Linux is Window Manager's Product of the Year 189
brokeninside writes "Infoworld's 'Windows Manager' Columnist Bob Livingston named Linux his 1999 product of the year in his most recent column. I especially enjoyed his assertion that Microsoft was 'playing catchup' with Windows 2000. He said, '...Microsoft is catching up with Linux, not setting a higher standard.'"
It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
I'm sure Rob and the guys don't have time to cleanup every thing sent their way.
---
That's a welcome switch (Score:1)
Wow. For the first time, someone in the journalistic community has said that Windows is playing catchup with Linux!!! Whod'a thought that a year ago?? I for one think this is great.
Doesn't mean there's not a long way to go, though, still...
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
I couldn't agree more... (Score:4)
First of all, you wouldn't believe the number of interns where I work that get their hands on a Linux workstation for the first time, and then, upon managing to screw up something, reboot. Microsoft products have been so dependant on the reboot, it's been ingrained in the minds of people without enough luck to have gotten some experience with something better.
Not only that, but Win2k is Microsoft's attempt to make NT a usefull OS - meaning you can play games on it. =) And now it seems like they're chickening out on being able to offer a product that can do both by promising Windows Millenium, which I betaed, much to my own sorrow. It seems to me that the only way they can keep the OS stable is to prevent it from doing things - using easily written video card drivers for instance.
But... but... you'll be hearing MORE about it? Perhaps Livingston's been reading his own publication too much. Last time I checked, Linux was gaining buzzword status - it's almost up there with 'intranet' now... =)
Plus, Microsoft is now REALLY playing catchup, because, after all, once the DOJ gets through with them, they might be open source.
There is no sig.
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
--
Interesting article, but I have a few quibbles.. (Score:4)
At this point, the list of people not supporting Linux is likely shorter than the list of people who are. I think he's confusing support with "double click to add SP9 to your system" ease-of-fixing.
"You will like our integration. Microsoft's decision to make Internet Explorer a hard-to-remove feature of Windows 98 -- in direct defiance of an earlier order by Judge Jackson -- has
I don't think there were earlier rulings by Mr. Jackson about not integrating Explorer in Win98. Perhaps he means another judge.
However, there are many interesting bits:
"icrosoft got away with this because its legal counsel convinced two out of three judges on an appeals court that Windows 98 "isn't an upgrade of Windows 95" and therefore was in compliance with the previous order. You know a company's in trouble when legal hairsplitting replaces common sense."
Can you sense the bitterness here? I can understand why the man doesn't like Microsoft: how can they sleep at night knowing they were selling IE 4 + the upgrade equivalence of a service pack to the public, for the same price as a full operating system?
It sounds like he's really cluefull about how Linux is starting to make MS sit up and take notice. Since Linux has passed the "embrace and extend," and FUD litmus tests, MS is starting to realise that they have to compete on merits. They obviously thought they could set up Linux as a nice straw men for their DoJ hearing, and later take the community down a few pegs.. But now the result is an actual form of competition, if not full out market share battles
---
export posix_me_harder="" (Score:4)
Does anyone here, even for a second, believe that Windows 2000 will not be a major software release and developers will scramble to support it? Ignore the technical issues: The "windows phenomenon" has nothing to do with technology, it has to do with marketing, the perception of reality, and human nature.
This article is paying lip-service to the community. Given ZD Net's track record I wouldn't be suprised if it was written specifically to get posted to slashdot (like many other articles like this which seem to make it to the front page). Don't buy it.
Linux is a versatile OS but it has many shortcomings which the pundits and many linux enthusiasts want to ignore - the hardware drivers are not on par with their NT counterparts, nor is the support infrastructure there. There are some drivers which are rock solid under linux, but the majority of them have quirks, bugs, and I'd say upwards of 50% are in "perma-beta". Further, the tcp/ip lock-spin problem as surfaced in the mindcraft testing seems to prove that linux does what it was designed to do: run well on *well supported* commodity hardware, do so with good stability, and makes an excellent server for home / small business use. However, for mega corporations and so-called "e-commerce" - it's lacking. This is called Solaris Country - big iron and massively redundant servers. the BSD's also do better in this arena (although, like Wendy's, they make superior burgers but everybody thinks McDonalds is better). The above paragraph is mainly here as a reality-check: linux is not perfect. It has shortcomings. The sooner we accept them (and then work to shore them up), the sooner we stop worrying about "beating microsoft" and start building superior code, that's the same day we win the war. If you want historical proof: japanese samauri(sp?) - they held the belief that by not concerning themselves with the outcome of battle they would win. And they did. Atleast until we dropped the bomb on them.
But, I digress. Mistrust articles like these: these little "opinion" columns are just paying lip service to whatever hype happens to the popular one at the moment. Go back and search for "push technology", or even earlier to the Macintosh and the windows 3.0 days... it's all the same: the pundits say what their readers want them to say. Just like slashdot likes to moderate and post people who agree with it's values and beliefs. Boil it all away and you're left with one thing - and it isn't the truth.
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Interesting (Score:1)
Kind of like the on-line textbook dealer whose slogan is: "We promise not to rip you off...as much..."
J
Yeah but you aren't paying them..... (Score:1)
If you where the one complaing, that is.
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
Don't lose your sense of humanity in the noise of slashdot; don't flame.
---
Common sense (Score:3)
But what I liked most was the last paragraph: "When microsoft is forced to compete on equal footing
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
-----------------------------------------------
The Window Manager 1999 Product of the Year is Linux.
"Why," you might ask, "would a known Windows sympathizer give an award to a product that competes with Windows NT?"
Linux wins because it's challenging Microsoft's No. 1 server software position.
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
---
I have a signature, but it's a secret.
Re:That's a welcome switch (Score:2)
I use Windows and Linux (and OpenBSD for that matter) because I find that they both address different needs for me.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
On the mark, with a few errors (Score:2)
One of which is his statement that "support is still an issue." This is simply not true. With newsgroups, IRC, and the myriad "Linux help" sites that have been popping up all over the place, Linux has, at least in my experience, much more support than Windows. I think that Linux can more more supported and better supported because of it's open nature. When someone is giving tech support for Linux, they can know exactly what's going on with the inner workings. Every problem that users experience can be explained satisfactorily. This is certainly not the case for Windows.
One way which I believe would help people (and the press, who influence the average user greatly) would see how much support Linux has is if makers of distributions would place more prominently the many tech support sites or accesses which people can use as well as exactly how to get there and make good use of the resources. Alas, many of the distros get their money from support and would almost certainly be reluctant to do this.
Chris Hagar
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:2)
Projects like AbiWord [abisource.com] work to address this.
"No, then it's dead in the water for corporate adoption. If there's one thing that linux enthusiasts should take to heart it is the lesson that MS has taught the entire industry: controlling one market allows you to rapidly extend into other (related) markets and then embrace the tech, subvert it, and take that market over."
What "owns" the vertical market space for thin servers? What is going into vertical areas like resteraunt software? What is expanding into desktop and embedded areas at an exponential rate?
Not NT..
I, and others, know Linux isn't perfect. This is why we work together as a coherent community, and why things like FUD will never harm us.
You do have a point about the pundits, and I hope it won't be ignored because you acknowledge Linux isn't perfect.
---
Disturbed, but I got over it. (Score:3)
My first reaction, as a happy linux user who thinks open source will eventually conquer all inferior methods, was to think "No there's not! Linux is perfect! Bow before the kernel!"
Of course, Linux isn't perfect. Nothing's perfect, after all. But the difference is that, once we admit we have faults, it doesn't take long for open source to fix them. As a result, my second reaction was to think "Well, what are these criticisms, so I can fix them?"
I think it's that kind of attitude (the second) which will make the reporter's vision of a linux-on-even-footing(financially, not innovationwise)-with-Microsoft come true.
Re:On the mark, with a few errors (Score:1)
in terms of tech support, there is certainly lots of unofficial support for both operating systems, if one wants to search the 'net for it (yes, the LDP and deja.com are good collective sources for linux help, though)
but back to my point, i think bob meant software and drivers support, more than he meant technical support
das ist alles
Re:I couldn't agree more... (Score:1)
You also wouldn't believe the number of redhat owners that continue to do so well after they've been off linux. Or Solaris admins, for that matter...
Not only that, but Win2k is Microsoft's attempt to make NT a usefull OS - meaning you can play games on it. =)
Well, that's patently false. W2K, as stated by Microsoft itself, has been designed to combine the win98 and NT source trees together. If gaming was the only objective, they would have never implimented all the security, added directory services, file and printer sharing, so-called "zero management" / remote administration, or a plethora of other features. Sorry, but this OS wasn't designed just to play Quake.
It seems to me that the only way they can keep the OS stable is to prevent it from doing things - using easily written video card drivers for instance.
Yeah, isn't that called HAL, or the Hardware Abstraction Layer present in NT4 and W2K? Virtualize everything and put the hardware behind a complex API and then make damn sure the kernel is stable.
"...after all, once the DOJ gets through with them, they might be open source."
That's also false - a recently leaked report indicates they intend to break MS up into several "baby bills".
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
I'm not going to make a fuss over this, but it wouldn't be hard to spend an extra 5 minutes for ever story they post, checking for small problems like this. They don't post that many stories, so I don't think it's too much to ask. But then, it's not my site, is it?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
You have a very valid point. I suggest you send it
---
Linux good for Windows? (Score:1)
Open mouth, insert foot (Score:3)
Some would say that the major development in Windows2000 was the Active Directory, and that remainder of the issues he cites (security, stability, horsepower) were only fulfillments of a longstanding promise.
Now, if Win2k came out only with those improvements in implementation and no changes in underlying architecture, then he would be justified in saying that M$ was playing catchup to Linux. But again, there is the AD, which is the major marketing point and really quite a massive overhaul of the way many organizations currently function. For that feature alone (there are others but I don't understand them very well) it seems unjustified to call M$ a bunch of copycats when it comes to Win2k.
Just a viewpoint to consider.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:1)
Well, the article indicated the he was talking about server market share. Office compatibility is moot on a server. In fact, an admin who runs Office on a production server has a particular designation: idiot. Linux will allow Windows clients to connect to a share containing Office fine.
Re:Interesting article, but I have a few quibbles. (Score:1)
At this point, the list of people not supporting Linux is likely shorter than the list of people who are. I think he's confusing support with "double click to add SP9 to your system" ease-of-fixing.
Are you trying to tell me that you wouldn't mind having a point-and-click kernel recompile with a snazzy interface that autodetects the optimal configuration for your system and then installs it automatically and asks you "would you like to reboot?" when it's done? Hey, linux isn't perfect. Support *really is* still an issue. And so's having a decent GUI. I don't care what the linux enthusiasts on /. say - gnome and kde are not on par with Windows. They're useful, sure. They even look sexier than windows (not hard, really). I use gnome and enlightenment every day. But it took me 2 years of constant work under linux to get to this point and I cannot and will not expect a columnist and the average joes out there to do the same. We're not there yet.
You know a company's in trouble when legal hairsplitting replaces common sense."
Gee, and I thought that's what every corporation does when they get into a legal dispute... but I must be mistaken - maybe they all try to go as fast as possible and generate as little paperwork as they can. Afterall, lawyers like to go home at 5:00 too, right? Even if according to the bill they worked 60 hours today...
Can you sense the bitterness here?
No.
how can they sleep at night knowing they were selling IE 4 + the upgrade equivalence of a service pack to the public, for the same price as a full operating system?
Maybe because the average consumer either a) didn't know any better b) didn't care or c) was the only thing they knew how to use and hence had to upgrade. Ignorance is a difficult thing to combat.. and it's routinely exploited. Just head over to a new car dealership for an example. I'm sure Bill and millions of other capitalists around the world will be sleeping soundly tonight. With their pillows filled with cash.
Cool (Score:3)
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:1)
Anyway, on the one hand, we shouldn't claim Linux is something it isn't, but on the other hand, we shouldn't put ourselves down too much. Hey, even my mom has started to like using Linux (which is on my computer at home, but not hers). We are making headway in the desktop arena, but we without a doubt are ahead in the server realm.
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:2)
Only proves that linux is great for commodity hardware. Which is what I said initially. It's source is freely available and fairly easy to navigate (well, if you love C *g*). It's only natural that it would branch into these markets. But it isn't exactly taking the corporate world by storm - and that's where the gigabucks are. Besides, the "embedded market" isn't sexy and all hyped up. Who cares what OS runs a department store's fridge or security system?
All in all though, linux is making progress at a very nice rate. It's hard to compare it's improvements with NT on a broad scale, however, because the focus is different for each OS. One focuses on the GUI and making things easier to administer. The other is focused on technical superiority.. even if that means that adding support for your zip drive requires 20 lines worth of typing in a fairly cryptic way.
Maybe they should come out with WinGames.. (Score:1)
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:1)
Okay, you have a point there. =) But, taking the point one step further: linux does not have support for MS Exchange, and while the server may not have Office on it, you can bet the Marketing and Sales departments all have Outlook on their desktops and want those nice embraced-and-extended features Outlook affords them.
Slashbox having problems? (Score:1)
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:5)
However, this guy seems to be different. Unlike Jesse Burst (who went from 'Linux isn't worth your time' to 'Linux is up and coming' to 'Linux is a solid bet' in an amazingly short period of time), he makes it very clear that what he wants is for Microsoft to produce better products. He's not saying that he plans to jump ship to the Linux camp because of that OS's higher quality. He's simply saying that he sees that the Linux OS has some things right (and other things wrong), while Windows NT, Windows 95/98/SE, and Windows 2000 all have some serious problems that Microsoft seems unwilling to address.
He's praising the good things about Linux and acknowledging that it has some problems of its own. That's par for the course with the average columnist, and I wouldn't trust him except that he's flat out stating that his desire is for Microsoft to realize it has some genuine competition and take the opportunity to improve their products. He's stating up-front that he's rooting for the home team, rather than unfairly denigrating the competition or praising phantom qualities of the chosen product.
I can respect that sort of forth-rightness. It's a refreshing way to approach the computer wars, which have seemingly forever been typified by the "my favorite widget rules and yours sucks" mentality.
This columnist is staying true to his beliefs, and he's doing it in a fair way. He simply believes Microsoft has temporarily gone astray, and hopes the success of Linux will lead the company back onto the path of greatness, which they will no doubt pave with many wonderful products. I don't agree with him, but the way he's stated his opinion makes me respect him.
That should be the norm, but it's not. So I solute him for his uncommonly rational stance.
Re:Linux good for Windows? (Score:2)
Windows 2K is important for Microsoft for a few reasons.
First, Linux has the reputation for being very stable. The fact that a Linux box can stay up without crashing, and that you can change settings without rebooting the whole system has made people look at it as a server solution. Microsoft does need to catch up in this respect.
Second, they are no longer the definite big boy on the block. This AOL/Time Warner thing probably has them very worried. If this new mega-conglomerate decides to support another OS for a net-application type box, it could actually hurt them badly.
Third, they'll need a good product if the DOJ punishes them badly. If Microsoft continues to have a clearly inferior product, if they lose their position where they can still force it upon consumers, they'll need to compete fairly on the desktop front as well.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:1)
And that's the whole crux of the matter. If I'm a network admin and all my users have Outlook I really don't have much choice - I gotta go with MS Exchange. Even if it crashes daily. Even if I have to come in at 4:00am to reboot them. Even if I hate it. I have to use it because the support just isn't there. I'm literally forced into that solution. And until linux can catch up to me and say "hey, I have a solution to get you out of this mess." I can't switch - my users will kill me if they can't have those embraced-and-extended features Outlook has.
Hey, even my mom has started to like using Linux
Mine too. She thinks it looks "cute". =)
Re:Disturbed, but I got over it. (Score:1)
I dont know. about equal footing. Maybe this statement will seem more accurate next year, but I think were still a little ways off.
Linux can be criticized in many ways...
That same quote jumped out at me and the first thing I thought was that this is bait for Linux bashing. It seemed to me to be an obvious troll for flames.
Re:Yeah but you aren't paying them..... (Score:2)
Those banner ad things? The ones people view. They're what pays. And indirectly, us.
Re:I couldn't agree more... (Score:1)
Which brings up another question -- Is Linux really suited to use on laptops? Or NT for that matter? Lawrence Tech here in Michigan wants their students to run NT on their laptops, which seems stupid to me.
Personally, I think GEOS would be better for those, if anyone was still developing it. It doesn't care if you shut down, it boots quickly, and it has very modest hardware requirements. How many of us really need to run a web server while sitting under a tree in a park somewhere?
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:1)
Ideally we would discuss the merits of W1.953125K versus "Linux," but since you seem to be more interested in discussing the article itself...
But, I digress. Mistrust articles like these: these little "opinion" columns are just paying lip service to whatever hype happens to the popular one at the moment.
I disagree. Opinion columns can be very original.
Go back and search for "push technology", or even earlier to the Macintosh and the windows 3.0 days... it's all the same: the pundits say what their readers want them to say.
I have to ask: are you a pundit?
Tut, tut. Remember Tarski's theorem? "Truth" cannot be defined. Besides, you called it an opinion column; surely you were not expecting it to be "true!"
What I find disquieting about your response is that you are telling people to stop reading such articles because they have to potential to misguide the reader (correct me if I am wrong). You don't seriously mean that, do you?
Active Directory (Score:2)
Of course, you can note Active Directory ONLY works if Microsoft is your name server. No one in their right mind is currently using Microsoft products for name serving.
So, to summarize the Active Directory stance.
1) Make some great new client technology, push it HUGELY in marketing
2) Oh yeah. You see that FreeBSD box in the closet running named that hasn't been rebooted in years and never drops a request. It has to go. Otherwise this great new thing, Active Directory, is no more than the Windows Explorer all over again.
Microsoft is trying to change client technology in ways that will force Microsoft's server technology down your throat. That is your innovation.
The plain truth is that monopolists have no incentive to innovate. Microsoft changes things only to extend its dominance. I don't think I will recommend changing domain name services to Microsoft ANYTIME soon.
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:1)
Open Source Isle (Score:4)
Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
A tale of a Linux trip
That started from this Slashdot site
Aboard this Livingston ship.
The mate was a mighty Inforworld guy,
The product brave and sure.
Most votes made for Linux that day
For a free sourcin' tour, a free sourcin' tour.
The product race started getting rough,
The Win2K was tossed,
If not for the zelots of the slashdot site
The honor would be lost, the honor would be lost.
The code won praise from the home of this honest journalist
With Openness
The Kernel too,
The best OS and superior,
The Red Hat guys
The Taco and Roblimo,
Here on open source Isle.
So this is the thread of the product race,
We've beat Redmond one more time,
We'll have to make the best of things,
It's an uphill climb.
The Livingston and the public too,
Have recognized the very best,
To help Linux get some press,
With the product of the year.
No cost, no Bill and open sorece,
Not a single blue screen,
Like Robinson Crusoe,
As primative as can be.
So join us here each release my freinds,
You're sure to get a smile,
Linux got product of the year
Here on open source' Isle."
Re:Interesting article, but I have a few quibbles. (Score:1)
Was quoted from the original article.. Bad siggy
I was commenting on, if not the bitterness, and least the not-liking this Windows reporter felt for the MS marketting tactics.
---
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:2)
Second, Windows 2000 != Office 2000.
Third, there are "Office clones" avaliable for Linux, and I believe the file format since Word '97 hasn't really changed. Star Office should work fine for this, and I've had good luck with Word Perfect (I like the HTML it generates much better, too).
Fourth, Windows 2000 will contain many technical advances compared to the earlier Windows products, and that *is* why people will migrate to it. Where I am, the IT department is beginning to find out that NT isn't all it's cracked up to be, and they might end up migrating to Red Hat instead. (maybe even running NT in VMWare, as needed!) The truth is, as the article states, Windows 2000 is still playing catch-up to Unix, and it's embarrassing that some free program that developers play with in their spare time is shaping up better than the "industry standard".
I doubt this was written specifically to get posted to Slashdot, and ZD Net's track record has gotten a lot better, and this isn't even a ZD Net *article*! However, if this wasn't written now, I'm sure it would have been written later (for the awards, you know, Infoworld, Product of the Year, and all...).
In my experience, Linux's hardware support lies somewhere between Win 95/98 and NT. Since NT has a "supported hardware" list that's iffy at best, and that's *with* corporate backing, I'm glad I can use my generic sound card, TV card, etc. under Linux...
Some drivers under Linux *are* under development. However, many drivers for hardware for NT are, also, and that means *no* driver, not a "perma-beta" driver.
I wouldn't even begin to accociate e-commerce with "big iron". However, if I were to talk about "big iron", I might think of IRIX as well. But IRIX is being dropped, in favor of? Linux, I believe. If SGI puts resources into extending Linux at the higher levels, I'll be pretty happy. Also, realize where your comparison got lost: I'd rather be running a scalable Solaris box than a buggy NT box any day. Also, the BSD's don't necessarily do better here. Any well-configured, stable box should do fine, you don't need the latest new-fangled version of GNOME, *especially* if you're root.
This article is saying that if Microsoft isn't careful, it's going to get the bomb dropped on them. In fact, often when pundits say "it is beginning", chances are it's all but over. I thought awarding things to Linux would be so 1998 by now, but apparently we're still the underdog in the media.
Nice little moralistic rant there, Sig11, but you're rambling. Did someone bet you to post something and get it scored up to 5, without reading the article?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:That's a welcome switch (Score:1)
Lets play catch up.. (Score:1)
M$ is renowned for thier 'catch-up' methods - it's called copying followed by intensive marketing, and market capturing - making the market totally reliant on M$ at exorbitant prices.
Hence the lure of Linux, and it's new buzz-word status - there is a viable alternative to M$ which has been around for some time, big business is finally starting to recognise that fact.
If M$ wants to stop this trend, there's one sure fire way to do it - cut the cost of thier OS's dramatically - in fact, make them free for non-profit use - and release certain sections of code as open source.
I don't see this ever happening, however.
Re:Interesting article, but I have a few quibbles. (Score:2)
Are you trying to tell me that you wouldn't mind having a point-and-click kernel recompile with a snazzy interface that autodetects the optimal configuration for your system and then installs it automatically and asks you "would you like to reboot?" when it's done?
"Linux has detected a newer version of the kernel exists. Please wait while a convienent program download unknown files from a remote server to install on your machine without asking, which later may or may not work and may require several reboost and maybe even a reinstall."
"Linux has not been shut down properly. Please wait while Linux scans all of your data and may attempt to fix data it interpretes as corrupt which may or may not make it work or contain essential files."
"Linux has detected a new monitor. Please wait while Linux scans your entire harddrive, updates random files, creates directories in weird places, calls the CIA, and assasinates Jimmy Hoffa."
Uh... nothanks.
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:1)
this which seem to make it to the front page). Don't buy it.
Not sure what you're getting at here. If you mean that the article was on ZDNet, it wasn't - it's on InfoWorld which is an IDG publication (and a bitter rival of all things ZD). If you mean that InfoWorld is just imitating ZDNet by posting a pro-Linux column, then I have a rebuttal or two. Apart from the boneheaded Bob Metcalfe column of last year, InfoWorld and IDG have a very good track record on Linux support. Nick Petreley writes the back page column in InfoWorld "Down To The Wire". It's the most consistently pro-Linux column I know, except for perhaps his editorials in LinuxWorld [linuxworld.com], another IDG publication, of which he is the editor. InfoWorld gave Redhat "Best Supported Product of 1998 Award", something which raised serious eyebrows when it was given.
ComputerWorld [computerworld.com] has also had some excellent reviews of various distros and applications like StarOffice.
About the only bump in the road from the average
The bottom line: IDG has supported Linux since long before it was fashionable to do so, and they've put their money where their mouths are.
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:3)
Actually, Livingston is pretty clear about what he's saying here. The kinds of things that MS is pushing with NT2K are the kinds of things that Linux excels at: stability, no reboots, reliability, etc. Desktop applications are an area that OpenSource is currently weak in...but MS isn't selling NT2K by saying that it will run Office better.
When you see how MS is marketing NT2K, it's pretty obvious that they have one eye on Linux. And Livingston's main point is absolutely correct: Linux serves to make MS products much much better.
Does anyone here, even for a second, believe that Windows 2000 will not be a major software release and developers will scramble to support it?
Actually, I think there's a serious window of opportunity here. Nobody's going to implement NT2K in the corporate environment until 2001. NT isn't Win95, you aren't going to have huge sales on day 1.
And in that time, lots of medium-sized companies just might start seriously thinking about the amount they spend on downtime, software "upgrades", and admin. Linux can easily gain in the server area, and if we all get our act together, we can make some major inroads into the desktop area as well.
And I'll agree with you that Linux isn't ready to run the enterprise. But neither are all those NT servers sitting in large corporations. The *majority* of servers in corporations are doing fairly mundane tasks...I might not choose Linux to run the backend DB of a large bank, but I'd be perfectly happy using it as a departmental web/file server.
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:1)
Windows 2000 systems to debut three weeks early [cnet.com]
Lucky you...you can give up next Monday - 3 weeks earlier than expected.
The Author is Still Pro Windows. (Score:2)
I agree. The point of the article seems to be that Linux will be good for Windows because given the way M!crosoft now focus on litigation and marketing, their software standards are slipping. He thinks that the existence of Linux will provide the kind of competition that will turn M!crosoft into a company that produces reliable, stable, user-friendly, high-powered, value-adding software (enough with the buzzwords, I know) that actually lives up to it's marketing hype.
He's right. The more successful Linux is, the more likely it is to provoke it's competitors into raising their standard and evolving their software into something far better than 3.1, 95 or 98. Win2000 (although I know very little about it) seems to be the first step in that direction. Linux will have to become more user friendly, and will have to support more hardware etc etc etc, because the better it gets, the more it's competitors will try to compete with it.
Every strength that Linux has, from stability to the versatility of it's X-Windows GUI, is probably already the focus of a Windows project team deciding how to best surpass that particular feature in Windows 2001. No matter what you think of M!crosoft, they're a powerful company that's used to competing on a difficult playing field. Their tactics aren't always totally above the belt, but don't let that lull you into believing that they can't produce some very good products when provoked into proper competition. They're not nice, but they're not incompetent either.
exchange servers _are_ available for Linux (Score:4)
HP has a clone that emulates _all_ the functionallity of echange server. The location of the site is here. [hp.com]
And there is even an offer of 50 free licenses! And the web based mail interface looks awesome.
I liked the article. Brian Livingstone was fair to both Microsoft and Linux. He basically pointed out that consumers want stability and security, two features that Microsoft fails to deliver and that Linux does deliver.
He wants Microsoft to improve their products and sees Linux as pointing the way to a better computer platform, one that has stability, security, and ease of use.
But Mr. Livingstone is still missing the big picture. The reason that Linux is gaining such a big share is that Linux uses open standards. Linux works and plays well with others. Linux doesn't want to be the only choice. Linux wants to be one of many choices.
And Linux runs on just about every computer platform right now that will support a multitasking OS. Everything from palmtops, to routers, to the desktop, to servers, all the way up to the most powerful supercomputers in the world.
Most of the software that runs on Linux also runs on a dozen other OSes. If your samba server under Linux doesn't have enough power, put in a Sun Enterprise server in its place, also running samba.
In contrast, Microsoft makes proprietary every standard that they touch. They can't seem to help themself. Everyone uses sendmail, they use exchange. Everyone uses java, they use j++. They are even trying to pervert perl right now by adding windows only extentions to the language. Microsoft does want to be your only choice.
Microsoft runs only on one platform. The x86. Given that there is a wide range of power in this venerable processor and the IA64 is coming, but even then you don't have much choice of vendors.
Microsoft only writes applications for one platform. Yes, they have done a little work with the macs, but only as an after thought.
I think that Linux is the tip of a new way of doing things that gives the consumer maximum choice.
I think that Bill is just now realizing that. Microsoft will need to change and change radically to keep any of their marketshare. You may not even recognize MS in a few years.
Re:I couldn't agree more... (Score:1)
I hear Bill is going to try and tempt Al Gore to come and work on Windows 2001, apparently Al has some ideas about optimising the TCP/IP stack for IPv6...
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:1)
Of course, this confuses the issue, because anyone who buys a computer in that window could get Windows 2000, but it still won't be sold in stores yet. And, at $220 for the upgrade from Windows '95/'98, it looks like consumers will be advised to wait for "Millenium". (which is due when? Sometime between 2000 and 2001, like most people think the millenium is?)
Of course, if Microsoft wanted a Linux competitor, they should have kept Xenix.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
I am wondering how this naming convention got started. English does have a plural form when discusing multiple instances of a thing.
If I only had one window up at a time then I would need something to manage a window. Let's call this a window manager.
But since I often have multiple windows up, wouldn't I need a something to manage all my windows? Let's call this a windows manager.
And since these managers all now handle icons and taskbars and the like, perhaps a better term would be display manager?
But now all the OS'es support multiple displays!!!
So what we should really call it is a displays manager!
Re:On the mark, with a few errors (Score:1)
> is still an issue." This is simply not
> true.
You are sooooo wrong. No company is going to deploy Linux in a mission critical fashion without either 1) Employing a Linux Kernel Hacker
2) Paying somebody to certify systems and
run around documentation for them etc.
3) Having soembody to sue
Sun have built on a support-orientated business plan. They do support well. They have nice escalation procedures etc. This sounds great for managment. Linux could be pushed out more if management had escalation procedures etc. Support is as issue. It's been worked on, sak Redhat
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
Re:Interesting article, but I have a few quibbles. (Score:1)
Windows 2000 is available (Score:1)
Some people that are registered with MSDN have it. And any warez kiddie worth his salt already has the ISO.
Stop telling people it is not available, when it is. You may not be able to run down to CompUSA or BestBuy and get a copy, but the RTM version is definitely available.
Diggs
IRIX big iron? (Score:2)
Heck, if I were to talk about "big iron", I would think of the Crays' mighty-ass UNICOS, not the comparatively flimsy IRIX, which is optimized for - of all things - graphics work! Ever been around a T90? The damn thing screams big iron.
Just a random thought.
Re:Active Directory (Score:1)
AD uses LDAP and kerberos. AD also interoperates with NDS (i suppose Novell where tyring to dominate the world too).
Catchup? (Score:2)
Re:Slashbox having problems? (Score:1)
-------------------------
Re:On the mark, with a few errors (Score:2)
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
Perhaps a filter through ispell would be good...
It wouldn't help. This is *not* a spelling mistake. It is grammatically correct, but of course the poster meant "Window Manager".
-------------------------
Re:exchange servers _are_ available for Linux (Score:2)
Afterthought is probably the wrong word here. Office was a best-seller in the Mac world long before Windows 3 or Office for Windows came out. There was a time when Mac software sales accounted for the majority of MS's profits.
That's actually one thing that made Office so popular: much of its interface came from the Mac, and MS had lots of talented Mac programmers. Most of its competitors (WordPerfect, Lotus, etc.) were coming from the DOS world, and tried to keep some compatibility no matter how ugly the UI was
Priorities (Score:1)
You all know how good Linux is, and that from a technical standpoint it's superior.
So, why is it that this little cult needs to stop the productive work it's doing to pat itself on the back every 5 minutes?
Think about it this way, and I realize right now this is COMPLETELY unscientific, for entertainment purposes only:
Figure that if 5,000 productive Linux contributors (code) read a typical "We rule!" story on Slashdot, spending, oh, 10 minutes on the self-congratulation, and read, oh, let's say, 3 such stories a week on here, that means on an average week the practice of Slashdot self-righteousness costs the Linux development effort 2,500 HOURS of time that could otherwise be spent on improving Linux! Now, let's be fair and not assume ALL of these coders would spend ANY time not reading Slashdot/sleeping/eating on developing for Linux. Let's be REAL conservative and say that only 10 PERCENT of that time would be spent otherwise on coding.
That's still 250 HOURS per month lost!
Just a thought (chuckles).
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
The author, Brian Livingston, is, in his own words, a "Windows sympathizer", so even if he isn't the Windows Manager, the sentiment's the same.
Roblimo was quoting the submission. Close enough (unless you're one of Microsoft's hair-splitting attorneys). Win98 is not an upgrade to Win95. WTF.
Re:Interesting article, but I have a few quibbles. (Score:2)
This guy wrote this article to get hits. Thats basically what he does. He once wrote an article about Windows 98 titled "Windows98 disables competitors software" on CNN. In the article he made his pathetic argument, when in fact the only result was that Win98 fubars a couple drivers made by manufacturers because they bundled regressed versions instead of up to date ones. I wrote an email to CNN about it, and I haven't seen his articles on their site since then.
This guy has probably never used Linux for more than 20 minutes in his whole life. In fact, naming Linux as the best "Window Manager" is just wrong. Linux is the kernel. Maybe he could get away with naming XFree86 or AccelX or some other server.
Re:That's a welcome switch (Score:1)
He could have a specific application that requires him to use Windows.
I can name a few:
Photoshop (Yes, there's the gimp, but the gimp is still lacking in one or two areas, mainly that of dealing with printed media because colormatching algorithms are patented all to hell. He could use MacOS, but that would require new hardware.)
Very specific niche-market programs such as CAD and EDA tools. While some companies are beginning to offer Linux versions of their products, a lot of companies are not. Altera MaxPlus Student Edition was my main reason for using Windows at all last semester.
Hopefully, the above issues will work themselves out.
Gotta use Exchange? Whatever for?!?!? (Score:1)
Re:I couldn't agree more... (Score:2)
you do know this plan was scrapped right?? there's still an upgrade to 98 forthcoming and it aint windows 2000!
"The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."
Re:Interesting article, but I have a few quibbles. (Score:1)
support.microsoft.com (Score:1)
Free phone call? Um, since when did MS have free tech support. Last time I checked, you got one or two free phone calls, and after that it was something like $50-70 per incident!
Re:exchange servers _are_ available for Linux (Score:1)
Re:IRIX big iron? (Score:1)
Novell's NDS (Score:2)
Microsoft are indeed engineering the Active Directory, but NetWare has had NDS (Novell Directory Services) in its server software since 1996.
Microsoft delivers a directory service four years later. I can call that catch-up. Microsoft has never innovated. They have always taken ideas from the competition and have rendered them user-friendly, at the cost of major security. But when user-friendliness VS. security is the point, most people choose user-friendliness.
Because we are lazy. We don't want to learn. Learning is way too much work!
Linux? Non-geeks have never heard of it (Score:2)
This is not meant as a slam or flamebait, just a valid point to counter the "linux is hip and wow" buzz I see posted over and over and over on Slashdot. I've posted this here before, no one's bothered to respond.
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:2)
Linux is a versatile OS but it has many shortcomings which the pundits and many linux enthusiasts want to ignore - the hardware drivers are not on par with their NT counterparts, nor is the support infrastructure there. There are some drivers which are rock solid under linux, but the majority of them have quirks, bugs, and I'd say upwards of 50% are in "perma-beta". Further, the tcp/ip lock-spin problem as surfaced in the mindcraft testing seems to prove that linux does what it was designed to do: run well on *well supported* commodity hardware, do so with good stability, and makes an excellent server for home / small business use. However, for mega corporations and so-called "e-commerce" - it's lacking.
The configuration in Mindcraft tests that "discovered" problem with networking was absolutely unrealistic -- multiple 100-megabit ethernet cards that on the server. The only justification for such a configuration is being a router because in all other cases one gigabit card is more efficient, and it never was an intention to make system do tricks that in all sane configurations are reserved to routers and switches.
In sane configuration with one faster card "problem" never occurs, and definitely data-pumping from disk to ethernet is not a limiting factor on "e-commerce" site's performance with any high-end hardware and any networking-capable OS -- processing speed, resource allocation, scheduler and local I/O are.
Interesting... (Score:1)
There are alot of people here that know what it is, and when I say that I am a Linux geek they usually respond with a, 'Whoa that is cool, I have been wanting to get into that." Since I have moved here I have helped to convert 3 people.
Now, it may help that I am about 5 minutes from a University. It isn't a technical University, but sometimes that can make a whole lot of difference.
Incidentally the University just switched over all of their old Sun servers to Linux machines.
Re:It's "Window Manager", not "Windows Manager" (Score:1)
It's because your manager manages things of "type" Window. Someone who works in a shop could be a shelf stacker, not a shelves stacker. A farm worker could be an apple picker, not apples picker. If I lose my current job I could end up as a street sweeper, not streets sweeper. The job I do is sweep, therefore I am a sweeper. The things I sweep are of type street and therefore I am a street sweeper. It's perfectly standard english grammar.
GEOS! (Score:1)
I do think that we ought to start treating mobile computers more like PDAs and less like desktops that you can carry. Personally, I run Linux on mine for stability, and also so that I can "code on the road". I would say that Linux is OK for laptops (has good power-saving features), but that you have to know what you're doing (eg, don't be running a bunch of processes you don't need, run XFCE instead of KDE, get enough memory so that you don't use swap space, etc.)
Re:I couldn't agree more... (Score:2)
Rebooting is something that you shouldn't do anymore, at least not just because you are going to unplug the machine. At my work I have an NT machine. I reboot it for stability reasons every other week or so but I always feel a little guilty that it just sits there sucking energy all night. I don't shut it down though because rebooting takes too long. Why can't I just suspend it?
Now linux is stable enough to prevent a reboot. I have unix loving colleague who used to very proud of the uptime of his linux machine. he recently got a laptop and of course he's running linux. Every time he undocks the thing he has to reboot to keep the hardware working properly, that's so stupid.
It seems like a relatively simple problem to fix (I won't do any programming for it in case you are wondering).
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:3)
Yep [corel.com].
No, then it's dead in the water for corporate adoption.
Linux owns a good sized chunk of the Web. I consider that "corporate adoption". Check out the April Operating Systems counter [leb.net] for numbers. Back in April, Linux was at 28% and all versions of Windows were at 24%. I suspect that it's larger for Linux now, especially having walked through some large co-location facilities and seen the racks of VA/Linux and Penguin Computing boxes.
controlling one market allows you to rapidly extend into other
Yep, and the server market will be Linux's springboard to the desktop.
the hardware drivers are not on par with their NT counterparts, nor is the support infrastructure there.
Corel recently annonced a major effort to bring hardware manufacturers on-board (it's why I bought their stock). The first results were turn-arounds on releasing driver source from Creative and some other video manufacturer. This will be the Linux story of 2000 -- driver support will start shipping with the hardware, and it will snow-ball until you start getting Linux drivers with your breakfast cereal!
On other news, the slow climb into the games market progresses. I was playing Myth II under Linux last night, and DAMN that Voodoo3 support is nice. The card cost me a lot, but it was well worth the price to see such flawless graphics and animation. Plus, I didn't have to take down my DNS server (primary for my domain), Web server or shut down any of my encrypted login sessions to other systems. It just performed perfectly. Of course I had to engage a whole 300MHz system to do it. What a shame it just runs a little too slow on a 166.
Cyniscism vs Reality, Round 1 (Score:3)
(Most companies know, only too well, that different versions of Office are incompatiable. Replacing EACH AND EVERY FILE on their corporate fileserver, to ensure everything is up-to-date is a pain, expensive, and takes people away from Real Work. You know, the stuff that earns the company money. An offer of an alternative that would take them off this financially ruinous roundabout would appeal to the execs and accountants alike, not to mention the poor plebs who do the typing.)
Ok, so we've dealt with 100% Word compatiability. The answer is YES. We've also dealt with Office compatibility - it's irrelevent, as Office 2000 won't be compatiable with any other version anyway, and the corps know that. What does that leave? Marketing and human nature.
Ok, marketing. Yes, true, Microsoft has TV ads and billboards. So did IBM, when they released OS/2. That really doesn't capture the degree of mindshare that advertising agencies would have you believe. Otherwise, there'd be a whole different meaning to Blue Screen of Death.
So, what does count? Mindshare. Plain and simple. Linux is getting column inches in the technical, educational and financial columns, sometimes even in the main sections, with such stories as European Governments switching to Linux, and rumours of China doing the same. The financial press has been in a feeding frenzy, with such stories as Red Hat going from $14/share to over $250/share, in only a few months, and VA Linux rocketing from $22/share to nearly $300/share in half a week. Sorry, but that grabs attention in a way very little else does.
Then, there's the educational sector to consider. Mexico and Britain will be churning out Linux coders, not Visual Basic wannabes. Do you -think- financial departments -like- paying more than they have to for software licences, tech support that isn't, etc? And here's a ready supply of willing Linux nerds, who won't need multi-billion support contracts or software that costs more to keep running than the entire Apollo program!
Ok, now let's look at drivers. Linux vs NT, The Battle Of The Giant. Sorry, no plural, NT has far fewer drivers: no PnP support, no USB support, no Firewire support, fewer networking protocols, fewer graphics modes, earlier ActiveX (it's possible to get ActiveX 6 for Linux, but why you'd want to is beyond me - either way, NT's still on version 3), fewer printers, fewer Ethernet cards, fewer sound cards, fewer graphics cards, incomplete multicasting support, no routing support, no QoS support, poorer RAID support, no software watchdog support and poorer driver handling.
Before critisizing Linux for being "worse" than NT over drivers, I'd say "take a step back", because I honestly can't see a single way in which NT can claim superiority over Linux, with regards to drivers. And even if one or two cases were found, that's all they'd be. The overall picture would still be that Linux was superior. To convince me otherwise, you'd have to answer EACH AND EVERY point above, OR for those points you can't disagree on, find AT LEAST ONE way in which NT was superior to Linux. And even then, you'd only have gotten to the point of showing they were equal. You would have to exceed even this very ambitious goal with a significant number of additional points to show NT's overall superiority.
Let's take the supposed beta-ness of Linux' drivers. Have you -used- 50% of Linux' drivers? Has anyone? If not, then you are relying on heresay, not personal observation. How do -you- know that the person was using the latest drivers?
(eg: Ethernet cards - many make use of the Tulip code, but the "standard" kernel used a very old version of this for some time, due to a disagreement over patch philosophy.)
Then, how do you know what options or compiler the person was using? eg: Linux was rather sensitive to pgcc for a while, and only fools like me use -O6 in the Makefile.
Do you know that the hardware used was reliable, and non-defective? If a chip is flaky at the upper end of it's specs, or if the computer's fan is broken, then you -can- actually get more faults with GOOD drivers than badly-written ones. The badly-written ones might, potentially, keep the hardware slow enough to operate, whilst bug-free, well-written drivers might push things a bit too hard.
If you don't know the quality of hardware, don't assume the fault -has- to be in software. It could just as easily be in hardware, or in the interaction between the two, even when a line-by-line check of the driver shows it to be 100% absolutely perfect and utterly bug-free.
A good example of what I mean is in the docs for CPUBurn, where it states that this will push the CPU and the rest of the motherboard to the limits, for Linux, but that a Windows version is proving a problem because Windows is too inefficient for the program to push the system.
Does that mean Linux is defective, because it works better? Nope! It means that you need more work-arounds for bad hardware than Windows does, certainly, but it's still ultimately a hardware bug not a software one.
Just the other day (Score:2)
My girlfriend walked up with a RedHat Linux (6.5 I think) box, and said that she thought I might be interested in this Linux. (I think she initially picked it up because of the cute penguin on the box.
I told her I wouldn't be buying it, since it's free and I can get it, and a slew of applications for it, without spending a dime. The confused look I got in response to the 'free operating system' phrase prompted me to skip the 'free beer vs free speach' diatribe.
Instead, we went out for Tacos.
There's a huge amount of confusion among the 'general public' regarding 'free software'. People just can't seem to get their head around the idea of getting something for nothing. Or the benefits of freely contributing to a community. I think this is mostly an American phenomenon, since here 'there is no free lunch'.
It's like Larry Wall said: (paraphrase) It's like we're doing Windows users a favor by charging them for something they can get for free. It keeps them from getting confused.
Re:export posix_me_harder="" (Score:2)
Microsoft has made a fortune by selling software that the public has generally viewed as *good enough.* They would continue to do just that forever because of inertia and the huge market share they own. Buuuuuut... now we have Linux entering the picture. Linux may not be everything to everyone, but it does help point out some of the major flaws in Windows (security, stability, etc) that the folks in Redmond are being forced to address.
And on the other hand, the perceived *user friendly GUI* of Windows has help to accelerate the development of many point and click products(windows managers, config tools, etc) for those Linux users who feel the need to work in that type of environment.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that competition is a win/win for both Windows and Linux. Now if only we can get the zealots to see that....:)
No, no, no :) (Score:2)
"Directory" in this case has a different meaning than what Unix-heads are used to. Think "Telephone Directory", not "Present Working Directory".
A more accurate term would be "Lookup Service", but someone decided to go with "Directory". It amounts to a database optimized for fast read access. It is usually accessed with a (more or less) standardized protocol such as LDAP or X.500.
What's it good for? It pretty much started as a cool computerized way to look up the phone number of someone in your Big-Ass Company, Inc. Nowadays, it has been expanded to look up information on users (hence the "single logon" buzzword), program components, and anything else that someone wants to make "findable" in an organization.
DNS is a simple directory service. Imagine being able to do a DNS-style lookup for every person, printer, program, "object" in a company. That's what people are excited about.
Key Part of MS Defense Strategy? (Score:2)
Mr. Livingston is still firmly in MS' pocket. That he has conformed nicely to the party line is just further evidence of that.
Out of context (Score:2)
Jesse Berst is his own problem (Score:2)
Re:I couldn't agree more... (Score:2)
Re:On the mark, with a few errors (Score:2)
Essentially, the issue boils down to a difference of view on what constitutes 'support'.
Management tends to think in structural terms; of having business structures in place to provide support when needed. We technical people tend to think in information gathering terms - we want to make sure we can get hold of the information needed to solve the problems we run into.
Of course, while it might theoretically seem that the two views would end up dovetailing, the reality too often is that they're quite diverged. Those business structures often end up staffed by entry-level people who primarily deal with 'read the documentation for me'-level tech support, and who often don't actually run the software they're supporting. For information-gathering purposes, informal peer support(with people who are actually using the software) is often more effective(unless, of course, you're looking for 'read the documentation for me'-level tech support, in which case you're not really a technical type).
One thing I have to wonder, though: what kind of 'mission-critical' application is there that could actually get by on 'read-me-the-documention-for-me'-level support?
Ben
Win2k on my computer (Score:2)
I agree--we'll all do well to keep that in mind. I have a couple days worth of Win2k experience to back up your point. A quick run-through:
GOOD: It's noticably faster than NT or 98. It generally has a lot less of that bloated feeling. In fact, most basic operations from the desktop are FASTER than what I experience with Enlightenment/Gnome. Definately has a nice feel to it.
GOOD: Win2k doesn't seem to waste memory as badly as NT 4 did. I don't seem to want to use all available memory until it needs it--though Linux still seems to be a little better at this.
GOOD: Unreal TE loads and runs MUCH faster for my in 2k than it did in Win98.
BAD: Win2k installation would not complete normally for me without forcing it to boot into VGA only mode. As far as I can tell the TNT2 drivers that come with it were completely unusable. I was able to download some beta drivers for it to get it working (somewhat.)
BAD: Win2k would knock my SCSI CD-RW offline on bootup (only powering off would make it usuable again at all.) I had to download new drivers from Tekram for my scsi card to get it to work properly.
BAD: Win2k is locking up constantly. I'm sure that some of it has to do with the beta video drivers. However it's been getting noticibly worse after only being installed 4 or 5 days.
SUMMARY: From my experience so far it seems that Microsoft has put a lot of effort into making the end-user-on-a-preinstalled-system experience much nicer. It's prettier. It's faster. Installation was no less of a hassle than RedHat 6.1. But let me put it this way: If I knew nothing about computers and walked into a computer store and compared a Linux/E/Gnome box to the Win2k box, I'd probably be going home with the Win2k machine. (I haven't used WM or KDE enough to know how they'd stack up.)
BTW, it's the Win2k Professional OEM multi-proc version.
numb
It is not Linux that matters (Score:2)
Meanwhile, we can try to add these features ourselves, as we always did. Good thing.
Anyway, Linux is a buzz-word, and generally it is used for more than just the kernel. Best example: mkLinux doesn't even use the kernel, but is still called Linux.
We have got loads of perfect open source software: for the developer, for server use, as well as for the end user. Still, we do lack a complete desktop-oriented piece of software that even Granny can use.
Didn't read anything new here? OK.
Just wanted to state that OSS WILL be recognized one day for its benefits and that it WILL be adopted by companies. Meanwhile, every commercial product has to face the comparision with Linux, which provides us of two things, already now: choice and quality.
Quality: it is already explained here that Linux is (perpetual) competition for commercial products, and competition will lead to product quality.
Choice: Very often Linux is compared with Windows. Very often Windows is chosen best. Very often people feel the need to defend themselves when they step back from Linux to Windows. Don't defend yourself! It is the choice that matters, and Linux is also not God! Instead, it is freedom of religion we talk about
(Just note for sure that MY choice of the moment is Linux, though...)
Meanwhile, OSS has inspired Apple (though yet only server software), Amiga (although you might know that at the moment all they can make is beautiful plans for the future, and open source is not yet fully considered), and many others. Many of these people, individuals as well as companies, also see the need of usability.
So my conclusion: we might not have the best OSS user-friendly system, but Linux did win many souls for OSS, and it is only a matter of time. While waiting (or working on it), there are plenty of (non-)free choices that you can make for your computer use.
It's... It's...
Re:Interesting article, but I have a few quibbles. (Score:2)
In Linux, when I upgrade the kernel to deal with some erratum, it's a simple process to me. However, it's not simple to other people. To design a script to automate backing up the old kernel source and untar the new, copying the
Compare to how it is on OS/2 or NT (or even 9x): to fix a problem fairly easily, you just double click on the
What I'm not talking about here are the mindless auto-detect or plug & play routines of the various MS OSes. What I am talking about is a way for a user to fix a known problem easily, ie: without having to become an almost kernel developer. A big, shiny, red button "upgrade to Kernel 2.2.14" would be nifty for people new to Linux. They'd feel they were in control, instead of being just confused by a different interface. If they're in control, they like it, and are more likely to experiment and learn.
Debian's apt and the *BSDs ports tree is closest to what could be used to easily fix general userland problems, and with a nice program to deal with keeping the kernel and lilo up to date, you'd have a lot of what the general populace needs. After that, you'd want to look at something like Win2k's Add/Remove program panel, which monitors what's used and what's not, as well as simplifies installing and removing in the eyes of PHBs everywhere (I love Slackwares installpkg/removepkg myself
Just a thought.
---
Re:Ya, they have. (Score:2)
You "converting" people isn't the same.
I'll be sure to point out when I run into the first person who actually uses linux who hasn't assembled there own computer.
in direct defiance of an earlier order (Score:2)
"I don't think there were earlier rulings by Mr. Jackson about not integrating Explorer in Win98. Perhaps he means another judge."
It seems what is referred to here is the 1995 consent decree between MS and the Department of Justice. The DOJ says that MS bundled their web browser with Windows, thereby leveraging their OS dominance to control the browser market. MS said that browsers are the future of the OS, and including them is just that natural evolution of the OS.
The dispute over whether or not the browser is an integral part of the OS is what started the whole anti-trust suit.
Re:Linux better than Win2k? (Score:2)
I realize that Linux has more software that has to be compiled, for whatever reason, but more and more software is becoming available as rpms for the people who don't care about optimization.
--