Linux Users Are Spoiled 753
Dozix007 writes "NewsForge carries an interesting
article
on how spoiled Linux users are. It sites examples such as the
availability of wide ranging software packages that Microsoft can't hope to provide.
Microsoft has to be careful about what kind of application software it
ships with Windows. Microsoft reps sometimes point to Linux
distributions and ask why they can get away with shipping stacks and
stacks of applications without getting in trouble. The answer to that
one, of course, is that the Linux distributions give you a choice. You
aren't locked into one particular application. Most Linux distributions
include several choices for most program classifications; even
single-CD distros usually include several Web browsers and email
clients."
Nice ad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux is about choice..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux easier than Windows? Unpossible. (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux for the lazy. (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft thinks monoculture... (Score:5, Insightful)
In Windows-land, Microsoft makes the kernel, Microsoft makes the one and only window-manager, Microsoft selects which apps come in the one and only distro, and nearly all of them are Microsoft-made apps anyway.
That's the difference. A Linux distro is the blending of the Linux kernel with a set of tools that use the kernel. And from the most basic use of a kernel, the shell, there's already several to choose from. There's several window-managers.
It's okay to bundle when you're in a COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT... that's the one thing Microsoft seems to be forgetting.
Different vendors in a distribution (Score:5, Insightful)
ahh, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most software Microsoft ships with windows was developed by Microsoft.
It isn't RedHat OpenOffice or Debian binutils.
Re:Mod article -1, Troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Now That Was a Pathetic First Post (Score:0, Insightful)
Yeah, that is because it is software you don't need or want. How many text editors do you need?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Choice is good... (Score:5, Insightful)
So it cuts both ways: installing and not installing. Choosing the best apps and environment for your needs is not something that Windows allows you to do.
Whether you like them or not (or even use them or not), Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and Outlook Express are installed by default under Windows. Under Linux, it's up to you to decide what you want and don't want/need on your machine.
Re:I'll be really spoiled when... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's for sure! I'd really love to love GIMP, but I can't depend on it for mission-critical applications because of its instability (though Film GIMP is getting a bit better.)
If GIMP were as good as Photoshop Pro, it would go a long way to getting acceptance of the Free Unix variants on a desktop.
Isn't it the other way round? (Score:5, Insightful)
- no difficult choices during setup (pre-configured PCs)
- no need to read difficult manpages and other such stuff
- most hardware just works out of the box
- no need to choose between distros
- no need to choose between multiple software packages that do the same job, just differently
This is quite true... (Score:5, Insightful)
The simplicity of typing a few commands to automatically determine what is out of date and what can be updated and then proceeding to just do it is very very neat. Right now portage shows that I have 1604 seperate packages installed, tracking all these by hand and making sure each are at their latest version would be a nightmare.
Even applying experimental patches is simple and happens automatically with various use flags. Of course that's a gentoo-specific feature, but the huge amount of flexibility that is inate just but having package management systems of any kind is huge.
I shiver at the thought of installing something outside the package management system... how are you supposed to keep it up to date? How are you supposed to verify that it has it's dependencies? How are you supposed to make sure it can uninstall correctly?
Package management has changed the way I select software.
Sometimes people want one good choice (Score:3, Insightful)
The only people I know who use more than one web browser are web designers/developers checking pages out.
Multiple editors? I've seen that, but only to handle different languages, and only rarely.
Multiple word processors? Never seen that.
For most people, having one set of programs that cover exactly what they want to do is what they want. That's partly why Microsoft have done so well. Get a PC with Windows and Office and you can browse the web, do your e-mail, word processing and spreadsheet stuff. It even integrates relatively well between the apps. That's covered the vast majority of computer users in offices worldwide.
Going through a Mandrake install you get at least half a dozen options for each application. Really, what I want is one set of applications, each of which are very good at what they do, quality over quantity.
I've seen several people start using OS X over the last year. By choosing the Apple platform, they're generally getting less choice, unless they get down and dirty on the command line. But, I get lots of positive comments from them because they've got a set of good quality programs bundled with the OS, each of which does something specific very well, and although there's a more limited number of programs on offer, they tend to be perceived as being of good quality.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very impressed with the number of open source applications bundled in with distributions, and the huge number of others you can download and add. But really, one smaller set of really good apps is what I'd like, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
Re:Spolied? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually they are not "word clones" but word processors, and this may surprise you, but "opening a word doc" is not the ultimate goal of most people using one of these word processors. Different people have different needs, and so the choice is a good thing to have. As to the formatting problems in some complicated ms word docs opened with various word processors, guess what? even different versions of ms word can't open the same docs correctly. pot. kettle. black.
I do find though, that openoffice handles all the ms office files I've received lately - and when I edit them and send them back, the peecee users are none the wiser, and it never enters their head that I wasn't also using ms office.
If anything, Windows users are spoiled because they can click the install button and the program works.
hmm, OK... linux programs also come with installers that are activated with a click... and your point was...?
Re:lack of windows software (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Choice is good... (Score:2, Insightful)
make
make install
You forgot:
Re:Linux easier than Windows? Unpossible. (Score:3, Insightful)
But then again, could also have this done automatically for you if you wish...but is typing our 26 letters....not including spaces...that hard? Are we that lazy now?
Nice try, but that's not the reason (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not the answer to that one at all. The reason Linux can get away with this and Microsoft can't is because Microsoft is legally considered a monopoly, and Linux isn't. A monopolist has to live up to much higher standards than the average company. One of those standards is giving fair opportunity to your competitors products. If that means you get in trouble for bundling your own products with your operating system, tough. "With great power comes great responsibility."
simple explanation (Score:2, Insightful)
Fact is, Linux users aren't spoiled. A lot of them are crying outloud "WHY WON'T IT COMPILE" or "DAMMIT HOW I CONFIGURE X". There's a price to pay for a good part of your installations under linux and unless you're using gentoo, debian, slack w/ swaret/slapt-get, you know that sometimes getting something to work is a pain in the ass (thus the reason to go with distributions which offer great package management). Spoiled? If they're so-called "linux l33ts", then yes. For the newcommers, it's the first weeks of mayhem until they figure out something that might be so simple.
On windows, you are forced to have IE. IE obviously sucks we know it but most use it. People don't even bother installing mozilla/firefox. What does this mean? Microsoft shouldn't be totally worried knowing the average windows user is a lazyass who won't do his research. I go around, se e what my friends n foes use on their pc. They all have IE and I hear them say "OMG IE FROZE. WHAT CRAP". Then I simply say "hey u could install firefox!" and they go "yeahyeah....".
As for linux users, sure we have a wide variety of products but sometimes we have to go thru documentations or forums to find the answers to some questions which may popup while wondering how to uninstall and install "X-Named" Program. Most of the time, we're ok and we manage to replace a program with another.
If anything, we HAVE to be spoiled the most possible. To have the wide variety of choices between a certain group of applications is nothing more than great!
Because linux is still small.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, as the amount of linux software gets greater, it's going to get harder and harder to do. You seem to be able to distribute almost every linux app ever on about 2 DVDs. You can't do that with windows, even if everyone one of them was free. You couldn't do it with a hundred DVDs.
While linux is bad at standardising on anything, it could really do with a standard packaging system, so not every distribution has to package every application themselves.
Re:lack of windows software (Score:4, Insightful)
Worse comes to worse you can install cygwin or coLinux to run 'em.
Open source does not mean linux.
Re:I'll be really spoiled when... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's when you buy more RAM
why can linux get away with this?!? (Score:1, Insightful)
Because they are NOT a monopoly! Microsoft can do anything they want to, as long as it is NOT abusing their position of monopoly to unfairly skew the playing field for their advantage. Plain and simple.
Re:Spoiled? Uh huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean by this? Linux's CLI seems to ME to be leagues ahead of what windows offers. The shells in OS X seem to be about the same as a Linux shell. If you're rather saying you'd rather do GUI-only, I'd say that that is possible in several distributions.
Spoiled by the absence of decent documentation.
This I have to take real issue with. Most windows software, for example, comes with a minimal online help system and a ~10-page install/getting started guide. The proper "documentation" is often sold separately. Most mature linux apps ship with a similarly minimal electronic install guide & often have very extensive TeXInfo or Docbook manuals.
A lot of Mac software also has good documentation, but many of the programs I use in OS X gathered most of their documentation from whatever *nix application they were ported from.
Re:Today's word is narcissistic (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's asking me where I want to save my file. I can't handle this level of personal control! Aaaargh!"
Spoiled isn't the word... (Score:3, Insightful)
Spare the rod, bring on the bullwhip (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever tried to set up a 56k modem in linux? Don't go there.
Get a printer working under CUPS? Faster to ask your neighbour to print it.
Firewire support in Fedora. Don't get me started.
Migration to Linux has never been easy. Sure the tools are advanced, but you regularly need 2+ years of a computing course just to begin to understand them. Not only that but most have (en)crypt(ic/ed) names like xmms,cups,esd and mdadm. And when you get right down to it, what the hell does hpjs DO anyway? The situation is made worse by that ONE guy on the messageboard who will always provide the genius solution of recompiling the kernel. I side with the majority here and say, I do not want to do that. All I want is for yum to work. Pity up2date dosen't, I actually knew what that stood for. (Sigh).
Windows is like a flashy SUV. Looks great, illusion of safety,easy to drive, buts WILL tip over at a moments notice.
Linux is like a Space Rocket. Yes it can get you home, hell it can get you into space. there's just a hell of a lot of buttons, and controls, and warnings and a NASA geek on the radio telling you to recompile the booster rocket software.
Still, the good ship Linux, against all reason, marches on.
Linux distributions have the same problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The major Linux distributions that I've tried don't include a media player for fear they might get sued, don't include a NTFS driver for fear they might get sued... This makes it very hard for people like me, who don't know how to find and compile all the right modules, to use linux. I've tried three times, always ended up frustrated and gone back to Windows. Mind you, I am the top 1% of users. If you can't convert me you are going to have a very difficult time converting others.
Propaganda hurts everyone... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have gone along with this kind of gushing buffoonery two or three years ago, but c'mon. Linux is good and if your willing to get your hands dirty you'll probably never go back, but thats the catch isn't it? If you don't want to have to roll up your sleeves randomly or unexpectedly, this still isn't the right operating system for you.
I wouldn't say I'm spoiled, like a lot of things there is give and take. Lets see some more substantial polish before thumbing our noses at anyone.
Apples and oranges (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux distributors don't write the bulk of what they distribute, that's why it's called a Linux distribution. They bundle what's out there already. They're non-partisan -- a better widget appears on the radar and it'll go into the next release.
Microsoft on the other hand writes the OS and everything in the release. They're partisan. They might want to ship you everything you ever need but's that uncompetitive and people obviously get upset.
Re:Microsoft thinks monoculture... (Score:3, Insightful)
And what is preventing me from moving from Windows to BSD?
>Microsoft makes the kernel, Microsoft makes the one and only window-manager,
There are lots of third-party replacements shells for Windows.
>Microsoft selects which apps come in the one and only distro, and nearly all of them are Microsoft-made apps anyway.
Thats because they are the one distrbuting it. Doesn't RedHat select which apps come on their one and only distribution?
>the blending of the Linux kernel with a set of tools that use the kernel.
For the vast majority of users, this useless. Give them a straight kernal and a full screen command line prompt and the first thing they will ask is a windows interface.
Its like saying the Linux car is the best because all it provides is the engine, you provide the axel, car body and leather seats. But how many people would want to buy a car like this?
Re:lack of windows software (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, it's a great free program but Gimp is no replacement for Photoshop CS buy any stretch of the imagination.
Windows users should look at Jasc's Paintshop Pro or Windows/OSX users should look at Photoshop elements for a cheaper alternative for light editing work.
Re:The other side... (Score:4, Insightful)
Get real. Even Microsoft programs don't share the same interface as each other. KDE or Gnome are much better in this respect. Other Linux programs may not fit in so well, but neither do third party programs on windows. Your claim is bogus.
I like having simple configuration dialogs for almost all my programs which let me easily change program settings, instead of messing around with obsure configuration files. I'm glad I don't have to spend hours trying to find a good program to do what I want, I just want one that works well enough and is easy to set up and use.
I could spend hours searching the web for the right windows program to do the job, then probably have to buy it, but instead I search for 30 seconds with my package manager and install it in no time. Even if I have to tweak some config files, it still takes me less time than tracking it down on the web.
I don't need 50 different packages that all try to do the same thing, I just need one good program that actually does it.
Have you been to tucows or other similar sites. There are more random windows programs than Linux ones. The only difference is that Free Software is generally much better than Freeware.
I like having my programs and commands have names that actually make sense, not things like "grep", "GIMP", "X".
Is this a serious gripe or just whining?
I like the compatibility I share with 90% of the world. And then there are, of course, the games that I play. If I'm lucky, I might be able to get three or four of them to play well under Linux, not the entire library I have access to under Windows.
A valid argument for once. It doesn't apply for everyone though. Not everyone is into 3D games, or games in general. I'm fine with solitaire, and mahjong.
Linux computers may come with more pre-installed software on a CD, but if I have the money, I can get a Windows computer set up the same way. Most manufacturers would be happy to include a copy of Office if you're willing to pay. Besides, the time it'd take for me to learn how to use all the Linux equivilents of my Windows programs would probably offset any advantage gained by pre-installation.
Sure, if I was bloody rich. I would have to spend at least $5,000 dollars to get the equivalent programs on Windows. The "hassle" is not worth that much money. I'd rather take the ten minutes to learn how to use the program. I'm not that lazy.
As for stability, well, my Windows XP computer has been performing very well over the past few years. I can't say for sure that it's never crashed, but it's smooth enough that it's simply not a problem anymore, compared to past versions of Windows. In other words, it's stable enough.
You're lucky then. I've had no such luck with either 2000 or XP. XP crashed twice a day and SuSe did fine on the same hardware.
From my perspective as a basic desktop computer user, the only thing Linux has going for it is the cost (usually zero) and perhaps security. I don't need all the complexity and openness of Linux, as it all just adds up to a more difficult-to-use environment. Also, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how to secure a Linux system properly, so I don't know whether my system would be any safer anyway.
Securing a Linux system is much less work than securing a windows system. You don't have to spend a half hour just configuring the damn web browser to be slighty more secure then the swiss cheese default settings.
So, am I jealous? No, not at all. I'm not saying Linux or open source is bad in any way (in fact, Firefox, CDex, OpenOffice, etc. are all very high quality), just that it's not the heavenly object the article makes it out to be. Maybe we're all spoiled.
Maybe, but if the hell of using windows is considered being "spoiled" then I certainly don't want to see what a bad computing experience is like.
Re:Example from Free Geek (Score:2, Insightful)
What a great reason. I could also probably eat glass, but that's not a good reason to do it. I can't imagine the amount of confusion that a poor person has to go through when they have to figure out what those 5 browsers do differently, why they need 5. If I were a new user, my first response would be, "huh?". That's kinda' like installing 5 different gear shifts in a car... because you can.
Microsoft has a choice too (Score:5, Insightful)
They would be perfectly within their rights to install Mozilla, Open Office, AbiWord, gcc and emacs, all of which run on Windows. I can't see how the antitrust authorities would have any problem with that.
They have quite a lot of choices actually. Freshmeat's list of Windows programs [freshmeat.net] has a couple thousand entries.
Re:Linux is about choice..... (Score:3, Insightful)
I also suspect no OEM will ship F/Fox until it hits a 1.x release due to it being currently in the equivalent of a public beta. OEMs probably will only supply "gold final" code.
Re:Spoiled? Uh huh. (Score:2, Insightful)
There are literate monkeys now? Where have I been?
At least you were honest enough to add the word "total". :P Then again, why be a zealot of a second rate OS? The OS X zealot I understand... but Linux?? *grin*
While I agree with you to some extent, I also disagree. The point that the parent was trying to make was that installing software on OS X with Installer.app is worlds easier than on Linux. No, it's not tough to download and rpm --install or even build from source... I do this all day on Solaris (mind, sans rpm, but meh) and it's second nature for most of us. The point is that double-click, click to confirm is still easier and less time consuming. On the topic of dependecies, yes it's no sweat to go and fetch them, but once again, while your fetching your dependencies, I'm already using my app on OS X.
The other issue comes from the overall expectation and the difference between Linux and OS X in that regard. On OS X, if you double-click an application icon and it doesn't run, there is generally something wrong with the application. On the other hand, how many of us have struggled with some command line tool that has ambiguous switches or had to ln -s some libraries because there is a version mismatch with some of your .so's? Not tough, but certainly not nearly as convenient. On Linux, this is often not considered to be a problem. I guess the difference is in targets markets... OS X apps are almost always targetted at people who quite simply have no interest in Googling for the correct answer. There's nothing wrong with wanting to... it's just a different type of end user.
Of course, Fink [sourceforge.net] on OS X makes all of this moot for *NIX applications, but I digress. Actually, most of the reason why I use OS X is because my professional life has me reaching for bash$ to solve half my problems and my overwhelming laziness has me longing to just double-click on something the rest of the time.
I also think a lot of problems the parent is complaining about come from the ever increasing number of "flavors" of Linux floating around. What are they up to now, 100 or more? On one hand this is great, because it's a distribution for almost every need. On the other hand, it makes support and releasing applications in binary format a hassle sometimes. OS X solves this problem by being the one and only OS X. If it says it works with 10.3, 999/1000 times it'll run on your copy of 10.3. Then again, often if it says it works on Linux, it's referring to Red Hat. This would be fine, but sometimes even if you have Red Hat, an application that was built for a slightly older version still requires some tweaking. Once again.. no biggy.. but it's more than zero effort.
Before someone mods me down for the Linux comment... be sure to check this link [reference.com].
Re:The other side... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really prefer hunting through pages and pages of drop-down menus for the one checkbox that does what you want? Isn't it easier to just type 'man program' and be pointed to the right configuration file and right entry? And let's not even talk about the atrocity that is the registry.
I like having my programs and commands have names that actually make sense, not things like "grep", "GIMP", "X".
Come on, could you be any more juvenile?
I like the compatibility I share with 90% of the world.
What sort of compatibility are you talking about? If I want to open a
And then there are, of course, the games that I play. If I'm lucky, I might be able to get three or four of them to play well under Linux, not the entire library I have access to under Windows.
This is a decent point. It's not linux's fault really that few people write games for linux. But in practice it is an impediment to its adoption. I mostly enjoy classic gaming though, so my gaming needs are mostly satisfied with dosbox, fceu, zsnes, and vice.
I don't need all the complexity and openness of Linux, as it all just adds up to a more difficult-to-use environment.
Windows may be user friendly, but it's also expert hostile. Climing the linux learning curve is an investment that pays off tremendously. Once you've done it, going back to an "easy" system is painful. Text based configuration for instance, allows you to use tools like grep and sed to automate things that would be impossible to automate via a GUI.
Ok, enough of the Linux offers choice crap (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really want to know the real reason? Quiyte simple, MS has several monopolies, when a company has a monopoly it has a differnt/additional set of laws that applies to it.
OS/2 came with a lot of other applications as well.
Re:Today's word is narcissistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the modern Linux distribution. They come with an application providing a complete catalog of available software. Selecting the software tittle automagically selects all the needed libraries and support applications. Once you're done making your selections, it downloads everything, installs it, and voila... the app appears in your application menu (or you can always use the command-line to start it if you so desire).
Third party application not available in your disto's listing? Most commercial Linux software runs much the same way Windows installers work. And they'll even make entries in your applications menu.
Is Linux perfect on this? No. The more bleeding-edge you go... the further you stray from your distro's offerings... the better chance you're going to run in to problems. The same can be said to Windows equivilants. However, over the years of using Linux, I've found that these instances are fairly uncommon.
If this isn't your experience, it may be your choice in Linux distribution.
Ahhh yes. The standard interface. Ignored liberally in every environment that one has been defined. Even by the organizations who created them.
Linux has these usability standards also. Quite a few applications are written under them. However, I find it hard to buy that the numerous apps that don't closely conform to these standards are causing that much of a roadblock to adoption... considering how Windows and MacOS users are able to deal with their own upstarts.
Pick a distro and stick with it. Most handle things at the base level in the same manner. But if you want a nice GUI, go with a distro known to supply one.
Sure - powerusers like to tweak their desktops. But a Linux neophyte will likely stick to whatever comes default. And that default tends to be very familiar to any other modern computing desktop.
Bull. There's a good learning curve involved. Back when I did desktop support, I would constantly get questions (if not outright trouble tickets) from users asking various Word or Excel questions.
Heck - just a few sentances ago, you were noting your sister is challenged with the concept of a right-click. Guess what. Simple interface... still a learning curve. So much for that infinately more easy environment Windows presents.
What I find interesting is the number of issues Windows-centric critics toss at Linux while ignoring simular issues in their own platform of choice. If a user can't handle doing a task in Windows, it doesn't really matter if they can't do it in Linux either. In either case, this class of user is either going to follow instructions or (more likely) plead or pay for someone to do it for them.
And having something so easy that it's easily compromised doesn't make much of a selling point either. Having said that - care to point out what about Linux is "security through obscurity"?
Mod me down all you want... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux easier than Windows? Unpossible. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see. A day of installing software versues three days of compiling. There are people out there with "older" computers (My 400mhz Celeron is perfectly fine, thank you). Gentoo isn't the end all savior of the operating systems world.
Mod me down, as heaven forbid we should never criticize Gentoo...
Re:Damn right (Score:2, Insightful)
Get a real alternative OS people! Linux/x86 is way too mainstream.
Right... because everyone knows that a good OS nowadays is one that nobody actually uses.
People aren't (or, at least, shouldn't) be taking up Linux just to "fight-the-power" or because it's "fringe" or "out there". They're adopting it, I hope, because it is, currently, the best OS for the task. And, by best, I don't just mean the codebase - I mean the wide range of applications for it, and the support provided by the open source community.
As for applications becoming more Linux-centric - well it happens. You can either make apps generic enough to work on any OS, and sacrifice features, optimisations, etc, or you spend an inordinately large amount of time writing modules specific to each OS you wish to support, which also requires access to that OS, not all of which are cost-free to use.
If you wish to adopt an OS so weird and unusued that it is only known of by a handfull of techies who rarely see the light of day - then go ahead. I'd be curious to see your personal efforts to port popular (or, indeed, just essential) applications to 'NeverNeverOS' where the pixies reign supreme.
It's not the same (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux easier than Windows? Unpossible. (Score:4, Insightful)
Er, 6 months? You just read it here, how big a secret can it be? This is basic noobie stuff. Where to type it? Finding the command prompt, again, is day one noobie stuff.
You also make a very naive but very common mistake, in assuming that everybody is somehow born knowing all sorts of arcane microsoft bs, but for some mysterious reason they must go scouring the internet to find out simple, beginner-level linux tasks
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The other side... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Linux is about choice..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I think the reason IS that they are still afraid of Microsoft. They are afraid that the DOJ would not come down like a ton of bricks on Microsoft; a reasonable assumption given their track record. MS basically has assurance now that no penalties will ever be made to stick.
Also, shipping third-party apps doesn't make much sense when you can't remove MS's versions. It just bloats the install more, since you can't wipe out IE and friends. Ideally, the DOJ would've at least shown the backbone necessary to force MS to decouple IE from Windows. I want to be able to delete every MS application program (IE, Windows Media, OE, etc) from my Windows computer with no ill effects for the operating system. I imagine it also confuses unsophisticated customers more when they have a choice of browsers available. They can't get rid of IE, so it's really the only choice available to the OEMs.
This Old Chestnut Again (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but IBM and HP and Dell don't have to be so careful. They can ship whatever applications they damn well feel like.
The reality is that Linux doesn't ship with all the application software. Go to www.kernel.org and you can see Linux ships with no application software. The distributions bundle Linux with the application software. There are dozens of distributions who all offer different application bundles. That's how it should be.
Similarly the OEMs pick and choose what they bundle with Windows. The previous IBM notebook I bought had third party fax software, photo editing software, etc. Dell had a different bundle. HP had a different bundle again. The local whitebox store bundles 1,000 shareware games. This is also how it should be.
Microsoft got in trouble a few years ago because they informed all the OEMs that they must ship Microsoft's web browser in order to receive bulk discounts on Microsoft's operating system. Some OEMs wanted to ship Netscape's web browser but Microsoft put a stop to that through economic force. That's illegal because it is anti-competitive.
The article gets it wrong. It claims that Linux gets away with it because there are multiple IRC clients in every Linux distribution. That's not the reason. The OEMs could bundle an IRC client with Windows if they wanted to but there are high support costs associated with bundling an application. Every application in an OEM bundle must have a "wizard" for their help desk and that costs money. If the OEM doesn't think that the increased revenue from bundling an IRC client would outweigh the associated costs then the OEM simply won't bundle it. The Linux distributions don't offer the same level of support, so there's no reason for them not to bundle an IRC client. Indeed, there's no reason for them not to bundle ALL the IRC clients. The proof of this argument is in the newer distributions like Linspire. They offer greater levels of support but they don't bundle as many applications. I predict that as distributions become more focussed they will lose the variety, or at least relegate the variety to "supplemental" discs.
Microsoft could solve this problem (if indeed it is a problem) the same way Linux does: allow third parties to produce customised builds of Windows. Unfortunately his means your version of Windows might be different to your friend's version of Windows. This splintering effect is what Microsoft wants to avoid, because at the moment the only saving grace of Windows is that it's homogenous. Linux allows customisation in droves and that's partially why Linux is harder to configure and maintain. That's the tradeoff.
This is NOT why I feel spoiled (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Linux comes with a lot of software that Windows doesn't . However, you can easily download most of it (in fact, Cygwin makes this almost trivial).
No, the reason I feel spoiled as a Linux user is that, in the past 9 years, I have not had a single virus, trojan or worm, and I've never needed software to deal with or prevent these.
Further, in that time, I have never seen a pop-up window I didn't specifically request, and I haven't given a second thought to spyware or adware. These things just aren't part of my life, thanks to Linux (yeah, I know, non-IE using Mac users can make the same claim).
I usually take this for granted, but every once in a while, I sit at somebody else's Windows machine and realize just how fortunate and yes, spoiled, I am.
This may be offtopic.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just stop and think about it: computers are *insanely* powerful machines that were originally developed for mathematics, and that still do nothing *but* mathematics at their core. We've simply adapted them to do (basically) what we want them to do (IM, email, etc.). Then we keep giving people who have no clue what they're doing more and more powerful computers, and the limits of what they can do with these computers continue to expand. With all the malware, spyware, worms, etc. that are out today, it's like giving control of an aircraft carrier to someone who doesn't even have a driver's license (not a great analogy, but it's all I could think of). Stuff *is* going to go wrong, and it *will* affect more than just that one user. Now, I don't claim to have a solution. And the internet is obviously something that everyone should have access to, if no other reason than the sheer amount of information available on it should be accessible to anyone. And don't get me wrong, I run a Gentoo machine and can't even imagine trying to run a distro without Portage (maybe Debian with apt-get, but I digress). There are some things that computers simply handle better than humans for the most part, and package management is definitely one of them in my opinion. But should we really be focusing on dumbing the interface down so much that a 2-year-old with a learning disability can 'use' the computer? It just seems like we're shooting ourselves in the foot, and that later we'll be paying for it even more than we are now.
Capitalism inherently creates monopolies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lack of windows software (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Capitalism inherently creates monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
That's absurd. Everything has unwanted side-effects. You either tolerate them, or you introduce things to handle them. We've introduced laws against monopolies to handle the unwanted side-effect of monopolies in a capitalistic system. That's an entirely reasonable solution to get a system that works well enough.
I've never ever had to wait for Gentoo to compile. (Score:3, Insightful)
How can this be?!?! Well, there is this thing called "let things compile at night while I sleep". I don't turn my computer off, so while it's up at night, it updates.
I've yet to even be around while it's compiling anything, so no, I've never had to wait. Sorry, don't mean to be so sarcastic, but when people complain that Gentoo has to compile everything I just kinda sigh and say it's a moot point.
But this is just me, I don't run a server. If I did, I'd probably run a binary distro like Debian, which again proves there is more than one choice for Linux.
Re:Linux is about choice..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Er... Wasn't that HAPPINESS? Since when has property been the same as property? Also we're confusing Microsoft as an intelligent entity, it is a corporation, not a collective of right-granted individuals. Corporations are QUITE different from you or I, they are large entities comprised to provide service for capital, period. And for as long as they have existed (at least since us individual plebes learned how nasty and inhuman they are in the Industrial Revolution) thay have been regulated to be made compatable with individual rights, and the healthy functioning of society.
A government (ala Mill) is designed to MAXIMIZE the rights of all of their constituents, meaning balancing the intrinsic greed of corporations with the interests of the individual. Also governments (modern "enlightened" ones) have seen the fact that part of their responcibility is to PROMOTE COMPETITION within industry, being that leads to choice, and thus inovation.
By coupling IE with windows as a unremovable intrinsic part of the OS, they do stifle competition. Not to mention the fact that they limit individual choice. And the fact that this unfortunate coupling is a MASSIVE security problem, causeing a risk to my "right" to property.
Rampant capitalism isn't a solution to anything, it just leads to robber barons, a lesson that history should have taught all of us. It all is a matter of balance.
Re:lack of windows software (Score:3, Insightful)
If i had gone out and bought every graphic and layout app that i have(and use) on my Windows machine, I know it would be several thousand $$$. 10 grand may be a little high...but you are underestimating the price of closed source software.
While they are certainly not equivalent, Linux has apps like the Gimp, Open Office, Quanta, Latex, while Windows has Photoshop, Microsoft Office, Dreamweaver, and Quark(or InDesign). Thats several thousand dollars right there. Add in apps that really don't have a Linux equivalent like Illustrator(or Freehand), Macromedia Flash(which is being ported to Linux), Adobe After Effects, ATM to manage your fonts, Adobe Acrobat Writer if you want to publish PDF's, Acrobat Distiller as well...not to mention the cost of all those font packages if you want to be able to create much of anything. That probably is 10G's, and if its not than throw in Adobe Premiere for Video and ProTools, Cakewalk and Fruity Loops for video and sound.
I don't even want to know what various CAD packages cost if thats your field.
The point is that both Windows and Mac software tends to be very, very expensive...you are generally paying for the support up front. Inexplicably, even Linux apps that you have to pay for, which have infinitely smaller user bases consistently cost a LOT less. Obviously, most of them are not the equivalent of their closed cousins...but they are catching up. And whats nice is most of them provide enough functionality for the average user. Most people don't need the 1000 features that Photoshop has...but until the Gimp came around, there really wasn't a good lower-end photo-editing ap(even low-end versions of photoshop aren't cheap). Some things like Latex are actually BETTER(my mother, a physics professor, has cursed the Word equation editor for years).
I have no idea what software the grandparent was referring to, and honestly, most people do not need half the software that I listed. I just wanted to illustrate how easy it is to spend an amount reasonably close to what he stated to get all of what "i" would want.
I didn't spellcheck this. Feel free to point all of my errors.
Re:lack of windows software (Score:3, Insightful)
1. 90% of Windows users do NOT know this
2. You certainly can't buy them boxed up at your local computer store.
2 certainly helps cause 1. Both of these things keep most people from ever using anything other than what they see in the store, or came on their computer.
If you want to do both your friends and OSS a favor, tell everyone you know about all the great OSS replacements they can use under Windows. It is much more likely that people will begin using the Gimp and Open Office than suddenly switch their entire operating system. And as they begin to use more and more OSS apps, one day perhaps they'll think "gee, why am I even still running Windows?"
Its like teaching someone to swim. You don't throw them in the deep end, you let them dip their toe in the shallow end and wade around a little first
Re:Now That Was a Pathetic First Post (Score:2, Insightful)
Me too.
If Microsoft wants an opportunity to have its 'middleware' bundled with its operating system, Microsoft should stop directly producing CDs for end-users, and have other companies produce Windows distributions.
The companies putting together the distributions could bundle whatever apps with the product they liked.
This would promote fair competition, and would also get around the problem of Microsoft bundling only its own apps with its operating system.
Of course, doing this would mean that Microsoft would have to stop 'integrating' its middleware so deeply into its operating system, putting a stop to the dependence of the operating system on Microsoft-specific middleware. I'm sure that Microsoft wouldn't want to be seen as anti-competitive.
Re:Linux is about choice..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather, if you dont do as the terms of the contract said, you dont get the benefit.
And the contract reads (slightly exaggerated): "If you even talk to competitors, we're allowed to terminate this contract."
Now this point is interesting. Which is the uncompetative behavior here, offering specific OEMs cheaper prices, or locking other OEMs out of those prices?
Locking OEMs out of those prices because they ship or plan to ship competitors' products.
Most people would say 'both' and most people on here would say they shouldnt be able to do it at all, which brings us to the question: just how much is software worth? You cant do it on the standard basis of how much it costs to manufacture the item you purchase as once you have one its easy to make a million more.
Which is exactly why pricing gives Microsoft that much power.
What I was trying to say in the origional post was that OEMs who were dual booting Windows with Linux were using the selling point of Windows to shift Linux, which I beleive is a unfair to MS.
Yes, that's the way I would see it if I was a paranoid Microsoft employee. Since I'm not, I figure that there may be a market for dual-boot machines, and that's why some OEMs would like to ship them.
No business is going to allow its product to be the selling point of its competitor.
Windows is not the selling point of Linux (hell, they could put Debian, Gentoo or Fedora on those boxes, which are free as in beer and speech). Windows is the selling point of the PCs, nothing else.
Im not a 'die-hard astroturfer' like you say, and I do care. Im just pissed off with the long standing rhetoric on this site that its OK to punish MS to the ends of the earth while overlooking the fact that most of that view comes from jelousy,
Oh, of course. Poor cute little innocent Microsoft, how can they all be so mean for no reason? Do you know what jealousy is? Jealousy is when you're locking competitors out of your monopolized markets because you want it all, for now, and forever. That's jealousy. If Microsoft were half as confident about the quality of their products as they claim to be, then they would be happy to allow people to test Linux on their machines without having to pay extra for Windows (imagine you would have to pay more for a bottle of Coke if you also put a bottle of Pepsi into the cart). But obviously they don't. They're scared that their products aren't that much better (or even worse in some respects), and they're scared of competition. This is why they work hard to keep competition out of the equation.
and most of the recent lawsuits against MS seem to be cash grabs and little else.
Microsoft attempted to monopolize the market for media formats by building WMV/WMA into their desktop OSes, and to monopolize the market for server OSes (that is, groupware and file serving) by making their client OSes and apps incompatible with the software of competitors. This is why the EU has taken anti-trust action against Microsoft. If you use one monopoly to gain a monopoly in another area, instead of competing on the merits of your software, you're abusing your power, and in violation of anti-trust law. Simple as that.
The defense that "Microsoft is just acting in its best interest like any other business" is so tired and lame, it's hard to express. No one ever questioned that, and it's exactly the problem. The basic premise of capitalism is that the selfishness of companies is a good thing as long as they are in competition with other selfish companies. The problem is that Microsoft isn't, at least not properly, and in such cases, the public doesn't benefit from the company's selfishness, to the contrary, it suffers (e.g. from products which are more expensive than necessary, and of a lesser quality than possible). This is why monopolists are disallowed anti-competitive practices, which means using unfair tactics instead of competing through price and quality of their products alone. Microsoft wants to break the law to make more profit. Understandble. But not tolerable.