Microsoft is a good company, really

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
okay, the wankers win.

silly me for thinking we could have a sensible discussion.

now i remember why i don't visit here that often anymore.

dickheads...

its fine, i'm here often enough... i'll take the time to delete any jackass posts so save the thread.

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:


That's why Mac OS X is a better choice for users than either Lindows or non-root Linux distros, for the reasons I already mentioned.

MacOSX would be the better choice if it ran on the hardware that everybody already owns(x86 boxes). IT isn't very feesible for everybody to have to throw out the computers that they already have to get a new, expensive machine because OEM's and software makers decided to sell and only make software for a different machine.

Since 97% of the computers used in the world are x86 the x86 architecture isn't going to die off anytime soon. With that said, a new, dominate OS would have to be able to run on the computers that almost everybody already owns and what almost everybody else buys.


Apple would probably see more profits in a year than they have ever seen in their lifetime if they would sell an x86 version of OSX.

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:


MacOSX would be the better choice if it ran on the hardware that everybody already owns(x86 boxes). IT isn't very feesible for everybody to have to throw out the computers that they already have to get a new, expensive machine because OEM's and software makers decided to sell and only make software for a different machine.

Since 97% of the computers used in the world are x86 the x86 architecture isn't going to die off anytime soon. With that said, a new, dominate OS would have to be able to run on the computers that almost everybody already owns and what almost everybody else buys.


Apple would probably see more profits in a year than they have ever seen in their lifetime if they would sell an x86 version of OSX.

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

You can run Linux on every architecture.

PS: This "root-linux" doesn't exist. Any system based on the linux kernel can be configured as a multi-user system.
 

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:


MacOSX would be the better choice if it ran on the hardware that everybody already owns(x86 boxes). IT isn't very feesible for everybody to have to throw out the computers that they already have to get a new, expensive machine because OEM's and software makers decided to sell and only make software for a different machine.

Since 97% of the computers used in the world are x86 the x86 architecture isn't going to die off anytime soon. With that said, a new, dominate OS would have to be able to run on the computers that almost everybody already owns and what almost everybody else buys.


Apple would probably see more profits in a year than they have ever seen in their lifetime if they would sell an x86 version of OSX.

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

Not really. People would copy OS X, and Microsoft has a stranglehold on OEM's. So Apple would have a very hard time entering the x86 market. Not to mention convincing all the developpers to port all the 15 million applications.

Also, they would lose a lot of money on the hardware side, which make a huge part of their profits. They would need a big salespoint to replace OS X as a reason to buy their hardware. Come to think of it, the PPC platform may be a very interesting choice when all the others implement TCPA/NGSCB in the PC's.

You should know that the reason why their hardware is more expensive than PC's (not that much, though) is because it pays for many other expenses, like R&D (because they actually innovate, unlike most other OEM's), iApps, etc, not just hardware.

They are, however, trying to move away from hardware dependency, by selling iPods, iTMS, etc, as a Mac Expo presenter said. So we may see a decrease of prices in the long term.

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by insomnia:


You can run Linux on every architecture.

PS: This "root-linux" doesn't exist. Any system based on the linux kernel can be configured as a multi-user system.
     

No, Distros like Lindows seriously runs as root at all times for the sake of making it easier to use. The average-joe people who would ever use Linux would use a dummied down version of it like Lindows.

Taking away root restrictions robs Linux of any security advantage that Linux has to offer.

(EDIT) You are right about Apple would have a hard time making it in the x86 OS market because of the stronghold that MS holds on it right now. However, if Apple did manage to break that stronghold they would see some unbelievable profits.

Think of it like this, Billy-G earned most of his 40 Billion $$$ by selling software(mainly Windows and Office). If Billy can do it, so can the owner of Apple(I don't know who that is...I know it isn't Jobs though).

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:



No, Distros like Lindows seriously runs as root at all times for the sake of making it easier to use. The average-joe people who would ever use Linux would use a dummied down version of it like Lindows.

Taking away root restrictions robs Linux of any security advantage that Linux has to offer.

(EDIT) You are right about Apple would have a hard time making it in the x86 OS market because of the stronghold that MS holds on it right now. However, if Apple did manage to break that stronghold they would see some unbelievable profits.

Think of it like this, Billy-G earned most of his 40 Billion $$$ by selling software(mainly Windows and Office). If Billy can do it, so can the owner of Apple(I don't know who that is...I know it isn't Jobs though).

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

You can configure Lindows as a multi-user system. You always can. Thats how the Linux kernel works.
         

[Laukev7]

Lindows is NOT a single user system. It is possible to configure a single-user UNIX system; in fact, you just need to type init 1 go enter single user mode. But in Lindows you just get a root account by default, and there is an option to make user accounts in the control panel.

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by insomnia:


You can configure Lindows as a multi-user system. You always can. Thats how the Linux kernel works.
                     

Ok, fair enough. However, how many people who use Windows ever makes a non-admin account for themselves? Hardly none. That wouldn't change if people were using Lindows. They would make a user account for other people to use...when they use the computer themselves they would be using their Root/Admin account.

Why? Because as an admin you aren't restricted from doing anything to your OS and files. Honestly, alot of the average-joe users don't even know about user accounts in Windows XP. That is literally the truth.

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Stryker:


its fine, i'm here often enough... i'll take the time to delete any jackass posts so save the thread.

thank you! i should have done it myself actually, but for a moment i justthought people prefferred the jackassery!

anyway it's back on track and i have this to say:

hear hear! linux users are resting on their laurels too much trusting in linux' existing security. it is fine for linux' existing users but if linux' userbase expands, less well educated people (about *ix) will become the dominant userbase. Linux developers and vendors (yes, mandrake i'm talking to you!) should not allow linux systems to become as dumbed down and ultimately as insecure and bloated as windows.

apt-get is a good start, sensible permissioning and user accounts is another start. the foundations are all good unlike the winDOS garbage, but if it doesn't step up a gear soon then either the problem between the chair and the screen will lower linux almost to the security level of windows, or else linux will simplylevel out at a share of 4 or 5% of the total home PC userbase.

[emh]

Going way back to about the 9th post on this thread, I saw a statement I really need to comment on:

 

quote:
The more money you make, the happier you are.

I can tell you from personal experience that this statement is not true.  More money does not automatically equal happiness.

Case in point:  A year and a half ago, I got a high-paying job.  I was making well over what I needed to survive.  In fact, during this time, I got a new computer and some music recording equipment.  However, I just never had the time to enjoy the extra money I was making.  Plus, I just did not enjoy the job at all.  It was taking its mental toll on me.  Around July, I received another job offer.  I'm now a teacher assistant at a well-respected school district, and I'm so much happier.  And I make significantly less money as a teacher assistant than I did at my previous job, but I enjoy being a teacher assistant much more.  (in case you're wondering, I mostly help out the middle school choirs, and I play piano for rehearsals and concerts)  I'm also a staff musician at a contemporary church, which I also enjoy.

Now, let's look at my sister, who has a much higher paying job than I do, yet she's always talking about how much she hates it, and she's constantly asked to work overtime, which means she never has time to enjoy the extra money she's making.

Anyway, my point is, money does not equal happiness.  Even though I'm not financially rich (don't get me wrong, I'm not by any means poor, I make more than enough to live on), I feel much richer because I'm getting paid to do what I want to do with my life.

(And owning a computer that runs Linux is only a small part of that life.       )

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: emh ]

[emh]

By the way, I was curious what Lindows people said about it running as root by default, and it actually does not run as root by default:

http://info.lindows.com/askmichael/question9.htm

 

quote:
We leave the option of running as root or not up to the computer owner.  During the installation (or easily from the Settings menu after installation), LindowsOS makes it easy to maintain and add user accounts which do not run as root.

So basically, you can create user accounts at installation just like any other distro.

[Zombie9920]

You didn't dislike making more money. You disliked what you had to do to get it.
You are right about not being happy with a job that you can't get into. However, not liking your job and not liking the money are 2 differnet things. I bet that at your current job that you seem to enjoy you are happy every time you get a raise. Right? The extra money helps you enjoy your outside life more on the same schedule that you are accustomed to. If you truely don't care about the money you would turn down a raise(nobody does that...!!!). The higher income gives you more $$$ to do things like eat out at expensive restaraunts with your family, take your family to an expensive fun park/theme park, buy stuff to better your home and property, buy a better vehicle, buy really nice gifts for your wife/kids, etc.

Anyways, about Lindows. What do you think an OEM would do if they pre-installed Lindows on machines? They would pre-install it to run as root. Not everybody would know that they could change that(alot of people don't even know about user accounts in Windows XP for crying out loud).

As a matter of fact, some OEMs already pre-ship Lindows machines that run in Root by default(those $200 Lindows boxes@walmart made for the average joe consumer trying to save money).

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[Laukev7]

Don't forget that the same Walmart you're talking about also sells computers with Mandrake Linux, which provides users by default.

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:
You didn't dislike making more money. You disliked what you had to do to get it.
You are right about not being happy with a job that you can't get into. However, not liking your job and not liking the money are 2 differnet things. I bet that at your current job that you seem to enjoy you are happy every time you get a raise. Right? The extra money helps you enjoy your outside life more on the same schedule that you are accustomed to. If you truely don't care about the money you would turn down a raise(nobody does that...!!!). The higher income gives you more $$$ to do things like eat out at expensive restaraunts with your family, take your family to an expensive fun park/theme park, buy stuff to better your home and property, buy a better vehicle, buy really nice gifts for your wife/kids, etc.

Anyways, about Lindows. What do you think an OEM would do if they pre-installed Lindows on machines? They would pre-install it to run as root. Not everybody would know that they could change that(alot of people don't even know about user accounts in Windows XP for crying out loud).

As a matter of fact, some OEMs already pre-ship Lindows machines that run in Root by default(those $200 Lindows boxes@walmart made for the average joe consumer trying to save money).

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

But the point was that the more money you have the happier you are. He had more money back then and wasn't as happy as he is now with less money. so he was right in saying that the original post was incorrect.

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by Stryker:


But the point was that the more money you have the happier you are. He had more money back then and wasn't as happy as he is now with less money. so he was right in saying that the original post was incorrect.

However, one could argue that given the same work conditions, one with a higher salary would be happier than the one with the lower salary.