Why Windows users dont like opensource

[Faust]

quote:most people have trouble running MS Word, and you are expecting these people to be able to run a linux system?

These are typically the sort of people who dont run their own PCs anyway so they never have to see the "difficult" installation/administration side anyway.  They only have to walk in to a comp lab and be told how to start openoffice/save docs which most people need to be told how to do anyway under Windows so where is the difference?  There are people who are not comfortable with any brand of PC, I've seen frustrated people physically assaulting Mac OS X computers because they couldnt work them out.  (I would have told her off... but I was afraid she would take out her anger on me, her being a high ranking honours student and me being the lowly first year and all. Still makes you feel ill to see such lovely hardware being damaged though.   :rolleyes:  )  People will need to see a help desk dude to "get" certain bits of a linux system on public comps, or even on their own but some people ask others for help all the time with windows anyway so wheres the change?

[Faust]

quote:Windows XP works pretty good for me. So I think this is an example of XP being cursed on Faust's particular hardware configuration.

 Like I said it's all Windows cerified.  That said I agree with you - just because it's "certified" doesnt mean they actually tested it or put in the effort to iron out bugs in the drivers.  Another example of Windows shittiness - they claim the best hardware support but really they dont bother making the effort to ensure their product works on PC hardware like it should.  Wow, we can play russian roullette when we buy XP - will it be buggy on my computer or will I get lucky?  

[Faust]

quote:Windows has a tendancy to save everything in these temp files and they cluter your HD

Does anyone else think that cleaning over  :eek: 2GIG :eek:  of files out using that disk cleanup thing is a bit much???   :rolleyes:

[HibbeeBoy]

The biggest problem with deploying PCs in the workplace is allowing the user to have such a complicated appliance. The user should not be involved with or have access to anything that changes the configuration of the appliance. The users sole use of the equipment should be access to the applications they need to do their jobs and not the operating system and the idiosynchrasies of the operating system. The applications need the same support whether running in Window$ or Linux or any other OS. I am surprised to see such a slow take up of thin client technologies although thin client doesn't do much for mobile computing.
I don't find Linux any more difficult or easier to use than Window$ although I like the look and feel of Linux, SuSe in my case.My reasoning for choosing Linux over Window$ would be cost, stability and scalability.
For the home user, well anyone buying a Window$ PC is probably insane. I now find myself steering people away not only from Window$ but Pentium processors, Dell and Gateway and anybody else tied in with Microsoft.

[Calum]

re: users in the workplace should not have any control over the system:

while i actually agree, this is of course totally contrary to the ethic of the free software foundation. when stallman was working on ITS, he and his associates did not build in password authentication, so that whoever was on the computer was able to do with it whatever they wanted/needed to without asking an administrator. when "they" brought passwords into ITS, stallman cracked people's passwords, then sent them an email saying "i notice your password is xxxxx, why don't you just type <enter> for your password? it's much easier to type and is just as secure." of course his point was, security is false security, and user freedom is paramount. interestingly i also agree with him, albeit paradoxically.

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by Calum: hopelessly outnumbered:
re: users in the workplace should not have any control over the system:

while i actually agree, this is of course totally contrary to the ethic of the free software foundation. when stallman was working on ITS, he and his associates did not build in password authentication, so that whoever was on the computer was able to do with it whatever they wanted/needed to without asking an administrator. when "they" brought passwords into ITS, stallman cracked people's passwords, then sent them an email saying "i notice your password is xxxxx, why don't you just type <enter> for your password? it's much easier to type and is just as secure." of course his point was, security is false security, and user freedom is paramount. interestingly i also agree with him, albeit paradoxically.

Free software is one thing, access to confidential information and manipulation of data is something else entirely. So no I don't subscribe to user freedom on the system being paramount. Quite the reverse actually.
Free software I don't have a problem with but commercial grade ERP applications are not free. When you say free, do you mean the cost of acquisistion or free to use/modify/distribute as you like ?
Security on a network I believe to be anything but. Take a look round a typical office, it won't take you long to find a post-it pad with the user id and password written down, probably stuck to the monitor. It is necessary to restrict access to the system in someway, after all you don't want the cleaners (or they'r kids) bolloxing up the PC/System because the PC was turned on. I caught a cleaner's kid  sitting playing solitaire on a PC.

[suselinux]

Industrial espianage (How do you spell that?)is an epidemic, especially but not specifically with Software companies, because code is so easy to move.  But espianage exists in any industry so even if the software your company uses is free the product your company makes probably isn't.

I think that an open network is fine, as long as it is only open to internal clients.  It isn't done to often, but I think that all big companies should have two networks one internal and one external and no client should be able run both at once.

I must admit that I am not employed in this genre of industry I am actually a Second generation Pattern Maker, no I don't cut out dresses and skirts, we make industrial tools for metal casting
plastic manufacturing and forming, and moulds.

So if I sound a little out of the loop sometimes
or unfamiliar with an "Office" environment, cut me a little slack I am here to learn.

[ShawnD1]

about that password and ID thing on the post-it note, i totaly know what you mean, i've seen that many times before.

people don't just do that with computers, they do it even with their bank card pin numbers. i told a joke about the difference between men and women taking money out of the cash machine to a few friends at school (the one about how many more steps women take). 3 of the people then said "i actually do carry a piece of paper with my pin number on it"    :rolleyes:  

stupid people are like mentaly handicapped people, you sometimes have to restrict them in order to protect them.

[ May 14, 2003: Message edited by: ShawnD1 ]

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by Calum: hopelessly outnumbered:
re: users in the workplace should not have any control over the system:

while i actually agree, this is of course totally contrary to the ethic of the free software foundation. when stallman was working on ITS, he and his associates did not build in password authentication, so that whoever was on the computer was able to do with it whatever they wanted/needed to without asking an administrator. when "they" brought passwords into ITS, stallman cracked people's passwords, then sent them an email saying "i notice your password is xxxxx, why don't you just type <enter> for your password? it's much easier to type and is just as secure." of course his point was, security is false security, and user freedom is paramount. interestingly i also agree with him, albeit paradoxically.

Not exactly. Stallman was objecting to file security as a means to keep functionally useful data secret, and stop it being shared amongst a community of technically competent people who trusted each other. You can't expect every workplace to be like the MIT AI lab, where everyone needs to use the available resources and you can trust everyone to use them properly.

Stallman has nothing against security in general; and certainly not against user privacy, or restricting access in an environment where it isn't helpful or even desired to give users unrestricted access to the system.