MS WIndows,eventhough Windows sucks and I didn't want it.I have installed GNU/Linux afterwards,but still I paid for WIndows when I got my computer.Hence I was forced to buy Windows.This is called a monopoly.
Sure there are Macs,but they are 1% of the computers in the stores,plus they are more expensive and diferent type of hardware.

Do you know what being sarcastic means???

Anywho, Mac's may only hold a 1% of the market but that is for different reasons... They are not more expensive... And finally, the hardware that is currently used is not that different from a pc compatible system the only difference is the processor, but that does not mean that they cannot have a *nix based OS installed on them... With the right drivers you can put a *nix based OS on an apple with no problem's... The reason that a Windows Based OS would fight you is because of the Processor... Apples use a Motorola Processor which uses a different base code whereas Intel uses the x86 codeset...


What?Ehm..
The fact that you can modify the sourcode,doesn't mean that you should.If you are not a programmer,then someone else will do that for you.I am not a good C/C++ programmer yet,so I personally can't hack Mozilla,but someone else can (and did) and that's why I use a useragent based on Mozilla (Galeon).
And to continue on your car analogy,who would ever want to buy a car with the hood wielded shut?What if you have problems with your car?Then you can't acces your engine and fix it.

I agree with you whole heartedly, but let me pose this to you... You even yourself said that you do not know how, right??? Well, does that mean that you don't want to learn or know how??? I think not... One true thing that is allowed by modifying the source code is the same thing that has allowed the web to flourish in the way that it has, expanded learning... However, the web too has rules... You cannot modify the source of the web to create your own web sites but rather you have to follow guidelines and use a specific set of instructions (if you were able to, then noone would be able to access your website unless they used a browser that was compatible with your website)...

Now, lets be real, no I would not purchase a vehicle that had my hood welded shut, but in accordance with my statement, anyone who welded the hood shut would not be able to provide good support themselves as they would have locked themselves out of solving any problems as well... Also, my problem with my vehicle should be handled by a trained technician, this way I don't put a chevy part inside of a ford engine, or better yet so that I don't put a chevy part inside of my BMW engine... This is much in the same way that I deal with my OS, if there is a problem with my Windows OS, I should not have to change it or make it better to suit my needs, rather I should contact the company who created it and have them change it for me, I paid for it, which is why *nix support could be very expensive and very limited... You may also come along and retort by saying, "Microsofts support is carpy..." in an attempt to further prove your point or embarass me... However, Microsoft's support is not carpy because the hood is wielded shut, to use your analogy, but rather they have 10million cars lined up outside of a one car garage and it takes them 10weeks to fix a minor problem with the cooling system but what they end up doing is changing the windshield wipers... This is what I and everyone else do not like about Microsoft... But I understand that by your statement you are trying to say that I cannot or would not be able access the kernel for a windows based OS... The only problem is that you can access it... You are (by license) not allowed to change/modify or redistribute... You can however, reverse engineer it to find out how it was created or how they did what they did... But because you cannot modify or redistribute it, you cannot use the reverse engineered product... This all allows for a compatibility, so that they can say to the people creating programs for windows, when you throw this at the OS this is what you will get...

-sage-

brothercake
03-04-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Bosko
Because you can only buy home computers with MS Windows.

That's not true anymore; MS lost their anti-trust case on that, so now they can't exercise control over what else their suppliers sell.

Bosko it's clear that you support Linux, but you're obviously an experience user. Your objections to the comments I and others have made are based on knowledge that the average user simply doesn't have.

Bosko
03-04-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by brothercake
That's not true anymore; MS lost their anti-trust case on that, so now they can't exercise control over what else their suppliers sell.

Ahum,then why do all computers come only with MS Windows Or Apple Mac OS?You can't buy a computer with a diferent OS (unless you put together your own computer,but thats not an option for me and like 99% of the people).Maybe that's where you live,but here in the Netherlands that's a diferent story.

brothercake
03-04-2003, 06:20 PM
Maybe the shops haven't caught onto it yet; http://www.europc.co.uk sells Lindows boxes and Windows boxes. Any decent e-tailer will sell you a box with no pre-installed OS.

mouse
03-04-2003, 06:45 PM
Building your own PC is the best option for most people. It's laughable that people are still relying on rip-off merchants like Dell to assemble the machines they rely on. If you buy a Dell you'll get Windows pre-installed, not becuase they care what you use but because installing Linux and supporting it would be very costly, bearing in mind most people want Windows it'd be poor business. Obviously some would argue the market for Linux is enough to justify shipping PC's with it and some smaller prefab builders do. Ultimately if you buy from a pre-builder you get rubbish anyway; generic cut down motherboard, oem everything, poor case, weak psu. Pay peanuts, get monkeys or so they say.

sage45
03-04-2003, 06:53 PM
ROFL@Note: any advice is both given and taken voluntarily, without warranty or guarantee. CodingForums.com and specifically mouse, cannot be held responsible for damage to hardware or software. This includes the provokation of angry network admins, and distress caused to fluffy kittens or otherwise, through the following of advice within.


Mouse... :P

H:DRACE

-sage-

Bosko
03-04-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by sage45
Ok, before I comment on anything that you posted, please go back and read my whole post rather than the parts that you want to see or dont want to see... If you do that your own questions will be answered...


I did read your whole post,I even quoted your whole post (broken up in parts ofcourse)...



Nowhere did I say that anything in any of the *nix based OS's cost a single penny nor did I make a reference to cost association... Secondly, I did and I quote say "All of the *nix based os's do not have the same functionality built-in... In other words, you can take and either create your own changes to the kernel, as with GNU/Linux, or use an add-on program to accomplish... But from the base, the novice to beginner would not be able to accomplish this..." In other words, I was admitting to some of the same functionality that Microsoft has incorporated being built-in to some of but not all of the *nix based OS's/Kernel's...


I am not sure what you want to say,not all of the MS Windows kernels have the same functionality.The win32 API changed overtime.For example:programs that use the translucent windows function will only work in MS Windows "XP" and 2000 for example.Furthermore,the behaviour of some functions changed too,so that the programs using it will not behave the same under diferent Window's.The SetForegroundWindow function for examples changed between Windows 95 and 98 and then it got a diferent behaviour again in Windows XP.
I could also give you a really really long list of things that the Linux or Hurd kernel can do and the MS WIndows kernel can't.



HUH??? Did you not grasp the concept of what I was pointing out??? Again, nothing about price or cost was mentioned... Let me try another explanation... *nix based operating system's, by way of their open source licenses, allow for people (of any knowledge level) to re-write the base code of the kernel/OS... In this way, it allows for to many variable's in an equation of "How do I make my software compatible with your Operating System and garuntee that it will run safely on said Operating System?"


We are misunderstaning eachother here.
No it doesn't,you can't talk about *nix OS'.They are all really diferent,and not made by the same people,so you can't say all the *nix OS' are this and that.We are talking about GNU/Linux and WIndows here,and actually no distribution has changed the OS that much that it is incompatibable with the others.If someone is nuts,he/she can ofcourse mutilate the OS enough to make it incompatible,but you have to be stupid to do this.



Now as for the last part of that comment of yours... Stable yes, secure no... We will not see eye to eye on this one because the first thing you are going to say is "why do people constantly hack blah blah..."

How can you know what I am going to say?Stop saying such childish things.
Btw,I think that you mean crack?



First of all, there is no perfect lock, we can at least agree on that... A *nix based OS can be hacked just as easily as a Microsoft based OS... The main problem here is that there are currently more systems with Microsoft available (making them the big fish) and if I am any sort of an angler, I will always go after the big fish... If that doesn't make sense how about this one, my hacking or exposing flaws or creating virii for any OS other than a Microsoft based OS would be like a bank robber robbing a quick trip/convenience store/gas station that is sitting right next to the largest bank in the country...


Well,you are ofcourse right about this,because since their monopoly forces the majority of the people to use it,it will have more crackers and scriptkiddies and they can do more damage since more people use it.But MS Windows is simply way too insecure and can be cracked that easily (hell,there is even an application which lets you type in someones IP address and you get acces to his/her hard disk.I havent seen such an app for GNU/Linux...).Further,have you ever wondered why there are no viruses at all for GNU/Linux and millions for Windows??





You love that phrase don't you??? I never said that a person should not pay for the support, but what I am saying is that the support will be either:

A.) Very Costly
or
B.) Very Limited

Let me explain something, yes, because of our capitalistic society, everyone wants to make a buck, however, if a company can buy a piece of software and get garunteed support over paying someone to create a program with little to no support then nine times out of ten, then that company will most likely pay for the software...


I apologize if I overused some phrase.
What you are saying is illogical;Why would support be very costly?The fact is that it isn't,and you should check things before you post them.
If you buy a distribution like lets say Suse,then you will get support with that (I can know,because I bought Suse once and used their help thingy).I paid like 20 euro for a whole OS (Suse) and got support with that.Windows costs hundreds of euros...Ofcourse,if you download Suse without paying,then you can't expect to get support (the people have to earn money).



Do you know what being sarcastic means???

No,what is that?



Anywho, Mac's may only hold a 1% of the market but that is for different reasons... They are not more expensive... And finally, the hardware that is currently used is not that different from a pc compatible system the only difference is the processor, but that does not mean that they cannot have a *nix based OS installed on them... With the right drivers you can put a *nix based OS on an apple with no problem's... The reason that a Windows Based OS would fight you is because of the Processor... Apples use a Motorola Processor which uses a different base code whereas Intel uses the x86 codeset...


Hmmm,I believe they are,but then again the latest Macs have the latest hardware,which is expensive with other computers as well.
I know that you can run GNU/Linux on Mac (there was a thread about this recently too).Even better,Mac Os X = a unix.But most of the GNU/Linux applications are meant for the other architecture.



I agree with you whole heartedly, but let me pose this to you... You even yourself said that you do not know how, right??? Well, does that mean that you don't want to learn or know how??? I think not...

I know how to contribute code to opensource/free projects,just I can't write that code myself because I am not a good programmer yet (I am still learning C/C++).



One true thing that is allowed by modifying the source code is the same thing that has allowed the web to flourish in the way that it has, expanded learning... However, the web too has rules... You cannot modify the source of the web to create your own web sites but rather you have to follow guidelines and use a specific set of instructions (if you were able to, then noone would be able to access your website unless they used a browser that was compatible with your website)...

Now, lets be real, no I would not purchase a vehicle that had my hood wielded shut, but in accordance with my statement, anyone who wielded the hood shut would not be able to provide good support themselves as they would have locked themselves out of solving any problems as well... You may also come along and retort by saying, "Microsofts support is carpy..." in an attempt to further prove your point or embarass me... However, Microsoft's support is not carpy because the hood is wielded shut, to use your analogy, but rather they have 10million cars lined up outside of a one car garage and it takes them 10weeks to fix a minor problem with the cooling system but what they end up doing is changing the windshield wipers... This is what I and everyone else do not like about Microsoft... But I understand that by your statement you are trying to say that I cannot or would not be able access the kernel for a windows based OS... The only problem is that you can access it... You are (by license) not allowed to change/modify or redistribute... You can however, reverse engineer it to find out how it was created or how they did what they did... But because you cannot modify or redistribute it, you cannot use the reverse engineered product... This all allows for a compatibility, so that they can say to the people creating programs for windows, when you throw this at the OS this is what you will get...

-sage- [/B]

Actually,what I meant was not to emberass you,but to make clear that if I had a problem with Windows,I can't fix it myself,while with GNU/Linux I could for example recompile the kernel with the options I want.Microsofts forces you to buy their OS,but then doesn't allow you fix problems yourself (and there are plenty of security and stability issues in Windows which one would like to fix),hence forcing you to depend on Microsoft for help.
Reverse engeneering is maybe possible,but it doesn't even come near having the sourcecode.You can't do all the stuff that you can if you have the sourcecode.Now lets assume that you could and you fixed all the stability and security issues in Windows,what use would it be if you couldn't redistribute it?With Linux,I could submit the fixed code and it would be included in the next version,making Linux much better.

Bosko
03-04-2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by brothercake
Maybe the shops haven't caught onto it yet; http://www.europc.co.uk sells Lindows boxes and Windows boxes. Any decent e-tailer will sell you a box with no pre-installed OS.

I was talking about a real shop,which is where most people buy their computer (especically the computer beginners).Plus,installing an OS yourself is something that beginners will never do.There is no freedom of choice.

Bosko
03-04-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by mouse
Building your own PC is the best option for most people. It's laughable that people are still relying on rip-off merchants like Dell to assemble the machines they rely on. If you buy a Dell you'll get Windows pre-installed, not becuase they care what you use but because installing Linux and supporting it would be very costly, bearing in mind most people want Windows it'd be poor business. Obviously some would argue the market for Linux is enough to justify shipping PC's with it and some smaller prefab builders do. Ultimately if you buy from a pre-builder you get rubbish anyway; generic cut down motherboard, oem everything, poor case, weak psu. Pay peanuts, get monkeys or so they say.

I get your point,and agree with you that is better to do it yourself,but not everyone can do that.

sage45
03-04-2003, 08:04 PM
I am not sure what you want to say,not all of the MS Windows kernels have the same functionality.The win32 API changed overtime.For example:programs that use the translucent windows function will only work in MS Windows "XP" and 2000 for example.Furthermore,the behaviour of some functions changed too,so that the programs using it will not behave the same under diferent Window's.The SetForegroundWindow function for examples changed between Windows 95 and 98 and then it got a diferent behaviour again in Windows XP.
I could also give you a really really long list of things that the Linux or Hurd kernel can do and the MS WIndows kernel can't.

I think you are confusing my meaning of functionality with "base code and how it handles routines/commands" rather than "base useability". I know that as the OS itself, evolves/grows some of the base commands will either be removed (as uneeded) or incorporated with other parts of the code itself... This is where capitalism comes into play... By removing parts of the program and combining others, Microsoft is "forcing" (yes I did just say that) software manufacturers to evolve or mimic compatible changes within their own products... If they did not, then there would be no advancment on the user front... In order for the most recent advancements to come to the forefront you do have to force an issue... And this they can do since they hold the market share... Again as posted earlier, we do not necassarily like their business practices, but it does get the job done...


We are misunderstaning eachother here.
No it doesn't,you can't talk about *nix OS'.They are all really diferent,and not made by the same people,so you can't say all the *nix OS' are this and that.We are talking about GNU/Linux and WIndows here,and actually no distribution has changed the OS that much that it is incompatibable with the others.If someone is nuts,he/she can ofcourse mutilate the OS enough to make it incompatible,but you have to be stupid to do this.

True all flavours are not the same, but I can refer to them as a group as they are all formed from the same base OS... Much in the same way that people really don't refer to Windows version specifically unless version is an issue... Also in the same way the people refer to PC's rather than "My Dell" or "My Gateway", they may be very different on the outside, but inside they are very much alike (with a few changes here and there)... As for the stupidity of the average user who knows just enough to be dangerous, if you have not already experienced it, just wait and see my friend, just wait and see... I would never put anything, past anyone... Especially in their quest to learn... You yourself, may have already done something that cause a program to quit working... You may have also been able to repair it without any help, but there are times when you need it... This is the basis for open-source... It is so that we can share knowledge rather than bottle it up... It is so that beginner to elite programmers can come together and meet on a common ground and learn from each other... This is what has been lost in the debate of "M$ vs. Open Source"...


How can you know what I am going to say?Stop saying such childish things.
Btw,I think that you mean crack?

No comment... And I did mean hack...


Well,you are ofcourse right about this,because since their monopoly forces the majority of the people to use it,it will have more crackers and scriptkiddies and they can do more damage since more people use it.But MS Windows is simply way too insecure and can be cracked that easily (hell,there is even an application which lets you type in someones IP address and you get acces to his/her hard disk.I havent seen such an app for GNU/Linux...).Further,have you ever wondered why there are no viruses at all for GNU/Linux and millions for Windows??

Any OS can be cracked/hacked... I don't care how secure you feel it may be, it can be broken into... Also, I do not need to wonder as to why, I already know... It goes back to the whole "if I were a bank robber why would I rob a convenience store sitting right next to a bank"... Another way of putting it, "why would I as a fisherman fish for a guppy when I can catch a bass"...


I apologize if I overused some phrase.
What you are saying is illogical;Why would support be very costly?The fact is that it isn't,and you should check things before you post them.
If you buy a distribution like lets say Suse,then you will get support with that (I can know,because I bought Suse once and used their help thingy).I paid like 20 euro for a whole OS (Suse) and got support with that.Windows costs hundreds of euros...Ofcourse,if you download Suse without paying,then you can't expect to get support (the people have to earn money).

Look at the market, comparitively, Windows has more of the market tied up than the multitude of *nix flavoured OS's... By this, the demand for "Qualified" *nix operators/programers/technicians is not as high, therefore, support for this type of system would be costly as the "Qualified" proffesionals themselves would have to charge more per support call than their counterpart on the Windows side of the wheel... This is becuase Windows support is more widely needed than *nix support...


Hmmm,I believe they are,but then again the latest Macs have the latest hardware,which is expensive with other computers as well.
I know that you can run GNU/Linux on Mac (there was a thread about this recently too).Even better,Mac Os X = a unix.But most of the GNU/Linux applications are meant for the other architecture.

Most of the MAC's that I have ran into, use the same type of parts that a standard pc would, save the processor... These MAC's even include some of the early 1990's... And PC hardware is not as expensive as you make it out to be... True MAC OS X is a *nix flavoured OS, but what is it you mean by "But most of the GNU/Linux applications are meant for the other architecture." If you are saying what I think you are saying then you by your own words have reenforced one of the things I was attempting to point out to you...


I know how to contribute code to opensource/free projects,just I can't write that code myself because I am not a good programmer yet (I am still learning C/C++).

Exactly, you want to learn more which is what I was saying...


Actually,what I meant was not to emberass you,but to make clear that if I had a problem with Windows,I can't fix it myself,while with GNU/Linux I could for example recompile the kernel with the options I want.Microsofts forces you to buy their OS,but then doesn't allow you fix problems yourself (and there are plenty of security and stability issues in Windows which one would like to fix),hence forcing you to depend on Microsoft for help.

Yes, but as brothercake has pointed out (and many others as well) the masses (standard joe blow user, I just wanna double-click My Computer) cannot accomplish this and would have to get support from elsewhere... Whether that be payed support (which would be more expensive) or free support (which could be less reliable, depended upon the person handling the recompiling)... By making you pay for their software and closing their source, Microsoft has made themselves "Liable to resolve problems within the software." Now do they always accomplish this, no... Do they always attempt to accomplish this, no... Would it matter to them if I wanted something changed, no, unless there was a mass outcry for it...


Reverse engeneering is maybe possible,but it doesn't even come near having the sourcecode.You can't do all the stuff that you can if you have the sourcecode.Now lets assume that you could and you fixed all the stability and security issues in Windows,what use would it be if you couldn't redistribute it?With Linux,I could submit the fixed code and it would be included in the next version,making Linux much better.

True, however, what if everyone did not agree with your changes, and lets say that some of the changes you made cause current working apps, to stop working, then what???

-sage-

Bosko
03-04-2003, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by sage45
I think you are confusing my meaning of functionality with "base code and how it handles routines/commands" rather than "base useability". I know that as the OS itself, evolves/grows some of the base commands will either be removed (as uneeded) or incorporated with other parts of the code itself... This is where capitalism comes into play... By removing parts of the program and combining others, Microsoft is "forcing" (yes I did just say that) software manufacturers to evolve or mimic compatible changes within their own products... If they did not, then there would be no advancment on the user front... In order for the most recent advancements to come to the forefront you do have to force an issue... And this they can do since they hold the market share... Again as posted earlier, we do not necassarily like their business practices, but it does get the job done...

Like I said,I didn't know what you mean.But GNU/Linux does get the job done too and ofcourse evelves,that's not something reserved for Windows only...



True all flavours are not the same, but I can refer to them as a group as they are all formed from the same base OS...

I beg your pardon?You are wrong.The diferent unices and gnu/linux are absolutely noted based on the same code!Hence you can't speak about diferent *nix OS,like you are doing now because it's wrong.



Much in the same way that people really don't refer to Windows version specifically unless version is an issue... Also in the same way the people refer to PC's rather than "My Dell" or "My Gateway", they may be very different on the outside, but inside they are very much alike (with a few changes here and there)...
As for the stupidity of the average user who knows just enough to be dangerous, if you have not already experienced it, just wait and see my friend, just wait and see... I would never put anything, past anyone... Especially in their quest to learn... You yourself, may have already done something that cause a program to quit working... You may have also been able to repair it without any help, but there are times when you need it... This is the basis for open-source... It is so that we can share knowledge rather than bottle it up... It is so that beginner to elite programmers can come together and meet on a common ground and learn from each other... This is what has been lost in the debate of "M$ vs. Open Source"...



No comment... And I did mean hack...

I am glad that you saw what a retarted statement you made.




Any OS can be cracked/hacked... I don't care how secure you feel it may be, it can be broken into... Also, I do not need to wonder as to why, I already know... It goes back to the whole "if I were a bank robber why would I rob a convenience store sitting right next to a bank"... Another way of putting it, "why would I as a fisherman fish for a guppy when I can catch a bass"...

Ofcourse every OS can be cracked,but it varies in how easy that is.And in Windows' case it's very easy because of all the security bugs.You are oversimplyfing it by saying that all OS' can cracked,so it doesn't matter if that's damn easy and commong with Windows.And you can repeat the same thing over and over again,but the fact that many people use Windows is not the only reason that it is so insecure.Its just a fact that Windows is more insecure and instable than GNU/Linux.There are no viruses for GNU/Linux,but millions for Windows.Face it;its not because many people use Windows,but because it is possible to create viruses for Windows and not for GNU/Linux.YOu could repeat "if I were a bank robber why would I rob a convenience store sitting right next to a bank" again,but this is a fact.



Look at the market, comparitively, Windows has more of the market tied up than the multitude of *nix flavoured OS's... By this, the demand for "Qualified" *nix operators/programers/technicians is not as high, therefore, support for this type of system would be costly as the "Qualified" proffesionals themselves would have to charge more per support call than their counterpart on the Windows side of the wheel... This is becuase Windows support is more widely needed than *nix support...

Nice theory,but like I posted in my previous post,in reality this is not the case.



Most of the MAC's that I have ran into, use the same type of parts that a standard pc would, save the processor... These MAC's even include some of the early 1990's... And PC hardware is not as expensive as you make it out to be... True MAC OS X is a *nix flavoured OS, but what is it you mean by "But most of the GNU/Linux applications are meant for the other architecture." If you are saying what I think you are saying then you by your own words have reenforced one of the things I was attempting to point out to you...



Exactly, you want to learn more which is what I was saying...

Ofcourse I want to learn more,but I go to school so I don't have that much time for coding :(



Yes, but as brothercake has pointed out (and many others as well) the masses (standard joe blow user, I just wanna double-click My Computer) cannot accomplish this and would have to get support from elsewhere... Whether that be payed support (which would be more expensive) or free support (which could be less reliable, depended upon the person handling the recompiling)... By making you pay for their software and closing their source, Microsoft has made themselves "Liable to resolve problems within the software." Now do they always accomplish this, no... Do they always attempt to accomplish this, no... Would it matter to them if I wanted something changed, no, unless there was a mass outcry for it...

So,if it doesn't work,then contact Suse (or which distribution you have).It's still cheaper than Windows....



True, however, what if everyone did not agree with your changes, and lets say that some of the changes you made cause current working apps, to stop working, then what???

-sage- [/B]

Well,if you look things up before you post,then you would have known that bad code would never be acccepted in the first place ;)

sage45
03-04-2003, 10:58 PM
Like I said,I didn't know what you mean.But GNU/Linux does get the job done too and ofcourse evelves,that's not something reserved for Windows only...

I never reserved the right for Windows... Just giving a windows perspective...



I beg your pardon?You are wrong.The diferent unices and gnu/linux are absolutely noted based on the same code!Hence you can't speak about diferent *nix OS,like you are doing now because it's wrong.

I beg your pardon, but you say tomatoe I say tomahtoe... Same difference, just referencing in a way you are unfamiliar with...


I am glad that you saw what a retarted statement you made.

No, my statement was not retarded but to make any sort of an answer to your statement in itself would have been childish, so I left it alone... But now since you want to say something like that it really shows how childish you really are in comparison... To further touch upon this matter really takes away from the content of the thread... Lets just drop this now and move on...


Ofcourse every OS can be cracked,but it varies in how easy that is.And in Windows' case it's very easy because of all the security bugs.You are oversimplyfing it by saying that all OS' can cracked,so it doesn't matter if that's damn easy and commong with Windows.And you can repeat the same thing over and over again,but the fact that many people use Windows is not the only reason that it is so insecure.Its just a fact that Windows is more insecure and instable than GNU/Linux.There are no viruses for GNU/Linux,but millions for Windows.Face it;its not because many people use Windows,but because it is possible to create viruses for Windows and not for GNU/Linux.YOu could repeat "if I were a bank robber why would I rob a convenience store sitting right next to a bank" again,but this is a fact.

Ease of cracking/hacking has no part in it because we are talking apples to oranges... It is just as easy (with the right tools) to crack/hack a *nix based system... It is just not as common as windows is the bigger fish... Exploiting the security breaches in Windows is more common becuase there are more Windows computers out there to exploit, than lets say an Apple computer... If a group of people were to focus their energy on exploiting security problems on Apples, we would soon find that apples are wide open as well, just by the same token as *nix based systems are... Even the most secure OS (OpenBSD) requires base system changes to make it secure... But lets say that people were to concentrate their efforts onto hacking/cracking this OS, again they would soon find it to be wide open...


Nice theory,but like I posted in my previous post,in reality this is not the case.

Not a theory, it is a cold, hard fact...


Ofcourse I want to learn more,but I go to school so I don't have that much time for coding :(

I understand completely, I went through the same thing... Just stick with it...


So,if it doesn't work,then contact Suse (or which distribution you have).It's still cheaper than Windows....

Yes, but Suse is not responsible for all distributions and not all distributions allow for the exact type of support, hence unreliable...


Well,if you look things up before you post,then you would have known that bad code would never be acccepted in the first place ;)

Again, you never can tell... Some people will do anything to save a buck...

-sage-

oracleguy
03-05-2003, 01:44 AM
After reading both of your guys' posts I thought I'd input some of my reactions.



Originally posted by Bosko
Ofcourse every OS can be cracked,but it varies in how easy that is.And in Windows' case it's very easy because of all the security bugs.You are oversimplyfing it by saying that all OS' can cracked,so it doesn't matter if that's damn easy and commong with Windows.And you can repeat the same thing over and over again,but the fact that many people use Windows is not the only reason that it is so insecure.Its just a fact that Windows is more insecure and instable than GNU/Linux.


My two reactions to this:
First off, in a way you could say that linux would be easier to hack because of it's open sourceness. Because if someone really wanted to get past some security, they can just access the source code and go through it and figure out how it works and possibly find a way to compromise the system.

Second, you really shouldn't say "it's very easy" and such if you have never done it. I've never done it myself, the work I do with hacking mostly is on the opposite end, but nonetheless you shouldnt use it as fact just because people say it is easy. I'm sure for a skilled enough hacker with the correct tools it probably could but that is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.


On the product support issue:

I know we all can agree that M$ support leaves something to be desired. However, their Knowledge Base is quite helpful, I've always found a solution to a problem I was faced with from it. They have the resources to keep millions of pages of support documents for all their OSes, past and present, online and easily accessable.

I'm sure the various companies and organizations with their own Linux builds has something similar, correct?



Just some of my thoughts.

Josh Campbell
03-05-2003, 04:01 AM
Face it, Bill Gates will sooner or later control the world and enslave us all.

Capitalistic pigs. Go communism, go Linux!

ewomack
03-31-2003, 06:58 PM
One of the biggest obstacles to a Linux dominated world is the entrenched learning people are now embedded in. We've been with Windows so long that many will be resistant to change. At my company, almost 80% of the people are hooked, and I mean hooked, on Excel. One Senior Developer told me that if our company dumped Excel we'd go under in about a week. EVERYTHING is Excel and EVERYONE wants to have programs port to Excel, or look like Excel, or have Excel functionality or have some connection, anything, whatsoever, connected to Excel. If suddenly we were to introduce an Open Source alternative, there'd be an uprising and the IS department would find itself impaled to Excel gridlines.

That would be a huge initiative, but upper management could dictate this.

When it comes to technology the general public seems to like learning a few things and sticking with it. Xenophobia runs wild amongst the computer semi-literate.

In the end, business may drive the change anyway due to cost savings. That's the place I see Linux making headway. If they succeed, there'll be mutinies and rebellions within companies everywhere, but maybe a bigger bonus could convince people...

Thanks,

Ed

stunix
09-04-2003, 04:18 AM
wow, just love this thread, why did i spend so much time playing in the js threads, this is exactly the subject i have been debating with the isd department of my university for the past 12 months.

where can i start....
the quote used is

"free as in speach , not free as in beer."

lets start with GNU/Linux,
gnu=Richard Stallman - i took a laptop to be blessed by him, creator of the GNU licence.
Linux = Linus Torvaulds - its his kernel,

Herd is not as good as linux indeed linux was released 18 months before Herd, and Stallman embrased it.

Security, if you know how, it is much more secure than windows because you can make it secure, the linux mags keep you up to date with potential risks and show you how to fix it, with microsoft, you d/l a patch, and hope it works. Open BSD is the most secure os we know of and no patches for 7 years.

why fiddle with the workings, you can streamline it to do what you want, weather its a multiscreen terminal for displays, a firewall, a server, a home pc etc you do with it what you want, and get to take out all the rubbish. its fully, and i mean fully customisable, a linux firewall will boot from a floppy, or you can build linux supercomputers by connecting them together, you can't do that with your winsock.

its not as simple as windows, but then, windows is not as simple as my trusty old siver reed.

SDP2006
09-05-2003, 12:56 AM
I personally have never used Linux. Though, I think something new would be nice :)

Roy Sinclair
09-05-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by SDP2006
I personally have never used Linux. Though, I think something new would be nice :)

I used Unix for a while some years back, it was pretty neat but it's never been as appealing as Windows to me.

bradyj
09-05-2003, 05:18 PM
Didn't Linux try to attempt to create an ease of use OS before, named 'Lindos'? A sort of rip of, yet improved version of windows?

Nightfire
09-05-2003, 05:25 PM
I used linux mandrake for a few months, when 9.1 was released. Not used it for a while now as my hdd caught on fire. Was a great OS, just wasn't compatible with my MS optical mouse back then

krycek
09-05-2003, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by bradyj
Didn't Linux try to attempt to create an ease of use OS before, named 'Lindos'? A sort of rip of, yet improved version of windows?

Not exactly. Lindows is "just another" distribution of Linux, like Mandrake, RedHat, SUSE, etc. with the main differences being a) they spent a long time making it look and behave as much like Windows as possible, and b) it's not free, although it's cheap.

::] krycek [::

stunix
09-05-2003, 09:33 PM
as i am aware, lindows was built by the makers of Realplayer, and the name has been recently aquired in an out of court settlement my micro$oft, however win4lin is still running successfully, and works very well with win98 running as an application.

to try linux without having to install, try the bootable cd made by klaus knopper at

http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en-old.html#order

it has 2 gb of software pre installed on a normal cd!! and is completly free to download.

other versions of linux can be explored and explained at www.distrowatch.com

krycek
09-06-2003, 12:17 AM
I don't know who made Lindows, but it is simply YALD (Yet Another Linux Distro).

Good links, but also there's Morphix (another Linux distro that runs off CD), and LinuxISO (another good resource for distros) :)

Oh yeah and Crossover is good for running Windows stuff on Linux, I use it myself.

::] krycek [::

i2genius.com
10-01-2003, 04:51 AM
Ok, I don't expect you lot to agree with what I'm about to write, so get your flame guns ready.

I see the not too distant future of consumer computing as cheap thin client internet terminals / entertainment devices with networked computer capabilities.

NCs and Internet Operating Systems won't replace conventional computers, each will have it's own niche market. But I certainly expect cheap consumer friendly nc's to take off.

Linux is very attractive to manufacturers of cost critical consumer devices - there is no license fee to pay.

So Linux could very well rule the world.

By the way, I do respect Linux users, like Mac users, they have made a choice, rather than settling for a default (Windows).

By the way, I've started a forum dedicated to discussions around IOS ideas and developments if anyone is interested. http://i2genius.com/forum . It's very new, so there are no threads yet.

bcarl314
10-01-2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by oracleguy


On the product support issue:

I know we all can agree that M$ support leaves something to be desired. However, their Knowledge Base is quite helpful, I've always found a solution to a problem I was faced with from it. They have the resources to keep millions of pages of support documents for all their OSes, past and present, online and easily accessable.


Have you checked out the Red Hat knowledge base? Very VERY hepful for me. I can't tell you how many times I've gone there, entered specific search terms and got a result that solved my problem within the top 5 in the set.

Not to mention that the Linux support community if far more extensive than any windows support. Example, if your having a problem with with Linux and google it, odds are your going to find an answer, however EVERY TIME I enter a problem at google for Windows, I get links to M$.

I think this is a testiment to the open source philosophy - which is to say that when you figure something out, you let others know!

sage45
10-01-2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by i2genius.com
Ok, I don't expect you lot to agree with what I'm about to write, so get your flame guns ready.

I see the not too distant future of consumer computing as cheap thin client internet terminals / entertainment devices with networked computer capabilities.

NCs and Internet Operating Systems won't replace conventional computers, each will have it's own niche market. But I certainly expect cheap consumer friendly nc's to take off.

Linux is very attractive to manufacturers of cost critical consumer devices - there is no license fee to pay.

So Linux could very well rule the world.

By the way, I do respect Linux users, like Mac users, they have made a choice, rather than settling for a default (Windows).

By the way, I've started a forum dedicated to discussions around IOS ideas and developments if anyone is interested. http://i2genius.com/forum . It's very new, so there are no threads yet.

It's very possible that you are not too far off base on this one...

Just looking at computed technology as a whole from the past to the present seems to point out this path...

For example:

Just a mere 15yrs ago, mainframe based computing was the leader of the computing world... Everyone used mainframes to manipulate/store data and dumb terminals to input their data, tis not surprising that most of these mainframe systems were *NIX/VAX/VMS based. Not long after that came the rise of the computer network as the leader. Mainframes and dumb terminals gave way to servers and personal computers. Network Operating Systems (NOS) were developed... These servers and personal computers (workstations) were made up of a plethora of various OS's and NOS's... Eventually Microsoft won the workstation race but things on the server front remained tight for many years (and in some ways still are)... When servers first came out people had the mentallity of everything being thin-based... Office centrally stored on your server and running a small client on your workstation... Heck, you could even run a thin-based version of Windows, with windows stored centrally on your server and loading via requests from the workstation... Problem: Whole lot of resources were being gobbled up... So for a long time things stagnated... Workstations and servers became more powerful and the software to utilize them became more user-friendly and intuitive... Now alot of companies are getting back to thin-based computing... Taking away the fat client on the workstation in lieu of a thin client that can be more easily supported in a centralized location... So we've come full circle, just about... We now have Servers that manipulate/store information and thin client workstations to connect to these servers to input information... Our workstations are almost to the point where they are nothing more than smart-dumb terminals, whereas currently they have a means of working as a part of the whole (borged in a way) or as a single entity... The next logical step would be to take away the floppy and cd-rom and load the workstation with a thin-loaded os to handle the connection to the network... Could this be a *nix based os? I don't know, but it will be very interesting as it all unfolds before our very fingertips...

-sage-



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum