Vista Launch Good for Desktop Linux? 535
Sensible Clod writes "XYZ Computing has an article hypothesizing that the arrival of Windows Vista may be a big opportunity for Linux to make headway on the desktop. Massive feature cutbacks for Vista as well as huge hardware requirements are cited as major factors. From the article: 'As the time gets closer and closer to the public debut of Vista the operating system seems to be constantly losing the luster which was associated with Longhorn...Whether it's the lack of a new file system or the Monad scripting shell, the absence of innovation in this operating system is giving it a black eye'. The article then shows the need for action to be taken to get Linux onto the computers in stores (display models!), and pinpoints a few important improvements Linux distros in general need to make. Very interesting read, and timely."
negligible (Score:5, Insightful)
The same people who bought windows XP at full retail will probably go ahead and buy Vista at full retail while most of us that use linux now will just keep using linux whether or not some new version of windows comes along.
I think the whole impact will be negligible.
Almost negligible (Score:5, Informative)
Vista will implement DRM deep into the OS and when apps start "taking advantage" of that, you will notice that it's not negligible any more.
My reason for staying away from Vosta, hardware requirements aside, is DRM and DRM only. Because there are a few neat features under the hood I'd really like to have. For instance the vector-graphics GPU-accelerated desktop.
Re:Almost negligible (Score:5, Insightful)
Legally downloaded audio/video file disclaimer - "Needs DRM compatible PC"
Windows Vista box sticker - "Fully DRM compatible!"
To an average non-technical user who just wants their music and video files to play, isn't this going to make the DRM look like an additional feature that Windows has and Linux lacks? Sadly lacking DRM might end up turning people away from Linux rather than towards it
Just Change Terms a Bit? (Score:4, Funny)
Legally downloaded audio/video file disclaimer - "Not Compatible with Freedom"
Windows Vista box sticker - "100% Freedom-free!"
*sigh...
Re:Almost negligible (Score:5, Insightful)
Piracy is the killer app that made the PC king, and brought broadband to the masses.
So, if piracy is ever made impossible under windows, millions of people will flock to Linux in order to continue to enjoy software free of charge, with the additional advantage that it will also give them freedom. Watch, then, as some of those millions take an interest in the people who kindly provide them with free, legal software, and become active open source contributors.
It's happening already. The other day some rich bastard was accusing me of being an evil pirate when I told him I never pay for software. I started looking at my software and lo - its practically all open source, even under windows. Gaim, OO.o, Gimp, Firefox, Thunderbird, The Ur-Quan Masters, heck, even my mp3s are mostly legal, indie stuff. I wish I could have seen the look on his face
Re:Almost negligible (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I think you'll find that the vast majority of computer users live in rich countries. The vast majority of *people* live in poor countries, but very very few of them have computers.
Re:Almost negligible (Score:4, Interesting)
I recently had a customer who droped her laptop and crashed the hardrive. I was able to recover most of here file but the boot sector and partition sections of the drive was toast. It wil nevfer be bootable again. All her music was protected with the xp media players DRM and we didn't get the DRM licenses before the drive went out totaly. Now we have to crack all these WMA files in order to allow here ot use them again. (they were mostley verbal notes from meetings)
When asked why she used it, she said that windows told her it was the only way to protect them from being stolen. She didn't even Now What DRM was because thew switch said Protect content. This is a normal user and a sticker saying DRM compatable would look like a wanted feature. This is alot like the designed for windows XP sticker making people think they have to upgrade to XP to run the newest version of some program they've ran for 10 years. They just don't know and microsoft (as wel as other companies) play on this.
Recently i had a call from someone who said thier new tech support claimed somthign wouldn't run on a novel server when it was running fine for 5 years. Had him thinking he needed to instal a dell power edge running win 2003 server and a domain for a company with 3 computers plus a file server. Turned out nothign "ran" on the server, it just used a network files share for data. But illistrates that even Somewhat experienced users can be duped into the same things. It is alla planned stunt. caculated to trick a consumer out of the most money possible.
Re:Almost negligible (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Almost negligible (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the EU, and we slept our chance away while the "anti-circumvention" directive was passed. You might note that the same happened in the US. To make America live up to the noblest connotation of the name takes active citizens. (The same goes for the EU and the respective nation states except that "EU" has much fewer positive connotations to live up to.)
Re:Almost negligible (Score:3, Insightful)
I have never seen a pirate distribute WMAs. So, for those who are into pirating stuff, they will just get the MP3 version I would guess.
Unless Vista plans on disabling bittorrent, HTTP downloads, FTP, and scores of other P2P methods + not allowing you to install say WinAmp to
Troll? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, I'll bite. If I buy anything online, be it music, videos or whatever, I buy it, it's mine. Mine as in mine to do whatever damned I please with it. As in making low-bitrate AACs out of high-bitrate WMAs for fitting more of them on my cellphone.
See, this is legal. Noone nowhere has any business telling me "you can't do that". That's equivalent to saying "So... we wont be seeing you purchasing our products ever again?"
Now, if I tried to pass these files on to others, now that would be copyright inf
Re:negligible (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to wonder computers are really "good enough" Except for the people that toss their computers when they get too infected with spy/adware who really needs a new computer?
People that always need the latest and greatest are the people that do CAD, Rendering, high end photo shop, video editing, and Gamers.
Everyone else is really fine with even the low end we have now.
The
Re:negligible (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they do so primarily because the stock market expects them to. If MS didn't at least pretend to be working on new products, their stock would plummet.
This is what amazes me (Score:5, Insightful)
What's funny is that every one of those features is available today in a Linux distro near you. Yet still nobody listens and switches to linux in droves, but many wait for vista
I think sometimes everyone is a sheep
Re:This is what amazes me (Score:5, Funny)
If that's what you think, then so do I!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is what amazes me (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been using linux as a way to learn how the command line works, I didn't enjoy the days or even weeks it took me to get my peripherals/hardware to work. I'd honestly rather go for a walk then get my cd's to burn.
I want to be a programmer, so I'm learning about things I think/have been told they do. I don't want to just re-iterate all of the old arguments of why linux wont make it to the desktop just yet. But here is what I know from reading posts here (in short form)
Re:This is what amazes me (Score:5, Funny)
2)Hey, there are enough games on Linux already! Doom3, Counterstrike, and um, a few others work on Linux. And besides,
3) Openoffice, Kword, Abiword, antiword... all open Word files. The reason most Linux users hate to receive Word attachments is a philosophy thing, not that they can't open them.
Re:This is what amazes me (Score:2)
I think sometimes everyone is a sheep
You're welcome to think what you want, but it doesn't make it true. I've tried to install Linux 3 times, each time I failed (either with the installation itself or setting up the network). Linux for the non-geek is not easy, Windows is.
Re:This is what amazes me (Score:2)
Re:This is what amazes me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is what amazes me (Score:5, Insightful)
When software developers sell multi-platform licenses for each title, then we can switch. Until then, it's Windows or whatever OS you are locked into due to the expense of moving to another platform, which would require buying a full version instead of an upgrade. Why spend that kind of money to switch when the software/hardware combo you are using now will work just fine?
Re:This is what amazes me (Score:3, Insightful)
So when somebody like me can roll in, with a ton of free-tool experience, and roll a cross-platform solution (Windows, MacOS X, Linux, BSD) with guaranteed uptime, remote maintainence from the developer, secure remote access features, and interactive documentation, and all for less than a proprietary solution would cost, what do you
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't use OpenOffice in a business environment where you have to send and receive correctly formatted documents. OpenOffice always retains the text, but usually mangles some little details here and there. In a large document, with pictures and other embedded objects, you can't afford to hunt for such defects each time you get a file. Even worse, you can't ask your customers to do the same when they open your files. $500 paid for his MS Office was a good business de
Re:This is what amazes me (Score:3, Insightful)
How upgrading WINE suddenly broke DVDShrink (yea yea, I know, whatever you say though doesn't change the fact that this is something I had to deal with...would be
People don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
As for hardware requirements - most people will get vista with their shiny new hardware from dell or whatever. It will meet the requirements and look great with lots of eye-candy.
Linux doesn't just need to be better than Vista - it needs to be MUCH better to get an average user to switch.
Re:People don't care (Score:2)
Not really correct for you're average "get a computer for the kids" person. Most people won't a computer that will work with most of the software that is available on the market. Windows provides that for them. If it was a pretty computer, then Macs would be the dominant player.
Re:People don't care (Score:2, Interesting)
That's what I always say when the (n+1)th Linux ready for the desktop discussion comes up.
Linux (with GUI and all that) is already a better desktop OS for the average luser than Windows is. That doesn't mean they will or even should all switch. Switching is hard. If you get your work done on Windows, and can't be bothered to do the re-learning that goes with the switch to Linux, than don't switc
Dupe!! It's a DUPE! (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dupe!! It's a DUPE! (Score:2, Funny)
Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
A decade ago it was Windows 95 that was going to be a big opportunity for Linux to make headway on the desktop, then it was Windows 98, 2000, XP, the DRM in Media Player, Internet Explorer, the license of MS SQL Server, the flaws in ASP security model, the nonsense of
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
I'm not sure I agree with that. Back in '95, Gnome and KDE were only a concept (they would come along in '97). There were a few patchwork desktops and perhaps IceWM and TWM, but if you counted those as a threat to Microsoft's 95 OS envioronment, you're wrong. Quite frankly, I think the people working on Linux back then were just worried about increasing the in-roads they could get in the more aca
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
It was for me. When Windows 95 was released, I was already using Linux (although I still mostly used DOS - for teh games). First, I hated Microsoft for making so much propaganda for Windows 95 that nobody was looking at OS/2...I'd seen it, and it ruled. Then, 95 was released, and I heard from all over the place how much it sucked, and from my OS/2 using friends how much better OS/2 was.
Finally,
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Interesting)
Not even close.
Windows 95 was Microsofts big chance to solidify it's hold on the market and brush aside all compeditors.
Linux however was only just then being used on a few low load servers and a few desktops.
When IE came out it was the death of Netscape. Linux didn't even have a TCPIP stack and couldn't actually go on the Internet.
Windows 98 was Windows 98. Linux advocates used it to raise aware
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, there are cheaper and better distributions. As a German citizen Linspire is of little use for me. I need native language support.
Note that Wine 0.9 is close and I think we will see a boost in Wine compatibility soon. And then we have a free
I do not think Windows VISTA, a non-Vista Vista will be much better than Longporn.
Re:Spelling Tip ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Lack of features won't make a difference... (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux will find a way to people's desktops eventually, when it's more ready and the market in general is more ready to support it. Linux won't make inroads because of anything Microsoft does, for better or worse.
-N
Re:Lack of features won't make a difference... (Score:5, Interesting)
Still, Windows 2000 was a huge step over NT4. And, still, XP improved several APIs, both in kernel and user mode. Auto-growing stacks was introduced (news in the Windows world), which of course can simplify development of recursive stuff in some scenarios. It's not much, and if you want to keep compatible with 2000, it's irrelevant, but they continued tweaking.
Vista can still, from what I know, be a huge enough step to warrant a 6.0 version number. It won't be a "new" product, but (just about) nobody ever said it would. If NT4 => 2000 was an upgrade worth mentioning, I would think that this will be, too.
(And, hey, on a laptop/TFT desktop, Cleartype is enough for me to want XP if I run Windows)
Re:Lack of features won't make a difference... (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from the deep level programming stuff, which I don't know much about to be honest, there are some things in XP that I think do make it worthwhile to switch from 2000. Most of them are little things, but they are there.
*simple SMB file sharing. Right-click, sharing..., "just share this folder". Bang. Everyone in the workgroup can now read your files.
*network location awareness. A lot of the SMB stuff in XP is just done better than 2000, it seems to "just work" where as windows 2000 had problems w
Re:Lack of features won't make a difference... (Score:2)
I think that transition offered a lot more than the 2000->XP, and I really don't have a solid picture of what Longhorn will actually ship with other than a badly needed desktop UI engine improvement.
Regarding NT->2000, Support for larger hard drives, wider industry support, greatly improved support for DirectX, DVD, Firewire and USB were all very significant advances.
(And, hey, on a laptop/TFT desktop, Cleartype is
Re:Lack of features won't make a difference... (Score:2)
I'd say that's a bit of an overstatement. There's a limit to what consumer's will take, and as computer purchases become more transparent (IE when people realize they're actually paying $100+ for Windows and MS's other software) I think the door will open for Linux.
Conversely MS could start charging a reasonable amount of money for their software and offering more open dev support and essentially zap up any need for an alter
Re:Lack of features won't make a difference... (Score:2)
Re:Lack of features won't make a difference... (Score:2, Troll)
I don't know of any features in 2000, XP, or Vista that is compelling.
More bloat, that's all.
Re:Lack of features won't make a difference... (Score:2)
It also had the decent (for windows) networkability taken out of it for home users and a whole raft of new holes put in.
Even many large MS sites wait a year or so before large deployemnts of the latest offerings. Yo have a window there. The trouble is, many or most of these decisions are not taken by the people who have to pick up the pieces - the IT department.
Re:Lack of features won't make a troll (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I've used Linux on Alphas, x86, x86-64, ia64, and mips processors.
I've used Linux from 1997 to 2004 as my primary desktop environment.
I see nothing special about Linux' desktop environment over what is available for FreeBSD, Solaris, etc, simply because they are all the same.
So how am I being a troll to say that the next version of Windows, that at worst will be no different than the current version of Windows will drive people to Linux which has no compelling end-user features over Windows?
*hmpf* if only that was true (Score:4, Insightful)
i agree, some of the more sophisticated desktop users might be willing to switch, but much more powerful forces for not switching are: a lot of people don't like serious changes. they know windows (though it might suck), not necessarily the OS, but the brand, so they stick with it.
a lot of companies are either bound by contracts or - more importantly - by internal applications that are broken enough only to work with windows (in that case, to be more specific, mostly word, excel and access).
these are, i think, compelling reasons why a large percentage - mark, percentage, not single individuals - will not want to switch to linux because of what the article states.
I'm not sure why you would think that (Score:5, Interesting)
People buy Microsoft because that's what they expect when they buy a computer. Some people think they want more, so they buy a Mac. Other people are happy with Linux, and they don't even have to spend a dime to get the OS software.
When Microsoft releases their next version, I don't think it will have the massive uptake that Windows 95 did, or even Windows 2000 did. Even Windows XP had a slower takeup than the real quantum leaps in Windows history (Win95, Win2K). People are just satisfied with what they've got.
How are you going to convince satisfied people to run Linux? It doesn't really offer them anything that they don't already have or need. If it were that important to them, they would be running it already.
So why would Windows Vista help Linux?
Re:I'm not sure why you would think that (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that a Windows virus that completely trashed every Windows box on the planet every 24 hours might do the trick. Virus writers are way too wussy.
Lack of innovation in this OS.. (Score:3, Interesting)
What am I trying to say? Well, before you complain about Vista not being 'innovative', take a look at the alternatives first, they arent much different in many aspects.
What desktop am I posting this from? OSX of course!
Re:For example (Score:2, Informative)
Re:For example (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux' big chance (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Linux' big chance (Score:5, Insightful)
But isn't XP already ahead of the Linux desktop options anyway? You have to surpass the previous iteration of MS offerings before you snatch an "opportunity" with their successor.
And since when did more than 0.5% of the PC-using population ever really pay much attention to the left-out features (filesystem changes, etc).
People who were considering Vista for their current underpowered machine would go with XP or 2000 before trying Linux, I suspect.
Both ways anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with MS being ambitious in aiming to get new features into Vista, and even if some don't make it - there have been 4 1/2 years since the last release that should improve the usability of the widest deployed desktop OS in the world today.
You can't sledge MS for taking longer than expected to release Vista, then in the next comment complain about the lack of features.
__
Funny videos, pics, flash & flesh [laughdaily.com]
Uses today's hardwre. Linux, not anytime soon. (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess you never heard of duke nuke'em forever? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cario is coming pretty soon, gnome 2.12 will include it even though it will just be to up 2D quality the first time around. Hardware accelleration isn't, ready yet.
XGL and luminocity is just testbeds, also they wont be done anytime soon (which was why one of the two main developers recently dropped out of the project, he felt it was too far from release). I saym, 3-4 years. We'll be where OSX is today, OSX (and windows
Re:Guess you never heard of duke nuke'em forever? (Score:3, Interesting)
If we want the masses to even consider Linux we must have full or near-full support from the gaming industry and companies like Adobe. Polishing won't get u
So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just like the year before that and the year before that, hang on.. i'm noticing a trend.. next year is always the year of desktop linux..
TV Commercials? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:TV Commercials? (Score:2)
I agree that one of the major advantages Windows has at the moment, in terms of what OS the mass market will buy, is its already-large user base.
People will continue to buy Windows because:
1) They are familiar with it
2) all their friends use it.
3) They know someone who can fix it
4) They are familiar with the programs they use on it.
A lot of geeks seem to miss out on the fact that moving to Linux is a MAJOR
Re:TV Commercials? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even as easy as pre-installed Windows is to get running on a brand-new machine, I still get occasional phone calls from people whose newly purchased machine gives them trouble accessing the Internet, since the supplied modem cable was plugged into one of the sockets on the switch in the LAN...
Furthermore, the awareness of alternate operating systems or applications varies, many of them only know w
Terrible article (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how vista, even if it weren't very convincing, will help linux getting on the desktop. All a bad windows release will lead to in the short tearm is not many people buying Vist, but staying with their curren OS, which is some kind of Windows in most cases.
And people who really care about monad not being included are people who would consider running linux anyway, but they only make a small percentage of the market.
Further, I'm convinced that Linux will not make large inroads into the private desktop in the near future, not because Linux isn't good enough, but simply because Windows is much to entrenched in this market.
Corporate and gouvernment desktops are an other story though and we'll see a lot of things happening there in the future, I'm sure.
I can (Score:2)
As long as MSFT owns the distribution pipeline none of the big three are going to make waves by offering alternate operating systems. Consumers can't make a choice when they don't have a choice.
Corporate and gouvernment desktops are an other story though and we'll see a lot of things happening there in the future, I'm sure.
Already happening. I already hear grumbling from my business customers that X
Not trolling, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Year of the Linux desktop" or whatever. Isn't that a dupe and troll in itself? It's been repeated over and over again, and yet never happened.
Honestly, I don't think Linux (as it is now anyway) is ready for the desktop. Why? Sure, you got aptitude and lot of neat stuff. Gnome may be bloated as hell, but it looks good, and that's what most consumers want.
You got lots of good stuff, but when your average linux-distro starts to break down, when stuff doesn't work automagicly, when hardware detetction fails and so on... Most users (and by most users I also mean powerusers) will have a really hard time fixing stuff, if they even manage to fix it at all. Not all of us are geeks who grew up with a keyboard.
Plus, I don't really care if linux hits the mainstream or not. I use what works for me, I'll let others use what works for them. To me, open standards are a lot more important than whatever OS people are running to get their work done.
Re:Not trolling, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Most users (and by most users I also mean powerusers) will have a really hard time fixing stuff, if they even manage to fix it at all.
Complete nonsense. Windows power users can fix a broken Windows all right... by reinstalling it. Regular Windows users are just lost. If you consider reinstallation as the primary repair option, most modern Linux distributions are much easier to repair becaue their install process is faster and easier than Windows XPs.
And, of course, extremely sophisticated users of b
Re:Not trolling, but... (Score:2)
Complete nonsense. Windows power users can fix a broken Windows all right... by reinstalling it
Yes and no. See my other comment [slashdot.org] and tell me running to vendor supplied setup.exe-files is anywhere near what I had to do to get my stuff working in linux.
And tell me most users wouldn't be able to reinstall their drivers by running a simple vendor supplied executable.
Re:Not trolling, but... (Score:2)
Yes, when it breaks down its hard to fix. Not that it's very easy to fix the Windows registry when it breaks down, either.
I recently installed Kubuntu on a cou
Re:Not trolling, but... (Score:2)
Kubuntu is in my opinion ready-for-the-desktop as Windows ever was, except that you better take care to use supported hardware
You got a point there that I'm not refuting. And as I've said in a another post in this thread, it's not really fair to blame linux itself for the lack of vendors supporting it.
However, for anything to "be ready for the desktop", you need proper hardware support. The fewest of people actually check if the hardware they buy are actually supported by the OS. It is expected tha
Re:Not trolling, but... (Score:2)
I'd like to see Linux hit the mainstream merely to improve the availability of commercial software and hardware. Companies won't invest the resources until there's more potential to earn a better return on their investments.
Re:Not trolling, but... (Score:2)
If the shit hits the fan, then the shit hits the fan and that's true for any OS out there. Ever tried to fix a broken Windows install? It sure isn't something your average users wouls be able to manage.
Well, I dont know about you, but I believe most people are able to download drivers from the vendor, run setup.exe and reboot.
Compare that to my WLAN-case which involved custom compiling a generic Atmel-based WLAN-chipset kernel-module, modifying the source for the correct device ID, which I had to g
Re:Not trolling, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
And that fixes random breakage in, say, WMI? I don't think so. The reality is that Windows gets "fixed" by being reinstalled by a somewhat knowledgeable friend (1). The more savvy Windows home users I know reimage habitually every 6 months.
Even if this practice is not needed with GNU/Linux, it will continue to exist and I think it would be beneficial to somewhat cater to it and make
Re:Not trolling, but... (Score:3, Informative)
The reality is that Windows gets "fixed" by being reinstalled
I use Windows and haven't reinstalled it since I installed Windows XP. No need to reimage the system every six months if you know what you're doing.
For someone with a decent knowledge of the platform a complete reinstall simply isn't needed. However, more to the point I was making, for minor bugs and quirks, (some) things can usually get fixed a lot easier in windows than in linux. Thus the "desktop ready" thing.
And if you by random br
Re:Not trolling, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
My mom and dad do not know what they're doing, neither do many of my friends.
At work, people who don't know what they are doing get infected and experience random breakage. Those who know what they are doing don't get infected, at least. (See below for environment)
For someone with a decent knowledge of the platform a complete reinstall simply isn't needed
Family's/friends' friends that pretend to know what they are doing in Win usu
Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite a few people see the OS as ineluctably linked with the hardware.
I think using a seemingly less polished, cheaper (or free) operating system will take much of the enjoyment out of a new computer purchase - after all, most copies of Windows are bundled with the latest hardware, and the high specifications required for Vista aren't going to bother the majority of users who will overhaul their whole system when confronted by the marketing blitz.
lack of features vs hardware requirements (Score:2)
if the current machine can run XP, then i bet a lot of people run it as long as they can. i would like to see them switch over to Linux, but let's be realistic. a lot of people never really upgrade the
As much as I like Linux... (Score:2)
Want to see Microsoft's vision of the PC? Take a look at the Xbox. Of course it will be possible to run Linux on newer TPM enabled systems, but then a lot of digital content won't work. And ordinary people won't have the energy or
Any benefit for corporations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Decade of the Linux desktop (Score:2)
Linux is already desktop ready for large segments of users - for others it's nowhere close. Growing marketshare takes time and is self-reinforcing - the process is just going to take a while.
Since when? (Score:2)
As others posters have pointed out, the situation has not changed much, and will not.
Personally, I don't care that much. Maybe Windows is good for the average ignorant (normal non-computer-geek people) because, unlike Linux, it's focused on doing the tasks they way, having to think the least possible.
Maybe someday a big company --- whith enough power to fitht Microsoft, and whose name the public already respect (Google?) --- will make a
Linux on the desktop died when gnome was released (Score:2)
Clearly linux on the desktop for the general population would be better served putting all the effort into one consistant desktop. It would not please all the tweakers who like to configure every little thing. Sure KDE/GNOMR are similar, but not the same.
There ar
New Windows New Linux Opportunity (Score:2)
The advantage of Windows over Linux is software compatibility. I am not looking forward to Windows Vista because of the hundreds of computers we maintain at work, few, if any, will be ready for Vista because of hardware compatibility. We have ten percent Macintoshes and they suffer from both software and hardware incompatibility. At least where I work, the momentum is behind Windows XP & Office 2003. It's not a choice, but a fact of reality. Getting Macs and Linux boxes to work on the same playing
less features does not matter (Score:2)
joe Q dont care that vista has no monads. joe Q does not even know WHAT a filesystem is.
Joe Q will buy a new PC with vista on it, joe Q proved this with XP, he did not run out and buy XP he got it on his next machine.
the ONLY way linux will get on the desktop is DELL offering it at a $150.00 discount
the FUD about useability, installer, GUI and all the other crap I see flung about here has nothing to do with it.
get
Desktop Linux needs the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing Desktop Linux needs is good fonts. I am yet to find a desktop Linux installation that is beautiful out of the box. Often times, one has to download M$ fonts or could use the script found here: http://vigna.dsi.unimi.it/webFonts4Linux/webFonts. sh [unimi.it] to get good fonts for the web.
Next thing is multimedia and multimedia applications. Totem in the GNOME world and Amarok in the KDE world will not play mp3s out of the box, yet there are no licensing restrictions on these formats! These are so many other examples in the multimedia field.
There is a bug/feature I found in Linux that needs attention in relation to how devices are mounted. Remember that we in the Linux world are aiming at domination. So we should attract as many users as we can. The bug is here: http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111173 [kde.org]. I was surprised that there was a wontfix mentioned. So how are we to attract users if there will always be confusion in how devices are mounted?
Last but not least, we need publicity - good publicity. Right now, Linux is being touted as very good or good enough for the average user. What happens is that folks then have to understand that Linux is just a KERNEL and that there are many implementations associated with this kernel. To many, understanding this is a challenge. So one says "I use Linux at home, it's freely available on the net...try it out..." (and they leave it at that)! What follows is confusion as newbies find tons of distros and incompatible packages. Folks what do you think?
Minor point (Score:2)
It seems that this new version was originally planned to be a large step forward from XP but as we learn more about it and Microsoft's plans for the future, the changes are constantly being scaled back from what was originally promised. Whether it's the lack of a new file system or the "Monad" scripting shell, the absence of innovation in this operating system is giving it a black eye, no matter how nice the GUI is or
Re:Minor point (Score:2)
Of course that's par for the course for people today. Think of what is only IMMEDIATELY beneficial...
Tom
Re:Minor point (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, now. Without the new monad shell, they will be alienating all the Haskell users out there!
A sloppy comparison... (Score:2)
Something to keep in mind though is that if Linux distros work and look like today, they're comparable to Windows Vista will be
Re:A sloppy comparison... (Score:2)
I'd rather have them spend more time on a POSIX compatibility in the kernel then a spiffy new 3d gui which will be as useful as a belly button.
Tom
Got standards? (Score:3, Interesting)
Users don't want to (and shouldn't have to, in my opinion,) worry about things like dependancies, finding a binary package for their particular distribution and/or kernel, or compiling and configuring a program upon installation. The power of configurability is great, but it doesn't have to be an either/or conflict with usability. How many times have you found a program you were interested in, and you
Also the networking, while powerful, is anything but simple. In XP for example, if I right click on a network interface and select "Share this connection," Windows automatically starts DHCP on my second NIC, assigns my other computer(s) an IP, and everything just works. In Linux, I have to set up masquerading, routing tables, rules, etc. It's these sort of things that send most people running.
Standards DO have drawbacks, but they're generally outweighed by the benefits. Too many choices can be bad. One need look no further than the current battle between HD-DVD and BluRay for a perfect example.
Honestly, I don't ever see this happening, but unless the Linux community can rally around ONE distribution as the "standard", I don't think Linux will ever be an option for the masses.
Linux... no, Mac increase... YES (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, with the new Intel Macs hitting the street during that time, with its ease of use, long track record, etc., that is the system that can win big, and I think that Apple (especially with its monopolistic policies with hardware and software, such as leveraging Final Cut to get Avid/Adobe to give up on Mac and of course iTunes) may just be the next Microsoft.
Answer: No. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Whether it's the lack of a new file system or the Monad scripting shell, the absence of innovation in this operating system is giving it a black eye." One second--you think customers care one fucking bit about innovation in an OS? What planet is this guy on that he thinks people care about a fucking FILESYSTEM or SHELL?!?!?* I'm gonna say this once really loud for the cheap seats: WINDOWS IS POPULAR BECAUSE IT'S THE OS ON THE CHEAPEST COMPUTERS OUT THERE!!!!!!!111oneoneone. The 5% of customers that do care about innovation already have a home: they're at the Apple store.
* note: Windows does ship with a shell. But no one needs it. (Because Windows also ships with a GUI, natch.) Before writing another article like this, do this simple test: walk up to 50 people and ask them about the shell in Windows.
- 46 will go "huh?"
- 2 will say "cmd.exe but I have no use for it." (You just stumbled across two people who work in IT or a computer store.)
- 1 will say "cmd.exe and I use it once in a while because I've been using PCs for 20 years and I still do things there 'cause I'm used to it."
- And exactly one will say "cmd.exe but I don't use it 'cause it's teh sux0rz! When I get a new comp the first thing I do is use IE to download Firefox and then I use Firefox to download Cygwin!" [diveintomark.org] (Read that page, it's really funny. I love that story.)
Monad is very cool [newbox.org] but even if MS would have shipped it in Vista, did you really think you were going to spend next thanksgiving teaching your mom how to use it? "Look, mom, here--I just pipe this through that, and what makes Monad even cooler than bash is that it isn't just text coming out, these are actual objects, so I can take these results and..." Uh-huh. Right.
Re:How to tell if you are...a miracle worker? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How to tell if you are a linux fanatic. (Score:5, Interesting)
33. Your server has not had to reboot in over a year.
34. When you need to install a major piece of software, be it an office suite, a graphics tool, or a compiler, you do not have to drive to a store and shell out enormous amounts of money. Instead, you simply select the desired package from the package repository and it and its dependencies are installed automatically.35. You are able to read and write a vast array of file systems - not just a handful designed by a single company.
36. You realise that those who still have Windows on their computer "because it came with it" probably have picture frames with pictures of model families who they don't know "because it came with the frame"37. You are tired of hearing Windows users bitch about viruses and spyware as if they had not choice but to be afflicted with them.
Re:I think the exact opposite (Score:2)
However, the customers that the article is talking about doesn't care about how effective pipes and sockets are in a CLI. They want their OS to look good and guide them by the hand when they try to do a task (think Clippy). I think the FOSS community could learn a lot from this approach. So long as they don't sacrifice performance where it really is imp
Re:2005 is the year of Linux on the Desktop! (Score:3, Interesting)
I call BS. Even under M
Re:2005 is the year of Linux on the Desktop! (Score:2)
Re:I guess I just don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
What "starter" version of Linux are you talking about? I've been a RedHat and now Fedora user and have only paid for maybe two boxes... I wanted to get the stickers and stuff. I have only made ONE support call (mostly to see what it was like) only to be told they only support one NIC installation on a machine. Disappointing to say the least... it was years ago so maybe support has gotten better since then, I don't know, but I see almost no advantage to buying a support agreement. You're simply better off having a support PERSON on site or available on short notice and that goes for Linux or Windows or any OS.
Mozilla incorporating has nothing to do with making a version to be paid for. This is ALL open-source. The moment someone even thinks they will take it closed-source for profit, a fork will happen and someone else will drive the project as open source. There are many examples of this to cite... do I really need to?
"Good busines woman" or not, you don't know what you're talking about -- you're just unaccustomed to the way things work in the OS world. Salesmen are out to make money and I don't blame you for being suspicious of their intentions. But the OS community as a whole are more likely to do it for free just for the fun and challenge involved.
Open Source has too long a history to be a gimmick or a bait-n-switch. I still can't decide if you're a troll or not. If not, then I wonder what an experienced business woman would be doing here on Slashdot in the first place.
And finally, you need to re-think what computing does for your business. It's a tool, not a religion. Determine what tools you need to run your business and I heartily recommend you start with the applications you need to run and base your choice of OS secondarily. To make the choice of OS first would be a decision not on the OS as a tool, but for other reasons such as a bas experience with a BSA audit, or some reason that involves emotional drive of some sort. Think business tools and test a lot of stuff before settling on something. And if you select something that runs well under Linux, then consider your support options. (1) learn how to do it yourself (2) find someone who knows this stuff. I don't think it's any different under Windows really -- I have rarely had a support experience with Windows that was helpful.
P.S. Closed-minds and Open-source do not work well together.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
I can't think of any tools I use day to day that have Linux in the name anyways. BFD.
As for "poor hardware support" think the inverse, "poor support from hardware". I mean who do you think writes the windows drivers anyways?
Oh and stop trolling, your mother would be displeased.
Tom
Jeebus Cickey. (Score:3, Interesting)
For regular server use (eg. file server, web server, etc for a small to mid-sized company) Windows 2003 is pretty solid.
"Win2k is pretty solid?" As in "sort of stable"? Or "Kinda so-so not to totally viri and exploit ridden?" Or do you mean "Nice if you've been lured into this