Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: Predator on 11 May 2004, 17:03
-
Windows sucks. What more can we say? Everybody hates it, but why does everybody use it?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Predator:
but why does everybody use it?
I think you're missing the concept of a monopoly.
-
quote:
... but why does everybody use it?
Hey, what do you mean, everybody??? I haven't used Windows since Win98!! Don't plan to either :)
-
quote:
Originally posted by xeen:
I think you're missing the concept of a monopoly.
Yeah, fucking monopolies. I am 2/5 communist, so I really hate monopolies.
-
Windows sucks. It's horrible. It's terrible. It gives us trouble. It crashes. It freezes... why use it?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Predator:
Windows sucks. It's horrible. It's terrible. It gives us trouble. It crashes. It freezes... why use it?
Ummm...did you purposely ignore the replies to your question, or did you have a reason for reposting the same exact thing?
-
Looks like he's flaming to me.
(http://www2.netdoor.com/~takano/pict/homo.jpg)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Predator:
Windows sucks. It's horrible. It's terrible. It gives us trouble. It crashes. It freezes... why use it?
It's brilliant insightful comments like these that make ordinary computer users think the anti-Microsoft crowd is just a bunch morons.
Predator, if you're going to make a post like that, you should support it with reasons and experiences.
Let's use mine for instance...
I hate how Windows 98 always crashes on me when using 3rd party applicatitions, and Microsoft's applications such as Windows Media Player are so bloated that they take forever to run. I also shouldn't have to replace my computers because Windows 2000 and XP don't like running on a 333 Mhz P2 with 128 megs of ram. I shouldn't have to patch my operating system daily and do multiple antivirus updates per day to ensure my system doesn't get hijacked by the latest published Windows insecurity.
Without supporting reasons for "Windows sucks", you're post is going to sound like the majority of mindless nonsense posted over at http://www.linuxsucks.org/ (http://www.linuxsucks.org/)
[ May 13, 2004: Message edited by: Rio ]
-
You are correct! Windows sucks! :D Windows= (http://graemlins/thumbsdown.gif) Mac= (http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif) SO please use a (http://graemlins/macos.gif) or a (http://graemlins/tux.gif) !! (http://graemlins/fu.gif) bill gates!
[ May 30, 2004: Message edited by: Ghostie ]
-
Yeah! hehehehehe! (http://graemlins/fu.gif) Bill Gates! (http://graemlins/fu.gif) Windows, (http://graemlins/fu.gif) Microsoft!
-
This is a fucking joke, correct?
-
No dude. We are dead fucking serious. :D
-
quote:
Ghostie: You are correct! Windows sucks! :D Windows= (http://graemlins/thumbsdown.gif) Mac= (http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif) SO please use a (http://graemlins/macos.gif) or a (http://graemlins/tux.gif) !! (http://graemlins/fu.gif) bill gates!
Some people enjoy (http://graemlins/bsd.gif) too! It's got Linux binairy compatibility!
-
I still use microsoft and Works fine no blue screen of death yet. Maybe if you guys didnt kick your computer every time it does something else then it would work.
-
quote:
Everybody hates it
As somebody who doesn't hate Windows, this comes as news to me.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Predator:
Windows sucks. What more can we say? Everybody hates it, but why does everybody use it?
One reason was MS's choice of the IBM compatible PC. As the components were "off the shelf" anyone could make one which lead to competition and thereby lower prices.
Secondly and most important is MS has excellent marketing - that's what they are good at.
zoo
-
True, the IBM compatable PC is the best value system ever released, you get the most power for the least money. The main driving force of Moore's law is competition, we are very lucky to have lots with this between system manufacturers.
Things could be a lot worse, imagine if one company had dominance in both the hardware and software industry, it would be a disaster, a hardware monopoly alone would be bad enough.
I think a software monopoly is infinitely more tolerable than a hardware monopoly. It is far easier and cheaper to install new software than it is to buy new systems, and software incompatibly is far easier resolve than hardware incompatibly.
[ July 17, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder:
As somebody who doesn't hate Windows, this comes as news to me.
What do you like about Windows?
I like the folowing things about Windows:
- The hardware support, if you buy a digital camera, scanner or printer it usually comes with windows drivers.
- Troubleshooting, if you fuckup the registry or install the wrong device driver, it's easy to revert back to the previous configuration. This is especially useful for graphics drivers, if you set your monitor to a mode it doesn't like you wait for 15 seconds and it reverts back to the previous mode.
- Easy installation/uninstallation of software, I know this is easy in Linux too, but standards are a problem in Linux as there are so many different package standards, if a package is unavailable for the distro you use, you have to do a manual install. This is also a major fuckup factor with Windows as things don't always uninstall cleanly, and there is often lots of shit left behind to slow your system down. I have a feeling that this is spyware, but friends of mine have said that it's just due to incompetent programmers.
-
I myself use windows, like most everyone else.
This is mostly due to the fact that I have not
yet learned how to use Linux, though I am
currently learning. I do hate windows. I hate it
because I really spend more time fixing it than
actually using it. There's just too much to do. I
am not a downloader, so I rarely have virus
problems and such, but it's the constant updating
of windows and tweaking of settings that consumes
most of my computer time. And it doesn't matter
who's machine I'm on, it's always the same. I
have no answers. Like most in these forums I'm
just bitching. I can only hope that more and more
of us will veer away from windows and start using
other Operating systems so that MAYBE one day
Microsoft won't have such a hold on this market.
On a personal note, I'm glad to finally find a
place to bitch about this and recieve feedback
from intelligent people(excluding me) that feel
the same way.
[ July 17, 2004: Message edited by: MrBunnyFace ]
[ July 17, 2004: Message edited by: MrBunnyFace ]
-
You're absolutely right, we should paint the barn orange.
-
Welcome to our wonderful forum Mr. Bunny Face! I hope you switch from Windows on a short notice ;)
Intelligence is nothing, btw.
quote:
JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder: You're absolutely right, we should paint the barn orange.
Yes, this would give the barn an authentic look.
-
It will give it that late early mid circa 18th century rustic feeling.
-
I was kinda hoping for Midnight blue. :D
EDIT: But then, I'm just vain like that.
[ July 17, 2004: Message edited by: Midnight Candidate ]
-
What version of Windows do you use and why?
I use XP as it came with my computer, and Windows 2000 at work and prefer it.
I don't like Windows but I have no choice but to use it, I have failed to adopt Linux as it doesn't support my hardware well enough.
The main reasons why I dislike Windows are:
- Insecurity, you shouldn't have to run anti virus software, it should be part of the operating system.
- It is very hard to customise, with Linux the user interface is infinitely configurable, you can even have a Windows desktop if you wish.
- Bloat, I know this is an issue with some Linux distributions too, but with Linux you can recompile the kernel and remove anything you don't need.
- Lack of choice, you can only buy XP or server 2003, with Linux you can choose between 100s of distributions, if one doesn't suit you, it's easy to switch to a different one.
- Windows only runs on Pentium class processors.
- Instability, this has improved a lot with Windows, but can still be a problem, Linux on the other hand providing you set it up correctly can be very stable.
To me Windows and Linux are just operating systems, I have no feelings towards them of either love or hate, to me a computer is just a means to an end, to get my work done. You should choose an operating system that enables you to use your system most efficiently. I prefer Linux because it has a better user interface, and it's stable and secure. I use Windows because it supports my printer/scanner, digital camera and 3D graphics accelerator. I might for security reasons disconnect my current system from the Internet and buy a second hand PC to run Linux on and connect to the net.
I think it's stupid to think of an operating system as a religion, to me religion is a retarded idea in general, all those wars and lives lost in the name of a
-
quote:
Originally posted by BASHman:
Hey, what do you mean, everybody??? I haven't used Windows since Win98!! Don't plan to either :)
I don't use Wincrap, either! That was the last version I used also.
Linux power! (http://graemlins/tux.gif)
-
You are right Windows sucks (http://graemlins/fu.gif) it crashes all the time and after 6 months you have to reinstal the sytem so it could work normaly.... (http://graemlins/fu.gif)
-
Yeah,
LOL!
I fucking hate Winbloze!
It's fucked up!
It's full of spyware!
Bloat Bloat and more fucking Bloat!
It BSODomizes me!
Winbloze is unmanly!
Its feminine!
Its for the weak and homosexual!
Its for the retarded!
M$ are spying on you!
If you pirate their sod-arse software they will frame you by putting child porn on your computer and report you to the police.
(http://graemlins/fu.gif) Winbloze!
(http://graemlins/fu.gif) M$
:D :D :D
[ August 15, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Talium:
You are right Windows sucks (http://graemlins/fu.gif) it crashes all the time and after 6 months you have to reinstal the sytem so it could work normaly.... (http://graemlins/fu.gif)
Welcome to our wonderful forum (http://smile.gif)
Have you tried Linux yet? If not, here (http://slax.linux-live.org/download.php) is a free and legal Linux version that loads from CD without even installing it (http://smile.gif)
-
Yes I have. Linux is much much better (http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif) , the fact is taht anything is better than MS products (http://tongue.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
It BSODomizes me!
Haven't heard that one before :D
[ August 16, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]
-
quote:
Its for the weak and homosexual!
That's not very nice for homosexuals or females. I am not gay, but still...
For that matter, comparing Windows to anyone is an insult.
[ August 15, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7 / BOB:
That's not very nice for homosexuals or females. I am not gay, but still...
Sorry, I wasn't being serious, I'm just bord of "Windows sucks" posts, it was funny when I first joined but its no longer a joke. We all know that Windows sucks, we've heard it 1000 times before.
Edit:
When I end a post with :D :D :D , its not mant to be taken too seriously
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7 / BOB:
For that matter, comparing Windows to anyone is an insult.
LOL!
True.
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
Haven't heard that one before :D
(http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif) At least some people have a sense of humour. (http://smile.gif)
[ August 16, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
It BSODomizes me!
[ August 15, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
I have to say that was one of the few things that made me laugh hard.
Nice one. (http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Talium:
You are right Windows sucks (http://graemlins/fu.gif) it crashes all the time and after 6 months you have to reinstal the sytem so it could work normaly.... (http://graemlins/fu.gif)
No, bring that down to about 6 weeks and you'd have a realistic time. :rolleyes:
-
Hey Refalm, one of the many live distros I have tested has been Slax, and I have to say, it is lovely.
Another that comes into the "lovely" category is Knoppix, both ultimately rule. :D
-
DOS - straightforward, good, simple.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Predator:
DOS - straightforward, good, simple.
No multitasking (http://graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
-
That can also be an advantage, if you only want to run one program at a time and you don't want lots of other shit in memory slowing your system down DOS is great.
Also as there is no swap file you don't have to worry about defragmenting your hard drive. You can also delete programs with out worrying about parts of them still being in memory.
You can also get multitasking shells for DOS.
[ August 19, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Hmph?:
I still use microsoft and Works fine no blue screen of death yet. Maybe if you guys didnt kick your computer every time it does something else then it would work.
Notice how you use the word "still". If you do nothing else on your computer than using Works (which is a product that causes a lot of compatability issues in my experience) it's very possible that you never receive any BSOD's.
However, browsing a lot on the internet with Internet Explorer is already a security issue and may slow down your computer, making it unresponsive, hogging up your memory resulting in a BSOD.
To go back on your use of Microsoft Works, I can't see why so many people didn't threw it away when they (probably) got it with their computer.
OpenOffice.org (http://www.openoffice.org/) ($ 0, open source) and WordPerfect Office (http://www.wordperfect.com/) ($ 300, commercial) are far superior products. I recommend OpenOffice.org to you, because it suits the needs of a Works user.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm / BOB:
Notice how you use the word "still". If you do nothing else on your computer than using Works (which is a product that causes a lot of compatability issues in my experience) it's very possible that you never receive any BSOD's.
However, browsing a lot on the internet with Internet Explorer is already a security issue and may slow down your computer, making it unresponsive, hogging up your memory resulting in a BSOD.
To go back on your use of Microsoft Works, I can't see why so many people didn't threw it away when they (probably) got it with their computer.
OpenOffice.org (http://www.openoffice.org/) ($ 0, open source) and WordPerfect Office (http://www.wordperfect.com/) ($ 300, commercial) are far superior products. I recommend OpenOffice.org to you, because it suits the needs of a Works user.
I don't think Hmph? uses :D MS Works :D .
His post just contained some very bad English, which I've corrected for you.
quote:
This is only my interpritation:
I still use Microsoft software, and it works fine, no blue screen of death yet. Maybe if you guys didn
-
I've worked at a high school once, and the kids where complaining about how there work from home couldn't be opened at school.
All these kids got Microsoft Works free with their computer. It's non-compatible with Microsoft Office, and it only has a purpose if you print your stuff. The saving button seems to be there only for other Microsoft Works computers.
It wouldn't be that bad if there was a PDF feature (which OpenOffice.org does have).
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm / BOB:
I've worked at a high school once, and the kids where complaining about how there work from home couldn't be opened at school.
All these kids got Microsoft Works free with their computer. It's non-compatible with Microsoft Office, and it only has a purpose if you print your stuff. The saving button seems to be there only for other Microsoft Works computers.
It wouldn't be that bad if there was a PDF feature (which OpenOffice.org does have).
You know what's infinitely worse than that? The unparalleled moron that inevitably says "I can't open this in Works on this computer," to which a teacher says "that's because we have Word and the two are mutually incompatible."
...to which, the student replies - and I quote from a real experience here - "why don't you UPGRADE?" Like Works is the next incarnation of Office or something. That kid got a few nice wads of paper in the back of the head for that question. ;)
-
My PC came with XP & Works and it certainly wasn't free, I could've bought it for a lower price without the software and I
-
I don't think you people going to bolive that.
I have recantly visited a friend and I found out that her Windows 98 has been working now for 2 years whitout being reinstaled , and what is even more starnge it was works quite good. How is that possible?? I have to reinstole my Windows every 6 month , if I don't do that it just stops working properly and crashes all the time.
-
I have a 6-year-old install of Win95 that works, and I have cousins with a 5-year-old install of Windows 98.
Mine works because I know how to deal with it, but it's really slow. ZipSlack with Fluxbox fly on it (http://smile.gif)
That other computer...I have no idea why it works. Either way, it's on its last leg. BSOD when I ran Scandisk. :rolleyes:
-
I heard a joke once a time ago.
it was why did Microsoft name their Operation SYstem to Windows?
Well here you have the answer as fast it crashes its meant to throw outr the computer trough the Window =)
-
quote:
Originally posted by LinuxMad:
I heard a joke once a time ago.
it was why did Microsoft name their Operation SYstem to Windows?
Well here you have the answer as fast it crashes its meant to throw outr the computer trough the Window =)
There where actual people who threw their computer out of the Window because they where struck by the Blaster virus.
-
I like windows.
I know it sucks and its full of bugs. but since im a computer geek, to me thats most of the fun. like for instance yesterday i installed service pack 2. and of course m$ had not put in a failsafe. causing the comp to completly fuck up when i went to reboot. Some dll files were missing because sp2 had not finished installing. so i spent an hour and a half fixin it. Which was more fun than usin the computer anyway.
i dunno i hope longhorn/shortdick will have plenty o new bugs 2 fix. Fun for me bad for M$ just the way i like it.
-
Hate to inform you of this, dull60, but fixing bugs in Windows is a clear violation of your license agreement.
If you really enjoy tweaking and twiddling, you should get Linux. You can futz around for years and never truly be finished. And the system and apps will still be available to you while you are toying.
-
actually my whole computer is in violation on those stupid liscence agreements. I fuck with just about every thing; games, programs, windowz hell ive probably broken a few hardware warrantys to.
all that aside i would like to inform you my habit of fucking with things isnt just windows i have a fedora box which i fuck with daily.
P.S. Who fuckin cares bout Liscense agreementsi have a burned version of windowz anyway so why do i care?
-
you people are so stupid all you do is sit around a complain about microsoft are there any other operating systems more used why because it is the best easiest for most people and you are just to lazy to go work and make a better one and create a monopoly yourself until you do that you cant complain you are just jeoulous you couldnt think to create a monopoly and make billions of dollars yourself
-
That was stupid troll crap. Be smart or go home.
What I hate most about windows:
(http://www.triple-bypass.net/download/hatewindows.png)
-
You can turn that off (http://graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
-
Microsoft ain't that bad, if you have proper security, then windows works fine. Windows is the most userfriendly OS.
-
quote:
Nabeel Khalid: Microsoft ain't that bad
Just because you happen to like Windows, "Microsoft ain't bad"? I guess you haven't read What's so bad about Microsoft (http://www.microsuck.com/content/whatsbad.shtml) yet...
quote:
Nabeel Khalid: if you have proper security, then windows works fine.
Yeah right. There are a lot of unpatched security flaws yet to be fixed by Billy Gates and Monkeyboy Ballmer.
quote:
Nabeel Khalid: Windows is the most userfriendly OS.
Nope, that title still goes to Mac OS X (http://www.apple.com/macosx/).
The creators, Apple, actually prioritised their research on user friendlyness.
-
This is what I hate the most about Winodows XP in particular. The old search user interface was much better, the only thing that's worse is the fucking annoying retarded XP dog that I'm glad I've managed to shoot in the balls.
-
Yeah, the XP search interface and engine... jeezus. Really not cool. Got a few hours to kill? Search your computer!!!
-
What about the freeware search engine from google, has anyone here tried it?
-
Yeah, the XP search interface and engine... jeezus. Really not cool. Got a few hours to kill? Search your computer!!!
Instead of bitching about it just use this (http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/grep.htm).
-
I like bitching about MS. That's why I'm here...
And then again, in two months, my contact with XP will be over - for ever!
-
I use windows and works fine for me. The what's so bad article is outdated! Talks about "bloat" I see bloat in every linux distro I've tried. With the right security (Firefox, Spybot, Adaware) windows if fine for a gamer.
I'm still planning to run linux or bsd once I get enough money for a new HDD.
-
I use windows and works fine for me. The what's so bad article is outdated! Talks about "bloat" I see bloat in every linux distro I've tried. With the right security (Firefox, Spybot, Adaware) windows if fine for a gamer.
I'm still planning to run linux or bsd once I get enough money for a new HDD.
Use what works, I say.
Windows works for me, I use it, it's fine.
-
I like bitching about MS. That's why I'm here...
And then again, in two months, my contact with XP will be over - for ever!
Hellz yea!! See people this is the kind of attitude that could change the world. Were all smart people here, who needs windows. Windoze is an insult to the intelligence of a drunk mentally disbaled squirrel. I switched back to UNIX permanatly a couple monthes ago and havent used crapdows since, and I never will again. You should do the same.
ps. fuck bill gates the chronic donkey dick sucker
-
you people are so stupid all you do is sit around a complain about microsoft are there any other operating systems more used why because it is the best easiest for most people and you are just to lazy to go work and make a better one and create a monopoly yourself until you do that you cant complain you are just jeoulous you couldnt think to create a monopoly and make billions of dollars yourself
well im sick of you your not my friend anymore because you stole my bmx and kissed my girlfriend in the trees while i was waiting for the bus which was late and i came home and mother gave me a spanking which is all your fault because you couldnt think to steal a car and pick me up so then we could get to school on time and learn how to write a proper sentance
-
well im sick of you your not my friend anymore because you stole my bmx and kissed my girlfriend in the trees while i was waiting for the bus which was late and i came home and mother gave me a spanking which is all your fault because you couldnt think to steal a car and pick me up so then we could get to school on time and learn how to write a proper sentance
That would make a damn good movie :D
-
I use windows and works fine for me. The what's so bad article is outdated! Talks about "bloat" I see bloat in every linux distro I've tried. With the right security (Firefox, Spybot, Adaware) windows if fine for a gamer.
I'm still planning to run linux or bsd once I get enough money for a new HDD.
That's one thing that really sucks about Windows - having to use 3rd party software just to run the operating system.
-
And to set things straight: the only reason I am using XP in the first place is that I live with my aunt&uncle in Canada, and they wouldn't let me upgrade their machine. It's sooo slow.
At least I don't use other MS crap. Installed Firefox, Thunderbird, OO.org and Exodus...
well im sick of you your not my friend anymore because you stole my bmx and kissed my girlfriend in the trees while i was waiting for the bus which was late and i came home and mother gave me a spanking which is all your fault because you couldnt think to steal a car and pick me up so then we could get to school on time and learn how to write a proper sentance
:D
-
I'm still planning to run linux or bsd once I get enough money for a new HDD.
Hey, if you have a $20 on ya, I'll send a 20-gig to your post office in your name. $1/gig ain't half-bad on a Quantum Fireball, ya know. Just get in contact with me on an IM service. :cool:
-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081871/dvd
Orethrius will trade straight-up for that, e7ement. If you can find it.
-
I like bitching about MS. That's why I'm here...
And then again, in two months, my contact with XP will be over - for ever!
You neophyte! I do not like your signature banner, please remove it because I say that Linux does not suck, and I am god, therefore everything I say goes.
-
I can't quite read what Firefox is Saying. He seems to be giving MS hate a bad name.
-
Both Winblows and Linux take a lot of knowledge to use and configure effectively. The difference between them is that Windoze can be used anyway but it will work like a piece of shit that's begging to get filled with virii and all kinds of shitware. Then you need to install patches over a patch to a patch all the time and use 3rd party software to keep your system clean because the needed stuff isn't there out of the box or sucks.
I'd say I know how to keep Winblows clean but the average user doesn't. I tried to help a friend today with her computer via IRC. She told me she had virus problems and IE would stop working after the computer has been running for some time. It turned out the firewall wasn't blocking it -- or at least the settings suggested so -- so who knows. It's IE. I told her to dump that shit and install Firefox. I feel pissed for the less computer literate people who have to put up with Winbloze. I won't even start about its stability. Fucking BSODs is all it can do for me so I as I reinstalled Windoze I also installed Linux and use it more and more. The number of things I can only do on Winbloze get fewer by the day as I figure out stuff. Looking at the default config, I can only wonder how the average user can keep his Windose system from falling apart.
By the way, since I reinstalled Windoze and installed SP2 on it, it BSODs even more now than with the three-year old install. It's hardly usable. Great patch.
[/rant]
-
This annoys me too, Microsoft say their OS is supposed to be easy to use but it won't be unless they should include a decent anti-virus and firewall with the default configuration.
-
I've never ran anti-virus on my system, and I don't use a firewall. Plus, I use IE for web browsing. So, I've configured stuff a little, but how come I've never gotten any of these viruses you speak of?
I have no idea what you guys are doing to break your systems, other than intentionally installing malware (or being tricked by exes that have folder icons or other silly stuff). I installed my current w2k installation in 2000, and it's still working. Nearly five year old installation, and stuff still works great. I can only conclude that either you guys have bad hardware, or the difference is in the user.
Oh, and regarding third party software. I suspect you guys mainly use non-GNU software too. Your web browser, your mail client, your chat clients, text editors, etc... They're all from outside of the GNU project, third party software.
-
I've never ran anti-virus on my system, and I don't use a firewall. Plus, I use IE for web browsing. So, I've configured stuff a little, but how come I've never gotten any of these viruses you speak of?
I have no idea what you guys are doing to break your systems, other than intentionally installing malware (or being tricked by exes that have folder icons or other silly stuff). I installed my current w2k installation in 2000, and it's still working. Nearly five year old installation, and stuff still works great. I can only conclude that either you guys have bad hardware, or the difference is in the user.
Oh, and regarding third party software. I suspect you guys mainly use non-GNU software too. Your web browser, your mail client, your chat clients, text editors, etc... They're all from outside of the GNU project, third party software.
I didn't say I had viruses, I've never had one manage to get loose in my system. I said my computer illiterate friend has. You can configure your system to keep it clean. Good for you. Not everyone knows how to.
And my bad hardware seems to run Linux just fine. I have read the other topic too, so I guess you'll say it's the crappy Windows drivers for the HW. Might be. The only drivers I have installed myself (ie. not automatically by Windows) are the video, sound and network card. I have no idea if these are the cause, and I don't really care what's to blame unless it's me and I can't fix it. My point being, Windows doesn't work, while Linux does.
As for the third party software: Yes, I use a lot of 3rd party software on Linux. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with buying more software just to compensate the flaws in Windows. I suppose you can run Windows without them as you said, but if I have to choose between a system that just about stays safe with constant patching and another that stays clean with very little work (and free apps)...
Yes, I know there are free firewalls for Windows but the free antivirus apps just don't cut it, in my opinion.
-
I've never ran anti-virus on my system, and I don't use a firewall. Plus, I use IE for web browsing. So, I've configured stuff a little, but how come I've never gotten any of these viruses you speak of?
I have no idea what you guys are doing to break your systems, other than intentionally installing malware (or being tricked by exes that have folder icons or other silly stuff). I installed my current w2k installation in 2000, and it's still working. Nearly five year old installation, and stuff still works great. I can only conclude that either you guys have bad hardware, or the difference is in the user.
The difference is you disable scripting, but I would rather have benefit of being able to enjoy the web to the full.
Oh, and regarding third party software. I suspect you guys mainly use non-GNU software too. Your web browser, your mail client, your chat clients, text editors, etc... They're all from outside of the GNU project, third party software.
I think you've mis-unsterstood me. For a start I mainly use GNU software the only non-GNU thing on my system is Winwows and anti-virus. I don't have a problem with using closed source sofwtware per-say I've used Opera before. I was saying that Microsoft should provide and operating system that doesn't require any 3rd party software (meaning extra software that you have to buy) to make it secure.
-
I think you've mis-unsterstood me. For a start I mainly use GNU software the only non-GNU thing on my system is Winwows and anti-virus. I don't have a problem with using closed source sofwtware per-say I've used Opera before. I was saying that Microsoft should provide and operating system that doesn't require any 3rd party software (meaning extra software that you have to buy) to make it secure.
I think you've misunderstood me too. When I say GNU software, I mean the GNU project which includes the GNU system tools and compiler suite and such. This doesn't include GPL'd software, it's not GNU software. A lot of the stuff on GNU/Linux systems is non-GNU software on top of the GNU system. I count that as "third party".
Now, there's a lot of good freeware software out there, but you have to download it all. That's a hassle. If Microsoft allowed third parties to create Windows distributions in the same fashion that linux distributions exist, there would be a lot less hassle. Right now, Microsoft is having a copyright enforced monopoly to its own product, and I can't say it's a good thing for anyone else.
-
Ok, I'll explain my point again as you've missed it completely.
You obviosly don't understand the whole party thing, confusing I must admit. :confused:
To me a 3rd party sortware is any software you have to have from a 3rd party other than the supplier of the operating system, thus:
I'm the 1st party.
Microsoft is the 2nd party.
The 3rd would be Symatic, McAfee the licence is unimportant, it could even be freeware like the AVG anti-virus software I use.
My point is you should be able to run a secure Microsoft OS without having to install any 3rd party software. I should be able to browse the Internet with scripting enabled without having to rely on any other software apart from Windows it's self to keep my computer secure. 3rd party software should be non-essential for the running of the system.
-
what you both mean or don't mean is irrelevant.
actually, you do mean the same thing, but you have both got different ideas of who the second party is. to muzzy, it is the organisation responsible for creatingthe system (microsoft, Gnu's Not Unix, apple, Be corp et cetera) and to Jones, it is the organisation responsible for *distributing* the software (Red Hat, microsoft, debian, apple et cetera)
both are reasonable but instead of telling each other you don't understand each other, just decide whether or not you can agree on a definition, and if not, come to some sort of compromise (because if you don't agree on who the second party is, then it is very likely you aren't even disagreeing with each other).
unless of course you're just enjoying the disagreement, in which case, carry on!
-
what you both mean or don't mean is irrelevant.
What I mean is plain and simple, if you want to run Microsoft Windows then you shouldn't need anything other than Microsoft Windows to have a secure system.
actually, you do mean the same thing, but you have both got different ideas of who the second party is. to muzzy, it is the organisation responsible for creatingthe system (microsoft, Gnu's Not Unix, apple, Be corp et cetera) and to Jones, it is the organisation responsible for *distributing* the software (Red Hat, microsoft, debian, apple et cetera)
Yes that's what I mean by the 2nd party, I didn't mention Redhat Linux or Mac OS because I was reffering to Windows so I only mentioned Microsoft as they party responsible for supplying the operating system I use.
both are reasonable but instead of telling each other you don't understand each other, just decide whether or not you can agree on a definition, and if not, come to some sort of compromise (because if you don't agree on who the second party is, then it is very likely you aren't even disagreeing with each other).
I certain that I'm correct on my definitions of the phrases 1st, 2nd & 3rd party.
unless of course you're just enjoying the disagreement, in which case, carry on!
Don't worry I'm enjoying it. :D
-
Yea, Aloone is saying that he wants everything in one CD, and he wants the system to kick ass after he has installed it. He says Windows doesn't make this possible. However, the Linux distributions contain third party software along with them, so you can't really compare the two. Yeah, you can get linux cd that does magic and has all sorts of great software. You can get windows cd to do the same, too, but it's illegal, and it's called warez. Some of the warez windows distributions are actually better than what you can find in the store. Significantly so.
-
Yea, Aloone is saying that he wants everything in one CD, and he wants the system to kick ass after he has installed it.
Well if Windows is supposed to be akick ass operating system that should be the case. :D
He says Windows doesn't make this possible.
Not in its current state as you still have to buy anti-virus software form a 3rd party to make it secure.
However, the Linux distributions contain third party software along with them, so you can't really compare the two. Yeah, you can get linux cd that does magic and has all sorts of great software.
My Knoppix CD contains lots of software, but it's all being distributed by the same organisation. You can't really compare Windows to Linux in this case because the licence is different, sure a Linux distribution can contain as much freely distributable software as is possible from as many parties as possible some even contain propriety software under a licence.
You can get windows cd to do the same, too, but it's illegal, and it's called warez. Some of the warez windows distributions are actually better than what you can find in the store. Significantly so.
So you can get pirate Windows with virus chacker and all can you?
Yet again you fail to understand that Microsoft should inculde an anti-Virus program with Windows. People still have to buy anti-Virus from a 3rd party to keep their system secure, and this is unacceptable. If Microsoft made their shitty OS secure in the first place people wouldn't have to buy any 3rd party software simply to run their system.
1st party = me, or company using the product wheter it be Windows, Mac OS, BSD, Linux ect.
2nd party = product supplyier whether it be Microsoft or Redhat, Macintosh or anyone else.
3rd party = antivirus made by another company other than the one you aquired the operating system from - ie. a 3rd party.
You should only buy software from a 3rd party to do other things that are non-essential to the running of the system, like Opera - a nice web browser or star office for college work. An anti-virus should be unnecessary, and if needed at all it should come with the operating system which is distributed by the 2nd party ie. Microsoft in the case with Windows.
Before responding muzzy, please verify you a agree we me on the definitions of the terms 1st 2nd and 3rd party or we won't get anywhere. :)
-
Yea, Aloone is saying that he wants everything in one CD, and he wants the system to kick ass after he has installed it. He says Windows doesn't make this possible. However, the Linux distributions contain third party software along with them, so you can't really compare the two. Yeah, you can get linux cd that does magic and has all sorts of great software. You can get windows cd to do the same, too, but it's illegal, and it's called warez. Some of the warez windows distributions are actually better than what you can find in the store. Significantly so.
Oh, then I wonder why I can do a minimal install of FreeBSD with no gui or any third party software. No configuration after installation, yet, with security higher than windows ever will be even with third party software on the win box. About the only way for the windows security to usurp the BSD boxes security would be to take it off the net. You can say all you wan't, but windows will never ever have as good of security as any *nix.
-
About the only way for the windows security to usurp the BSD boxes security would be to take it off the net.
But then, that would be the key to 100% network security (notice I won't use *physical* for something like this, someone can still access it locally). ;)
-
Windows could be as secure as BSD, if you used a BSD firewall. ;)
-
All you people are completely off topic.
My point?
Windows Sucks...
-
Anti-virus isn't a software, it's a service. Next you'll be bitching that you can't get network connectivity without paying to third party, either! Boo hoo.
Windows doesn't need antivirus to be secure.
Windows doesn't need third party firewall to be secure.
Windows works just fine out of the box, as long as you're installing a version with latest service pack and so on.
Anyway, if you define "third party" as in "Separate download", we indeed won't be getting anywhere. Even though Redhat and others distribute software, they haven't made it and it's not their software. They just have the right to redistribute it.
Now, if you're trying to make this issue bigger than it is and say it affects Windows negatively, there's nothing to discuss. In my opinion, you just can't compare the two. If you're saying that Microsoft's monopoly on their own OS is a bad thing, we can discuss that. I'd indeed love it if people could make their own Windows installation CDs with loads of software on them. This would put different specific distributions comparable again.
Windows as an operating system kicks ass and wins linux in most tasks severely. The problem here is that you're comparing apples to oranges, comparing GNU system loaded with shitloads of third party software to a Microsoft operating system with no third party software. Obviously, if you choose what to compare to what and under what terms, you can make anything win or lose upon will. What's the point?
-
Anti-virus isn't a software, it's a service. Next you'll be bitching that you can't get network connectivity without paying to third party, either! Boo hoo.
Windows doesn't need antivirus to be secure.
Windows doesn't need third party firewall to be secure.
Windows works just fine out of the box, as long as you're installing a version with latest service pack and so on.
Anyway, if you define "third party" as in "Separate download", we indeed won't be getting anywhere. Even though Redhat and others distribute software, they haven't made it and it's not their software. They just have the right to redistribute it.
Now, if you're trying to make this issue bigger than it is and say it affects Windows negatively, there's nothing to discuss. In my opinion, you just can't compare the two. If you're saying that Microsoft's monopoly on their own OS is a bad thing, we can discuss that. I'd indeed love it if people could make their own Windows installation CDs with loads of software on them. This would put different specific distributions comparable again.
Windows as an operating system kicks ass and wins linux in most tasks severely. The problem here is that you're comparing apples to oranges, comparing GNU system loaded with shitloads of third party software to a Microsoft operating system with no third party software. Obviously, if you choose what to compare to what and under what terms, you can make anything win or lose upon will. What's the point?
You have selective hearing apparently, either that, or your really stupid. WINDOWS MINIMAL INSTALL IS LESS SECURE THAN *NIX MINIMAL INSTALL, NO FUCKING THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE. *nix command only, no gui, no firewall enabled. There, maybe you heard that.
-
And how do you define "secure"? If you're going to pick your favourite *nix, can I also pick my favourite Win32? We could compare plain Windows 2003 server after mere windowsupdate to any of your nix systems, you declare what defines "secure". How about that? Name your OS and name the method of measurement.
-
And how do you define "secure"? If you're going to pick your favourite *nix, can I also pick my favourite Win32? We could compare plain Windows 2003 server after mere windowsupdate to any of your nix systems, you declare what defines "secure". How about that? Name your OS and name the method of measurement.
OpenBSD 3.6 CD install, no update shit going on, who said you could update. Oh well, even if you did update, it wouldent matter. Oh yea, you can turn on the 2003 firewall, I don't care, but I'm leaving mine off for fun. You can put norton corporate on there too if ya want. But I'm gonna stick with a default install, no ports or add-ons. Actually I'll probably install Xorg and gnome so I can play Monkey-Bubble, its fucking awesome btw. Actually, I'll make you a deal, if I can enable my software firewall. You can install all the security apps you can on a 03' datacenter box with 64 Itanium procs, 62 of the procs will be devoted to the security applications. Oh, and take the security from any angle you want.
-
No update shit? Then why don't we install a few year old openbsd as well? Oh, but that wouldn't be fair now would it? You can slipstream windows installation cds with patches and hotfixes, so that it installs a patched version right off the CD. Isn't that enough?
"Take the security from any angle you want", and we'll find that security is identical, neither system is vulnerable to known remote attacks. We could check historical remote vulnerabilities, in which case openbsd would probably win (unless I considered w2k3 to be firewall enabled). I still remember when they changed their slogan, though. They used to say "No remote holes in default install for x years", and now it's "Only one". I made that joke on irc, that they could change it like that. Everyone laughed, it was funny. And then they really changed it like that...
Either way, theoretical security only applies against threats you define. If we think of all the real world threats out there, there are script kiddies and then there are the insider kind of ones. If you think a script kiddie can hack w2k3, why don't you go attack http://www.hackiis6.com/ instead. They've only patched the system, that's all. Well, and they installed IIS6 to provide some real attack vectors. When you think of insider attacks, the system doesn't matter so much, only how people have been given access to resources and yaddayadda.
Either way, I'd feel OK running a w2k3 box open to the internet. I'd feel secure sitting on it, watching people portscan me while I sip my ice tea with grin on my face. I wouldn't need any third party security software to do so (well, except a sniffer to see the portscans, but that's just added bonus)
-
No update shit? Then why don't we install a few year old openbsd as well? Oh, but that wouldn't be fair now would it? You can slipstream windows installation cds with patches and hotfixes, so that it installs a patched version right off the CD. Isn't that enough?
"Take the security from any angle you want", and we'll find that security is identical, neither system is vulnerable to known remote attacks. We could check historical remote vulnerabilities, in which case openbsd would probably win (unless I considered w2k3 to be firewall enabled). I still remember when they changed their slogan, though. They used to say "No remote holes in default install for x years", and now it's "Only one". I made that joke on irc, that they could change it like that. Everyone laughed, it was funny. And then they really changed it like that...
Either way, theoretical security only applies against threats you define. If we think of all the real world threats out there, there are script kiddies and then there are the insider kind of ones. If you think a script kiddie can hack w2k3, why don't you go attack http://www.hackiis6.com/ (http://www.hackiis6.com/) instead. They've only patched the system, that's all. Well, and they installed IIS6 to provide some real attack vectors. When you think of insider attacks, the system doesn't matter so much, only how people have been given access to resources and yaddayadda.
Either way, I'd feel OK running a w2k3 box open to the internet. I'd feel secure sitting on it, watching people portscan me while I sip my ice tea with grin on my face. I wouldn't need any third party security software to do so (well, except a sniffer to see the portscans, but that's just added bonus)
I find it funny that you choose all the good parts (which are mostly fictious anyway) and ignore all the obvious important stuff.
1. A script kiddie is just that, a fucking script kiddie, they dont fucking need to know how to hack cuz some lowlife releases tools for them.
2. "(unless I considered w2k3 to be firewall enabled)" your fucking retarded and ignorant. Do you not fucking think most OpenBSD installs have firewalls, I always knew you were stupid.
3. YOU have to worry about local security, cuz you use windows and don't know how to admin it properly, YOU also have to worry about remote security because you use windows. I on the other hand, have all my boxes in lock down, locked cases, passes on the bios's and all user accounts, in the manner of a smart sys-admin.
4. IIS is trash, you should probably use Apache.
-
1. Script kiddies are still the biggest remote threat to most people. Those, and worms, which are practically automated script kiddies.
2. Well, if we consider firewalled w2k3 vs any OS, I don't think either one will have ANY remote vulnerabilities if the system is passive to any communication attempts. You'd need to have the system connect somewhere first before you could think of remote vulns, and openbsd doesn't count those as "remote" either.
3. So we're now comparing competent *nix admin to incompetent win* admin? It's obvious which one is better, and it doesn't have anything to do with OS, but the level of competence. Apples to oranges...
4. Apache is trash on windows, as is a lot of other stuff. They've been developed on *nix, without any concern to performance on win32 environment. There are lots of things in windows which allow you to write a high performance web server, and apache isn't using them (afaik). Also, since the developers are so *nix-centric, there have been security holes in apache which only apply to the windows version. For example, a hardcoded '/' directory separators. At least IIS performs fast, it's loathed only because of its history of security holes. Apache has had a lot of security holes as well, yet nobody ever cares to mention about them, even the critical remote code execution holes...
So, I chose "all the good parts" and ignored obvious stuff? If your statements above are the obvious stuff, you're basically saying that windows sucks because windows users suck, among other things.
-
Anti-virus isn't a software, it's a service. Next you'll be bitching that you can't get network connectivity without paying to third party, either! Boo hoo.
Windows doesn't need antivirus to be secure.
Windows doesn't need third party firewall to be secure.
Windows works just fine out of the box, as long as you're installing a version with latest service pack and so on.
Anyway, if you define "third party" as in "Separate download", we indeed won't be getting anywhere. Even though Redhat and others distribute software, they haven't made it and it's not their software. They just have the right to redistribute it.
Now, if you're trying to make this issue bigger than it is and say it affects Windows negatively, there's nothing to discuss. In my opinion, you just can't compare the two. If you're saying that Microsoft's monopoly on their own OS is a bad thing, we can discuss that. I'd indeed love it if people could make their own Windows installation CDs with loads of software on them. This would put different specific distributions comparable again.
Windows as an operating system kicks ass and wins linux in most tasks severely. The problem here is that you're comparing apples to oranges, comparing GNU system loaded with shitloads of third party software to a Microsoft operating system with no third party software. Obviously, if you choose what to compare to what and under what terms, you can make anything win or lose upon will. What's the point?
So why was it when I first got my PC with a Windows OEM install I got the netsky worm when I went on the Internet?
The supplyier said the anti-virus was up to date but it wasn't.
-
So why was it when I first got my PC with a Windows OEM install I got the netsky worm when I went on the Internet?
The supplyier said the anti-virus was up to date but it wasn't.
So, the supplier was clueless and didn't provide you a patched system. Tough luck, that's not Microsoft's fault. You could've just as well bought insanely old red hat, and observed it dying on you when you connected it to the internet, woo-pe-doo.
Either way, the first thing you're supposed to do with a new computer (no matter what OS), is to check that it's patched up to date. This can be hard without connecting it to the internet first, but that's not a Windows-specific problem. Back in the old days, when linux remote crashing bugs got published, a friend of mine had to download patches to his linux system with his windows installation. It simply wasn't possible for him to download them with linux, since he was under constant flood of the attack.
That's just the nature of the problem, deal with it. Has nothing to do with anti-virus.
-
4. IIS is trash, you should probably use Apache.
How many high traffic, public webservers do you administer that use IIS?
-
Bitch all you want about IIS, but I don't see Strong Bad (http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://homestarrunner.com) getting 0wned left and right, do you?
-
I'm not using IIS myself because I couldn't get it working. I found it ironically harder to use than Apache with the .conf file.
I still chuckle about that.
-
Bitch all you want about IIS, but I don't see Strong Bad (http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://homestarrunner.com) getting 0wned left and right, do you?
His uptime is crap
-
His uptime is crap
I don't seee what is so bad about that uptime. It's 88 days, which is better than many other sites (http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.microsuck.com).
-
If you click where it says "24 days ago", you'll see they have no graph. That 24 days could be a long time ago. Might have something to do with when we switched hosts back in January.
Also, this site used to have great uptime (3 digits) but for some reason last year, someone starting rebooting it every month.
-
I've found netcraft to be incredibly unreliable anyway. The only thing I see netcraft being good for is it's web server surveys.
Netcraft reports this server as being up for 59 days....
http://uptimes.hostingwired.com/account.php?op=details&hid=13355 (http://uptimes.hostingwired.com/account.php?op=details&hid=13355)
And it says this site has been up for 26 days....
http://uptimes.hostingwired.com/account.php?op=details&hid=13356 (http://uptimes.hostingwired.com/account.php?op=details&hid=13356)
-
Because, as we all know, uptime is ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.
Maybe if you only have 1 server, otherwise, a monthly reboot never hurts.
-
Well, there are several criteria that go into choosing a web platform, that most people here just don't get. Stability and security are actually down on the list of priorities below functionality, cost and support. If times between reboots were so important, then nobody would run Windows/IIS for a webserver.
One server I run started out on HPUX/Netscape I-Planet server, but the app kept taking down the web server and sometimes the webserver would not restart without rebooting the entire box. The vendor basically threw up their hands at us, saying they didn't know what was wrong, so we switched it over to the other platform they supported - IIS. It has run on IIS for four years now. The app has actually taken down IIS a quite a few times too, but it was much easier to restart if it did, because of access issues. Only two people has access to the HPUX server because of some other sesitive data it contained, while all of the IT staff had to ability to go into the IIS server and restart IIS. On top of that the webserver never had to be restarted because IIS wouldn't restart. The vendor has finally worked out the bugs in this app in the last two years, and it has been stable since then.
Another server which we use IIS. We chose IIS over Linux/Apache and SOlaris/Apache because we were already used IIS for the other webserver, and nobody else besides me in the IT department has the ability to support linux/apache. This particlar app is well programed, and the IIS server has never crashed in three years.
We are replacing the server soon, and it will be moved from Win2k/IIS5 to Win2k3/IIS6. There is no good reason even consider another platform for this server because the current one we use is absolutely rock solid, and we are better equpped - staff wise to support Windows.
As for cost, in the business world, why stress over a $5000 difference in software costs, when it costs $30,000 per year for the software that runs on the web server, $150,000 a year in the salaries of the staff that will support it, and $25,000 every three or four years for the server itself?
-
As for cost, in the business world, why stress over a $5000 difference in software costs, when it costs $30,000 per year for the software that runs on the web server, $150,000 a year in the salaries of the staff that will support it, and $25,000 every three or four years for the server itself?
I know very, very little about the server/business world. But anyhow, why do you upgrade the server "every three or four years"?
If I bought a $25,000 computer, I would hope it would last forever.
-
I know very, very little about the server/business world. But anyhow, why do you upgrade the server "every three or four years"?
If I bought a $25,000 computer, I would hope it would last forever.
Well you manyt times you don't need to if your apps, and number of users never changes, but if they do, then upgrading to more powerfull hardware can become neccessay.
For example, the online class server I run required dual 800Mhz Xeon processors three years ago. The version we run today has lots more featues, and now requires dual 2.8Ghz Xeon processors.
Our current server (that we bought three years ago), has five Xeon 733 processors, and while it does most things okay, for some functions that require large database queries, it just doesn't cut it. We are replacing it with a quad Opteron 2.6 server. Based on what we have seen, we think this new server should last us at least five years.
In five years, there will either be a new version that has many more features and higher requirements, and/or we will have explanded our number of online classes, and will require new hardware.
-
People with high uptimes are typically people who don't patch nor upgrade stuff. If you upgrade your server software every now and then, you're going to have to restart it anyway. That means downtime. Rebooting after software upgrade also means downtime, but it also means you know the new server software will start up if you have to reboot. It's not uncommon for people to hack stuff on the fly to get things working, then screw up while writing startup scripts. The simple act of rebooting verifies that you won't be fucked when you HAVE TO reboot, for one reason or another.
-
People with high uptimes are typically people who don't patch nor upgrade stuff. If you upgrade your server software every now and then, you're going to have to restart it anyway. That means downtime. Rebooting after software upgrade also means downtime, but it also means you know the new server software will start up if you have to reboot. It's not uncommon for people to hack stuff on the fly to get things working, then screw up while writing startup scripts. The simple act of rebooting verifies that you won't be fucked when you HAVE TO reboot, for one reason or another.
See, here is the difference between Linux and Windows.
Let me give you an example. I update my SSH software, just type
service sshd restart
And ssh is restarted.
The downtime is just a second.
Because this script is exactly the same as the one called by the SysV-like initialization routine, I KNOW it will work when I reboot.
I only have to reboot when putting a new kernel on, which admittedly has happened more often than I like this year.
-
Yes, most distributions have a mechanism for doing this kind of stuff, but if you're running anything unusual, you might have to write the scripts yourself. And they might break when you upgrade, for various reasons. And the restart script might still work, because the system is in a good state as result of running the old version, yet it could fail at reboot.
I suppose it's not such an issue if you only run ssh and apache, with stuff tested by distributor.
-
Yes, most distributions have a mechanism for doing this kind of stuff, but if you're running anything unusual, you might have to write the scripts yourself. And they might break when you upgrade, for various reasons. And the restart script might still work, because the system is in a good state as result of running the old version, yet it could fail at reboot.
I suppose it's not such an issue if you only run ssh and apache, with stuff tested by distributor.
Point taken about SysV scripts sometimes needing to be hand written. But
even then you can just start daemons with a single line added to rc.local.
I have been running Linux since 1997, with about 20 assorted installs on various hardware. I have a habit of adding software (including server software) that is not standard with distributions and updating with software straight from their distributors websites (OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache, Samba, Webmin, etc.). I have never had problems with the server software failing on reboot if I can start them after installation.
And if anyone is doing this, they know enough to handle the startup scripting.
-
"Human error is inevitable input to any complex system". Can't remember who said that, but that quote applies right here. People make mistakes, and it's better to have downtime during time you can choose beforehand. It's not like it costs that much to keep the site down a minute or two during sunday night, if everything works out fine. And if one minute of downtime has a significant cost, then it could be cheaper to just replicate the whole server and have backup take over when downtime occurs. And again, reboot won't have a significant cost.
Server uptime is not an absolute value by itself. It's insignificant.
-
"Human error is inevitable input to any complex system". Can't remember who said that, but that quote applies right here. People make mistakes, and it's better to have downtime during time you can choose beforehand. It's not like it costs that much to keep the site down a minute or two during sunday night, if everything works out fine. And if one minute of downtime has a significant cost, then it could be cheaper to just replicate the whole server and have backup take over when downtime occurs. And again, reboot won't have a significant cost.
Server uptime is not an absolute value by itself. It's insignificant.
Alas, you must remember human input is also vital to the operation of computer, as a server with no OS is worthless. But it helps to have good programmers doing the input the first time, this is a big reason why windoze is such crap.
Sure, load balancing helps to combat downtime, but only if it works properly. I've used '03 Datacenter and its load balancing (along with most of everything else) is trash.
-
You seemed to miss my point. The quote is a murphy's law type of thing, which means that people will screw up, and the only way around it is to design around it, and assume it will happen. Testing is so much harder to screw up, as long as the test provides meaningful results :)
-
windows is so buggy is because its made by so many people. now, if M$ installed borg implants into all tyhe programmers, they could think as one, and fix all bugs at the programing stage.
-
Ouch...
-
windows is so buggy is because its made by so many people.
I'm very sorry I don't normally defend Microsoft but this is blatantly bollocks, so MS software is shit because so many people are involved in writing it! Bullshit far more people are involved in writing Linux than Windows so I suppose this means by your logic that Linux is more buggy than Windows!
You are as you nickname says a noob!
now, if M$ installed borg implants into all tyhe programmers, they could think as one, and fix all bugs at the programing stage.
LOL!
LOL!
Haaaaa Haaaa Haaaaa!
:D :D :D
-
windows is so buggy is because its made by so many people. now, if M$ installed borg implants into all tyhe programmers, they could think as one, and fix all bugs at the programing stage.
Yeah, but that'd mean they'd have to take nanoprobes out of all the windows boxes to start the assimilation process, and we all know they won't like that idea.
-
if M$ installed borg implants into all tyhe programmers, they could think as one, and fix all bugs at the programing stage.
I'd betcha anything that those borg implans are NOT gonna run Windows... that would be a BIG (not only) BSOD disaster!!!
Just imagine the News:
Microsoft employees run Linux - or s it Linux that runs MS employees?
-
Just to answer the main question...
Windows sucks. What more can we say? Everybody hates it, but why does everybody use it?
1. Most "out of the box" ready computers are bundled with Windows. These days It's either XP Home or XP Pro. If It's a server they are probably bundled with Windows 2003 server standard or a special version (datacenter ...).
2. Most computer courses, at least over here are made with Windows.
3. Many schools use Windows even when the computers are only meant to be used for typing, printing and internet.
4. "Normal" folks use Windows mostly because they feel like it simply works for their needs. They don't care so much about philosophical reasons, security, stability, standards, manufacturers support and business practices. They probably don't use the computer so often either.
5. Most OS commercial/ads I've seen involves Windows.
6. Proprietary software. Most high quality pay software including games are made for Windows. This may be one of the biggest reasons why people use Windows. especially the more advanced users. Some examples of common software that make people locked to Windows are Photoshop, Autodesk products like Autocad and 3dsmax, Illustrator, Quark express, Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks etc. Wine, crossover and Cedega fixes that partyly though.
Well, there are probably more, reasons why people use Winblows instead of for ex GNU/Linux or MacOSX but those are what I could think of.
edit:
*** And why I hate Windows hehe....
1. Bloat and more bloat. In XP the standard GUI looks like shit and you're forced to hack the system files if you wan't it to look better (change to third party theme). The "better" gui also requires an extra resource hogging service and is kind of patched on the old gui win2000.
2. Worms, viruses and spyware. The security structure in Windows is a joke which let's any kind of malware to get installed if you don't have some kind of protection. Sometimes even the best antivirus apps like Kaspersky and Nod32 won't protect you good enough so that something could eventually slip in. I've seen many cases where people haven't been able to clean viruses and have been forced to reinstall.
3. Updates and service pack make the OS grow larger and larger. This is kinda annoying. In Gentoo, the updater (portage) installs the new files and remove the old ones. If there are problems occuring with the new versions you just mask the new ones and install the old ones back. In windows Windows update keeps all the old crap in the Windows folder. I remember once my Windows install was like 3gb+. After reinstalling with a fully updated nLite disc it left a footprint of like 300mb or something similar.
4. Integrated apps that aint removable. IE, WMP, winMSN and other integrated apps are supposed to be removable, Well what those instructions actually does is to just hide them and keep them lurking in the background. Also, they still run if you find the executables. nLite can fix such things but removing IE can damage functionality in the OS. This also makes it difficult to run their newer OS's on older computers.
5. Third party apps needed to run and install the OS smoothly. This is one of the most annoying parts of the OS. Should you really be forced to use an antivirus, antispyware, firewall, defragger, registry cleaner, registry defragger, bad application entry cleaner, tweaker (for GUI, internet connection etc) just to make the OS comfortable and running on track. Why do I need to get an third party app like nlite to disable all the crap the XP installs with a standard disc? Shouldn't these things be inbuilt inside the OS?
6. When not following (no 5) the OS get's slower and slower and finally kind off dies.
7. No good maintainance mode. As I read somewhere "safe mode" just swaps the configuration files and still boots into the GUI. There are many cases where "safe-mode" fails to start. I also prefer coding and browsing in CLI-only mode.
8. Drivers. In Windows you need to download drivers from the manufacturer and install it ontop of the kernel. In GNU/linux you'll just compile it in the kernel. Installing extra software for the mouse and for ex joysticks to enable extra features isn't what I call smooth. And darnit, why do I need a floppy everytime I need to install the OS on a SATA disk?
9. Architecture. Win32 is built for i386 computers. Well all the optimisations you get in for ex Gentoo isn't exactly big optimisations but at least it's something.
*** Why I don't like Microsoft
1. Microsoft lies in their Getthefacts report. It's obvious that their research is BS. They are talking about Red hat like it was like all other distros. The opponent products they test are also dated.
2. EU software patents. MS are one of the biggest pushers of this extremely idiotic phenomena. Software patents could probably kill creativity, competition, etc. on the software market. This will add more power to Microsofts domination and force us to use their crap. The pressure would also let up on their products so they wouldn't have to patch their OS as they do today (can it actually get worse..?). I read somewhere that MS has patents on double mouseclicks. WTF?
3. TCG and NGSCB. These technologies will take away freedom from anyone using a fritz chip enabled computer. Using their newer OS's with TCG enabled computers will mean that you are even more surveiled and locked in. Every software maker will need to pay a special fee to Microsoft to make their software running on the newer TCG enabled Windows OS'es. This means that freeware and shareware apps + apps from makers who don't have enough money "will be no more". Also, audio cd and dvd ripping will probably not work.
4. Innovations. From what I've heard and read they are either buying small companies or copying ideas from other persons/companies.
------------------------------------
Also one thing that makes me clueless are Windows users who say that we Linux and FreeBSD users are just using our OS's to be cool. WTF? I use my OS because of the reasons above and note because of status or similar. Are Windows users jealous or something?
I also don't understand how some of you say that compability is a strength of Windows? Ehhhr...
If I was some kind of god I would make Microsoft totally bankrupt. :cool: Unlike some other people I find it very good that EU are stopping Microsoft with fines and new rules.
-
Windows sucks. What more can we say? Everybody hates it, but why does everybody use it?
hassle free Gaming.
Not everybody hates it.
-
Just to answer the main question...
1. Most built-up computers are bundled with Windows. These days It's either XP Home or XP Pro. If It's a server they are probably bundled with Windows 2003 server standard or a special version (datacenter ...).
2. Most computer courses, at least over here are made with Windows.
3. Many schools use Windows even when the computers are only meant to be used for typing, printing and internet.
4. "Normal" folks use Windows mostly because they feel like it simply works for their needs. They don't care so much about philosophical reasons, security, stability, standards, manufacturers support and business practices. They probably don't use the computer so often either.
5. Most OS commercial/ads I've seen involves Windows.
6. Proprietary software. Most high quality pay software including games are made for Windows. This may be one of the biggest reasons why people use Windows. especially the more advanced users. Some examples of common software that make people locked to Windows are Photoshop, Autodesk products like Autocad and 3dsmax, Illustrator, Quark express, Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks etc.
Well, there are probably more, reasons why people use Winblows instead of for ex Linux or MacOSX but those are what I could think of.
I agree.
edit:
*** And why I hate Windows hehe....
Price, lack of customizability, in short Windows doesn't give me enough choices, like webrowser for instance - you just cannot get rid of IE no matter what.
1. Bloat and more bloat.
A typical Windows XP installation uses the same or even less resources than a default install of a Linux distribution that uses KDE. This is where choice is an issue. Fair enough Windows isn't bloated if you want a fully featured desktop, but if you just want a command line interface it is as it forces a GUI on you, and if you just want a Window manager it pushes it's desktop too. Having to put up Internet explorer is also a bloat problem as it's something I don't want but is there anyway.
Having to run 3rd party programs to keep the OS secure just takes the piss. Micosoft should provide all the securuity tools to keep the system safe from hackers.
In XP the standard GUI looks like shit and you're forced to hack the system files if you wan't it to look better (change to third party theme). The "better" gui also requires an extra resource hogging service and is kind of patched on the old gui win2000.
That's a matter of opinion my dad prefers the default Windows XP GUI but I don't know why. My Windows XP installation looks the same as Windows 2000, all I did was alter a few options in control panel.
2. Worms, viruses and spyware. The security structure in Windows is a joke which let's any kind of malware to get installed if you don't have some kind of protection.
Not if you're smart like me and only use a limited user account for Internet access and use FireFox instead of M$ Internet Deplorer.
Sometimes even the best antivirus apps like Kaspersky and Nod32 won't protect you good enough so that something could eventually slip in.
My AGV antivirus does a good enough job, the firewall that came with sp2 isn't as bad as some people say - it's not let any shit into my system so far.
I've seen many cases where people haven't been able to clean viruses and have been forced to reinstall.
That is a bitch but if you take the appropriate precautions this will never happen.
3. Updates and service pack make the OS grow larger and larger.
sp2 was the biggest so far at 266MB but even that wasn't too bad.
This is kinda annoying. In Gentoo, the updater (portage) installs the new files and remove the old ones. If there are problems occuring with the new versions you just mask the new ones and install the old ones back. In windows Windows update keeps all the old crap in the Windows folder. I remember once my Windows install was like 3gb+. After reinstalling with a fully updated nLite disc it left a footprint of like 300mb or something similar.
I agree removing some updates like sp2 is impossible, and I shoud add this to my reasons I don't like Windows. But some of the smaller updates can be removed without any problem.
4. Integrated apps that aint removable. IE, WMP, winMSN and other integrated apps are supposed to be removable, Well what those instructions actually does is to just hide them and keep them lurking in the background. Also, they still run if you find the executables. nLite can fix such things but removing IE can damage functionality in the OS.
I agree Microsoft shouldn't push their programs on us. Yes you can't fully remove IE but WMP and winMSN aren't that hard too remove.
5. Third party apps needed to run and install the OS smoothly. This is one of the most annoying parts of the OS. Should you really be forced to use an antivirus, antispyware, firewall, defragger, registry cleaner, registry defragger, bad application entry cleaner, tweaker (for GUI, internet connection etc) just to make the OS comfortable and running on track. Why do I need to get an third party app like nlite to disable all the crap the XP installs with a standard disc?
Shouldn't these things be inbuilt inside the OS?
Yes they should, they should replace IE and media player and the other shit we don't want.
6. When not following (no 5) the OS get's slower and slower and finally kind off dies.
I haven't had this problem my XP install is now over a year old and it runs at the same speed as it was when it was new.
7. No good maintainance mode. As I read somewhere "safe mode" just swaps the configuration files and still boots into the GUI. There are many cases where "safe-mode" fails to start. I also prefer coding and browsing in CLI-only mode.
Well there is recovery console but it sucks shit, for some reason it doen't allow you access to half to the files. It should be able to access the whole hardisc and be able to backup your files on a CD-ROM or DVD.
*** Why I don't like Microsoft
1. Microsoft lies in their Getthefacts report. It's obvious that their research is BS. They are talking about Red hat like it was like all other distros.
2. EU software patents. MS are one of the biggest pushers of this extremely idiotic phenomena. Software patents could probably kill creativity, competition, etc. on the software market. This will add more power to Microsofts domination and force us to use their crap. The pressure would also let up on their products so they wouldn't have to patch their OS as they do today (can it actually get worse..?). I read somewhere that MS has patents on double mouseclicks. WTF?
3. TCG and NGSCB. These technologies will take away freedom from anyone using a fritz chip enabled computer. Using their newer OS's with TCG enabled computers will mean that you are even more surveiled and locked in. Every software maker will need to pay a special fee to Microsoft to make their software running on the newer TCG enabled Windows OS'es. This means that freeware and shareware apps + apps from makers who don't have enough money "will be no more". Also, audio cd and dvd ripping will probably not work.
4. Innovations. From what I've heard and read they are either buying small companies or copying ideas from other persons/companies.
------------------------------------
Also one thing that makes me clueless are Windows users who say that we Linux and FreeBSD users are just using our OS's to be cool. WTF? I use my OS because of the reasons above and note because of status or similar. Are Windows users jealous or something?
I also don't understand how some of you say that compability is a strength of Windows? Ehhhr...
If I was some kind of god I would make Microsoft totally bankrupt. :cool: Unlike some other people I find it very good that EU are stopping Microsoft with fines and new rules.
What more can I say I couldn't agree more.
-
I agree.
Price, lack of customizability, in short Windows doesn't give me enough choices, like webrowser for instance - you just cannot get rid of IE no matter what.
A typical Windows XP installation uses the same or even less resources than a default install of a Linux distribution that uses KDE. This is where choice is an issue. Fair enough Windows isn't bloated if you want a fully featured desktop, but if you just want a command line interface it is as it forces a GUI on you, and if you just want a Window manager it pushes it's desktop too. Having to put up Internet explorer is also a bloat problem as it's something I don't want but is there anyway.
That's a matter of opinion my dad prefers the default Windows XP GUI but I don't know why. My Windows XP installation looks the same as Windows 2000, all I did was alter a few options in control panel.
Yes you're right but compare it to example fluxbox or xfce. I wasn't comparing XP to distros and Mandriva and Fedora etc, more like Gentoo and Debian. And, off course I know of the win2000 interface but that looks so damn booring :).
Not if you're smart like me and only use a limited user account for Internet access and use FireFox instead of M$ Internet Deplorer.
Yes I forgot about that... The problem though is that a standard xp installation leaves you with the administrator account like your standard one. With any distro you're pretty forced to create a user account.
sp2 was the biggest so far at 266MB but even that wasn't too bad.
I agree removing some updates like sp2 is impossible, and I shoud add this to my reasons I don't like Windows. But some of the smaller updates can be removed without any problem.
Well the annoyance was that XP keeps all the roll back crap left, not if you could uninstall it.
I agree Microsoft shouldn't push their programs on us. Yes you can't fully remove IE but WMP and winMSN aren't that hard too remove.
Well I remember that I was forced to roll back the system to "uninstall it" according to some instructions. And still it was present in a hidden folder.
I haven't had this problem my XP install is now over a year old and it runs at the same speed as it was when it was new.
I think you need to install/uninstall a lot of apps and games first. That's what hogs the registry and makes the discs defragged. It's a known fact.
Well there is recovery console but it sucks shit, for some reason it doen't allow you access to half to the files. It should be able to access the whole hardisc and be able to backup your files on a CD-ROM or DVD.
Yes, I think I tried the recovery console and it was pure shit,
edit:
Some more annoyances...
1. Bugs and crashes. I haven't gotten my comp to crash that much. Most times it were faulty drivers or wrong ram config in bios. It's those darn bugs in the Windows OS that annoys me. I remember that unfixable bug that made an enormous blank entry in the add/remove manager. All my software was up to date and there was no fix available for it. It said something about autocad 2002 but I didn't have autocad 2002 installed at all. I can't understand how the program manager could let a software create such a big entry. Explorer.exe also produces a lot of crap from time to time. When an explorer window crashes the whole interface just dies.
2. Price. WinXP is so overpriced that it aint true. For all the trouble the OS causes I wouldn't even want to get the crap for free. And that reduced edition is a joke.
3. No freedom nor nearly any control at all.
-
2. EU software patents. MS are one of the biggest pushers of this extremely idiotic phenomena. Software patents could probably kill creativity, competition, etc. on the software market. This will add more power to Microsofts domination and force us to use their crap. The pressure would also let up on their products so they wouldn't have to patch their OS as they do today (can it actually get worse..?). I read somewhere that MS has patents on double mouseclicks. WTF?
I hate those bastard-patents too. Apple invented the doubleclick (to my knowledge).
:fu:bastard-patents.
-
1. Bugs and crashes. I haven't gotten my comp to crash that much. Most times it were faulty drivers or wrong ram config in bios. It's those darn bugs in the Windows OS that annoys me. I remember that unfixable bug that made an enormous blank entry in the add/remove manager. All my software was up to date and there was no fix available for it. It said something about autocad 2002 but I didn't have autocad 2002 installed at all. I can't understand how the program manager could let a software create such a big entry. Explorer.exe also produces a lot of crap from time to time. When an explorer window crashes the whole interface just dies.
I find Windows quite stable it has only crashed once in a year, and then it just locked up there was no blue screen of death. Normally when a program crashes it just crashes and Windows keeps running and running - I've left a Win2K computer on at work for 4 weeks and it didn't crash I only needed to reboot it bacause we needed to move it!
This is just amazing it's unbelieveable how much difference switching from a DOS kernel to an NT kernal has made if you ask me the change has been long overdue. I still find it quite funny how some people have had problems with Windows being unstable and how mine and all the computers both at work and college never crash because they're administrated properly.
2. Price. WinXP is so overpriced that it aint true. For all the trouble the OS causes I wouldn't even want to get the crap for free. And that reduced edition is a joke.
3. No freedom nor nearly any control at all.
I agree completely.
-
If I was some kind of god I would make Microsoft totally bankrupt. :cool: Unlike some other people I find it very good that EU are stopping Microsoft with fines and new rules.
I agree. But I wonder why the EU has only fined M$ for the Windows Media Player monopoly. That's only the tip of the iceberg. What about IE, for example? That's no different than the case with the media player monopoly.
And what about all the proprietary systems they are keeping to themselves, preventing them from being properly used on other OSes - like NTFS and DirectX, for example? I don't know if stuff like those classify as monopoly in the eyes of the EU, but it's clear what M$ is after. The more it can force software and hardware manufacturers play by its own rules, from which the open source community is kept away, the better.
All in all, M$ doesn't give a shit how their software works. Buggy software is just a way to make people "upgrade". Of course they can't compete fairly with bullshit, so they have to play against the rules or at least as dirty as they can without being whistled. I doubt they think integrating their crap into the OS makes it work any better, on the contrary. But they want to have some kind of excuse to why they supposedly can't remove their monopolyware.
EDIT: Forgot one thing. My hate against M$ and Windows doesn't come entirely from the crappy OS. It is somewhat usable, although unpleasant, if you know your way around it. Why do I hate everything Microsoft, then? Since computers are such an important part of today's infrastructure (that sounds like politicianish, doesn't it?), they can't all rely on a greedy corporation that seeks only to fulfill its own interests, profit at the cost of everything else, that is.
-
I thought the EU were forcing MS to give up some of their trade secrets for the sake of intercompatability and this should include their data formats.
I think making them bankrupt is going too far, what about all the job loses? I believe breaking them up into many companies would be a more realistic solution.
-
I think Microsoft is one creature that does not deserve to live. We have jointly desposed of the Third Reich, of the Soviet Union, and now comes the Third Evil Empire. The first was destroyed by means of the military, the second economically, so why not destroy the third (and hopefully last) by means of moral integrity and sheer numbers of enlightened souls...
-
Ok, put MS out of business.
Seeing as that is your idea, are your going to pay for all the economic effects that doing so would cause. Would you hire and relocate all the unemployed programmers, honor all of Microsofts contractual obligations, pay off all their debts?
Well, would you? Otherwise, you should re-think all of your plans to "Put MS out of business".
-
Exactly, Microsoft should be fragmented into many smaller businesses like I said in my previous post if anyone bothered to read it.
-
Exactly, Microsoft should be fragmented into many smaller businesses like I said in my previous post if anyone bothered to read it.
That sounds like a good idea but I dunno if/how it'd work.
Judging solely by the name, the ultimate goal of "The Microsoft Eradication Society" is to eliminate Microsoft.
I think we need a plan :p
-
We could borrow the Ubuntu peoples CD stamper and ship out millions of Linux CD's labled "Windows Uber Upgrade" then when they see linux theyt get addicted and spread the word, MUWHHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
Ok, seriously though. If you think about it, the most common victims of windows are inexperieced web-surfers. These people are very vonarable to viruses and spyware from obvious reasons. These are the kind of people that like stuff to work all the time, the kind that like consistency. This is what properly installed linux distros are like, stable, uniform, and consistant. I think the best way to win the masses, is to make a linux distro for these people. It would be tailor fit to these users, coming installed with, productivity apps, simple games, firefox with flash plugin etc. The install would be simplified and completly graphical. A simple package manager with specific categorys would be included. I really do think that the Ubuntu people would love to take on a project like this, and they have the equipment for mass production. I'm sure it would be easy to get ad-space thru news shows, writings etc.
-
There are tonnes of easy to use GNU/Linux distros. Mandriva, Fedora (I think), SuSE, etc.
Mandriva is roumered to be easier to use than Windows, only that most people are used to Windows and Mandriva is different, and, inheritantly, harder. And I believe Mandriva is easier to use than Windows too.
If we could convince people that Mandriva (or whatever distro) is as easy to use as Windows, and somehow get it to the OEMs, and write some kick arse documentation (for noobs), I think that'd be sweet. GNU/Linux already has some class documentation, but noobs won't understand it.
Like if there was a "Ditch Windows and get started with GNU/Linux NOW" kinda book/site (I was thinking of writing some documentation over the Summer...).
That ^^ is kindof already happening ATM.
I've gotten a few people onto Mandriva to the point that it's installed and ready-for-teh-noob. And the voyage ends there.
WTF?
The only sensible conclusion I can think of is that they think that Mandriva is not-for-them. And when they're asked to pick which OS to boot, they'll pick Windows, all the time. Because Windows has what they need (seeing as everything (software, hardware) is designed for Windows/Mac, and rarely GNU/Linux). They need nothing in GNU/Linux. They might think they'd like it until it's working.
I think in the next 2-3 years, there'll be lots more people giving GNU/Linux a try. Some will take the time and learn it, and stay and live happy lives. The rest may shrivel up and die.
What annoys me more than MS's monopoly on the OS market, is their monopoly on the Office market (?). I fail to understand why any sane person would prefer MS Office to OpenOffice.org.
WTF is with all the fcking schools/universities/EVERYTHING ELSE using MS Office? I just don't get it.
For example, in my school we pretty much only use MS Office in computer class. When we get on the internet, we use IE for browsing (WWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYY????????). Next year I'm skipping those fckin' MS classes. Thank FUCK my year doesn't do them this year.
When the ECDL exam comes up next year I'll do it in OOo or nothing.
-
I agree with out piratePenguin, the reason why people pick Windows is simply because it's what they all ready know. Most people have very little inscentive to try out something new, if Windows works for them and their happy with it then why should they bother to learn how to use a new operating system?
The same goes for office suite and email client, the only aception to the rule is FireFox as there's virtually no learning curve. But even then if given the choice they'll always click on Internet Explorer simply out of habit yet if I change the icon they never complain about using FireFox.
-
I must say I'd recommend Ubuntu over Mandrake anytime, but that's prolly just apersonal preference - the two are both *perfect* for noobs and ex-windozers.
I just converted a friend two days ago. Installed a dual boot w2k/Ubuntu (not necessarily in this order), and he's already thinking of reformatting the dreaded C: drive...
-
What annoys me more than MS's monopoly on the OS market, is their monopoly on the Office market (?). I fail to understand why any sane person would prefer MS Office to OpenOffice.org.
WTF is with all the fcking schools/universities/EVERYTHING ELSE using MS Office? I just don't get it.
That's easy. MS Office is better than Open Office. My wife being an English major takes the Office spell checker, and grammar checker for granted. I tried to get her to use Open Office, and she had a fit. The spell checker in Open Office is simply sub-par compared to Microosft's and there is no grammar checker at all in OO!
Now, I'm not saying OO isn't a great product - it is - but it's different enough to make long time users of MS Office not like it. The interface of OO is not exactly like MS Office, and for non-technical users (like my wife) this can be terrifying.
-
I can't but agree with you, Toadlife, but still, I prefer OOo, if it is solely for ideological reasons.
-
That's easy. MS Office is better than Open Office. My wife being an English major takes the Office spell checker, and grammar checker for granted. I tried to get her to use Open Office, and she had a fit. The spell checker in Open Office is simply sub-par compared to Microosft's and there is no grammar checker at all in OO!
Now, I'm not saying OO isn't a great product - it is - but it's different enough to make long time users of MS Office not like it. The interface of OO is not exactly like MS Office, and for non-technical users (like my wife) this can be terrifying.
I'd rather no grammar checker, than the MS Office one.
That thing is so crap it is unbelievable.
Of course, Microsoft are an American company so perhaps I should cut 'em some slack on crimers against grammar :)
-
That's easy. MS Office is better than Open Office. My wife being an English major takes the Office spell checker, and grammar checker for granted. I tried to get her to use Open Office, and she had a fit. The spell checker in Open Office is simply sub-par compared to Microosft's and there is no grammar checker at all in OO!
Now, I'm not saying OO isn't a great product - it is - but it's different enough to make long time users of MS Office not like it. The interface of OO is not exactly like MS Office, and for non-technical users (like my wife) this can be terrifying.
Yea but "teaching" MS Office in school is...
EVIL!
-
I'd rather no grammar checker, than the MS Office one.
That thing is so crap it is unbelievable.
Of course, Microsoft are American so perhaps I should cut 'em some slack on crimers against grammar :)
It is quite ironic that you say that, considering the horrendous grammar of your post. ;)
-
I must say I'd recommend Ubuntu over Mandrake anytime, but that's prolly just apersonal preference - the two are both *perfect* for noobs and ex-windozers.
I just converted a friend two days ago. Installed a dual boot w2k/Ubuntu (not necessarily in this order), and he's already thinking of reformatting the dreaded C: drive...
Good job!
I started off on Mandrake and that's really the main reason I been recommending it to so many people.
I used Ubuntu a good bit and I have one sub-successful convert using Ubuntu. It probably might be better for Windows users.
I'll probably recommend Ubuntu from now on. Maybe.
-
It is quite ironic that you say that, considering the horrendous grammar of your post. ;)
I'll try harder next time.
-
That's easy. MS Office is better than Open Office. My wife being an English major takes the Office spell checker, and grammar checker for granted. I tried to get her to use Open Office, and she had a fit. The spell checker in Open Office is simply sub-par compared to Microosft's and there is no grammar checker at all in OO!
Now, I'm not saying OO isn't a great product - it is - but it's different enough to make long time users of MS Office not like it. The interface of OO is not exactly like MS Office, and for non-technical users (like my wife) this can be terrifying.
I agree, I like OpenOffice and I prefer it for for vector graphics becuase it's drawing tools are a lot beter than MS office's and the fact that it can save in more formats is also an added bonus. OpenOffice is also less efficent at managing the system resources because to do word processing you have to have the whole office suite loaded.
I do miss the grammar and the MS office spell checker was better along with the charting package and formula editor which the did buy of another company.
The main reason why I use OpenOffice is because my PC came with the big fat and shitty software called MS works who's name in it's self is a joke. MS never Works has to be possibly the the worst piece of MS software I've ever seen, it's featureless and virtually incompatable with MS office, the only advantage it has is it's lighter and uses less resources but that's because it's full of hot air. :D
-
It's time for me to play devil
-
At least MS would be good-as-dead, and Microsuck's ultimate goal would be realised.
The tyranny that is MS would be powerless.
Power to the community!
Erm. Anyhow.
Use GNU/Hurd!
-
For a start the default Windows XP configuration sets up the account with administrator rights while every Linux distibtion I know of forces you to have a separate user account.
Linux is far cheaper to maintain than Windows - lower total cost of ownership.
Windows is far harder to modify and customize.
Windows requires 3rd party software to run well, while Linux comes with everything you need.
-
For a start the default Windows XP configuration sets up the account with administrator rights while every Linux distibtion I know of forces you to have a separate user account.
Actually, the Slackware installer only asks for a root pass and that's it. Then after rebooting you can add a user all ya want with useradd.
-
So slackware doesn't pretend to be newb friendly like Windows does.
-
So slackware doesn't pretend to be newb friendly like Windows does.
Last I checked Windows didn't even ask for a password on install.
And I was just pointing it out BTW.
Slackware is the last distro for noobs to try. It, Gentoo, and LFS I think (from the distros I've used).
-
For a start the default Windows XP configuration sets up the account with administrator rights while every Linux distibtion I know of forces you to have a separate user account.
So? What permissions are required to place an executable file called evildaemon.bin in ~/.malware/ and set it to start up when KDE loads?
Linux is far cheaper to maintain than Windows - lower total cost of ownership.
In order for the masses to use it, there will have to be seamless auto-update that doesn't involve the command line, and lasts for more than 18 months per version. Name a distro that supports this without having to pay. If there were 100,000 million desktop Linux users, the existing free update solutions that certain linux vendor's support just wouldn't work, because of the enormous costs involved.
Windows is far harder to modify and customize.
But does the average user give a shit about this?
Windows requires 3rd party software to run well, while Linux comes with everything you need.
And you don't think that would change if everyone switched to linux?
-
And you don't think that would change if everyone switched to linux?
Linux is shipped with all the software you require to run a secure system while Windows requires anti-virus and other 3rd party tools to unfuck it when something bad happens.
-
Don't you have to have permission to run anything that would do any damage in Linux?
But, to be fair. I use Windows at work. Its been solid in the 7 months I have been here. No problems at all. None. I think it's because I am not an idiot...
I haven't had an virus problems, or spyware problems, or bsods, or random system freezes, and Bill Gates hasn't taken over my soul yet. I used to have tons of problems with Windows, but I found out it was all hardware related.
you people are so stupid all you do is sit around a complain about microsoft are there any other operating systems more used why because it is the best easiest for most people and you are just to lazy to go work and make a better one and create a monopoly yourself until you do that you cant complain you are just jeoulous you couldnt think to create a monopoly and make billions of dollars yourself
This is my favorite post in the history of the world.
well im sick of you your not my friend anymore because you stole my bmx and kissed my girlfriend in the trees while i was waiting for the bus which was late and i came home and mother gave me a spanking which is all your fault because you couldnt think to steal a car and pick me up so then we could get to school on time and learn how to write a proper sentance
So is this :)
-
Don't you have to have permission to run anything that would do any damage in Linux?
To the system, yes. But you can damnage the user a/c, send spam and some other stuff. Let it be known: THIS IS NOT AS BAD AS THE SITUATION ON WINDOWS!
-
Don't you have to have permission to run anything that would do any damage in Linux?
But, to be fair. I use Windows at work. Its been solid in the 7 months I have been here. No problems at all. None. I think it's because I am not an idiot...
I haven't had an virus problems, or spyware problems, or bsods, or random system freezes, and Bill Gates hasn't taken over my soul yet. I used to have tons of problems with Windows, but I found out it was all hardware related.
I agree, Windows has only crashed on me once in over year. Pre Windows 2000 was a different story the shitty old DOS kernel made it highly unstable.
This is my favorite post in the history of the world.
So is this :)
I agree. :D
-
Then it again falls on the user not being a complete and total fucktard. Maybe it's a good thing they all use windows?
-
I agree imagine what UNIX would be like with retards at the wheel.
Can anyone else think of any reasons why not to use Windows?
I was very suprised at the lack of Linux supporters who challenged toadlife's post, can it be that Windows is improving and people here are fast running out of reasons for people to switch to alternatives?
-
I think it's because I am not an idiot...
Umm... Err...
I think you might want to edit/remove that. Seriously.
I'm not an idiot. I used to use Windows XP.
It crashed. Alot.
And I know Windows inside out. Obviously more than likely not as much as muzzy and possibly yourself, but WHY should one need to learn so much to make the system run smooth?
Crashing can barely ever be blamed on the user. It's either the software (OS + drivers), or the hardware causing the computer to crash. Windows runs like shite under some hardware setups, it seems. Whereas GNU/Linux would generally kick ass on the same hardware. That tells me that the software that is Windows and it's drivers are SHIT (as in unstable).
-
I would say it's more that this isn't 1998 anymore. XP is pretty solid, even if it is bloated.
While, in my eyes, the alternatives to Windows are superior, especially when it comes to increasing my own productivity, for basic users doing basic tasks, email, internet, managing their photos, printing those photos, even watching movies and listening to music, windows works fine for them. It tries to make it easier. I believe that it is even easier on OSX though. Apple did it right. Work on the basic things and make them simpler for the user. Then you can add more functionality to it. With Linux, maybe there are too many choices. What normal user is going to test out 3 different email clients, 5 browsers, 3 office suites, etc, when they really have no idea what they are looking at in the first place? It's overwhelming.
Umm... Err...
I think you might want to edit/remove that. Seriously.
I'm not an idiot. I used to use Windows XP.
It crashed. Alot.
And I know Windows inside out. Obviously more than likely not as much as muzzy and possibly yourself, but WHY should one need to learn so much to make the system run smooth?
Crashing can barely ever be blamed on the user. It's either the software (OS + drivers), or the hardware causing the computer to crash. Windows runs like shite under some hardware setups, it seems. Whereas GNU/Linux would generally kick ass on the same hardware. That tells me that the software that is Windows and it's drivers are SHIT (as in unstable).
Ha, no I am not going to remove that. My windows machine is solid right now. Do a search for my old posts, from like 2-3 years ago, and yeah, i would bitch about it all the time. But it's hardware most of the time. This machine I am using now is solid.
Also, when I get a new linux install, first thing I do is tweak the hell out of it to make it work the way I want to. I spend a long time doing that, and learning to make it work, leraning the system. Why shouldn't you do the same with Windows? Even in OSX I will spend time making it work. Sure, it works out of the box, but at some point you have to tweak it a bit.
-
I was very suprised at the lack of Linux supporters who challenged toadlife's post, can it be that Windows is improving and people here are fast running out of reasons for people to switch to alternatives?
Read his post again, there's so many assumptions in it. And they are kindof realistic. But anything could happen.
That's why I listed the non-technical consequences of the fall of MS.
And I forgot one BTW:
FREEDOM!
-
Are we not free to use Windows if we choose? Freedom is having the ability to choose what we want to run. If that choice is windows, then so be it. Don't start talking shit about not being free. Right now at work, if I so choose to, I can install Fedora and use that. Is that not free?
-
The drivers aren't the fault of the operating system. Often GNU/Linux can have poor quality drivers, in fact it's not uncommon for graphics cards to work but without the acceleration, printer/scanners to print but not scan and modems not working.
Any operating system can be fucked up by bad drivers. For example my printer scanner came with both Windows and Mac drivers and as they're both written by the same company the Mac driver is as good or bad as the Windows dirver. In this cas the Linux driver was by far the worst as it would print but not scan.
Noramally Windows/Mac drivers are written by the hardware vendor but Linux drivers are hacked togeather by geeks. Companies often don't wan't to give up their trade secretes so they don't release details of the protocol used to communicate with the device. The Linux dirvers are often a product of reverse engineering while the Windows and Mac divers are normally written with full knowledge of the hardware. I admit there are as always exeptions to the rule but this is the norm.
-
Ha, no I am not going to remove that. My windows machine is solid right now. Do a search for my old posts, from like 2-3 years ago, and yeah, i would bitch about it all the time. But it's hardware most of the time. This machine I am using now is solid.
Well... After a bit of thought one would find that user knowledge doesn't make the OS any more stable/secure. Maybe the system.
Also, when I get a new linux install, first thing I do is tweak the hell out of it to make it work the way I want to. I spend a long time doing that, and learning to make it work, leraning the system. Why shouldn't you do the same with Windows? Even in OSX I will spend time making it work. Sure, it works out of the box, but at some point you have to tweak it a bit.
WTF is that about? I've used Windows for years and I am not going back to that pi-ece o' shite no-matter what.
And I can't make Windows work the way I want to. I can't make it stable. I can't make it secure. I've tried everything under the Sun. It doesn't work. The only solution: ditch that pi-ece o' shite!
-
Read his post again, there's so many assumptions in it. And they are kindof realistic. But anything could happen.
That's why I listed the non-technical consequences of the fall of MS.
And I forgot one BTW:
FREEDOM!
I agree but most people don't really care about whether software is free or not all they care is it does what they want.
-
The drivers aren't the fault of the operating system. Often GNU/Linux can have poor quality drivers, in fact it's not uncommon for graphics cards to work but without the acceleration, printer/scanners to print but not scan and modems not working.
Any operating system can be fucked up by bad drivers. For example my printer scanner came with both Windows and Mac drivers and as they're both written by the same company the Mac driver is as good or bad as the Windows dirver. In this cas the Linux driver was by far the worst as it would print but not scan.
Noramally Windows/Mac drivers are written by the hardware vendor but Linux drivers are hacked togeather by geeks. Companies often don't wan't to give up their trade secretes so they don't release details of the protocol used to communicate with the device. The Linux dirvers are often a product of reverse engineering while the Windows and Mac divers are normally written with full knowledge of the hardware. I admit there are as always exeptions to the rule but this is the norm.
You'd think that Windows would have stable drivers LMAO! It's so damn funny. The most popular, and supposadly stable OS out there and the MANUFACTURERS are FUCKING IT UP with SHIT DRIVERS!
GO MANUFACTURERS!
GNU/Linux may be excused, for it recieves too damn little manufacturer support (good thing?), and the manufacturers don't give two fucks about the drivers they do make for it (good thing?).
-
Are we not free to use Windows if we choose? Freedom is having the ability to choose what we want to run. If that choice is windows, then so be it. Don't start talking shit about not being free. Right now at work, if I so choose to, I can install Fedora and use that. Is that not free?
What I said was that the fall of MS would ultamitely lead to greater freedom. As would the fall of any monopoly, I'd expect.
-
Well... After a bit of thought one would find that user knowledge doesn't make the OS any more stable/secure. Maybe the system.
WTF is that about? I've used Windows for years and I am not going back to that pi-ece o' shite no-matter what.
And I can't make Windows work the way I want to. I can't make it stable. I can't make it secure. I've tried everything under the Sun. It doesn't work. The only solution: ditch that pi-ece o' shite!
No one said go back to windows. But, for those of us that do use it, should we just not be expected to learn it, like we would learn how to use Linux, or OSX? Why should we expect windows to work perfect, when that is not expected of the other operating systems? I apologize for defending windows, but honestly, it's being attacked unfairly in my opinion.
Also. Have you been hacked? Has your system been compromised? Mine never has. For the years I used Windows, noone hacked me. The worst that has happened was a nasty virus because I used to use Kazaa back in the day.
What I said was that the fall of MS would ultamitely lead to greater freedom. As would the fall of any monopoly, I'd expect.
Okay. You are free to use linux and nothing else. Now that MS is out of the way, everything can be Linux. And only Linux.
-
No one said go back to windows.
I misread it, sorry.
Why shouldn't you do the same with Windows?
I know lots about Windows (how many times is it I've said that now?). Most other Windows users don't. Ideally, they would all learn a bit about Windows, so they can learn to hate it :D (only messin').
Seriously though, there are "user-friendly" GNU/Linux distros out there (Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc.), and newbs use them. Newbs that don't know what the 'cd' command does. Newbs that don't know what X11 is. Newbs that don't know what a kernel is. Newbs that don't know what vim/emacs is. You get the picture...
There isn't much to learn in Windows, AFAIK.
EDIT:
Also. Have you been hacked? Has your system been compromised? Mine never has. For the years I used Windows, noone hacked me. The worst that has happened was a nasty virus because I used to use Kazaa back in the day.
Not to my knowledge have I been hacked. But I'm only on dial-up, and I have iptables setup as strict as possible.
I'll never forget the "Remote Procedure Calls" (RPC) I used to get on XP, and they'd popup a warning with a timer to shutdown. Was that the result of being hacked ('cause I dunno if it was :/ )?
-
Oh, I do. Not all noobs are created equal though.
User friendly is a difficult area. What is friendly to some, is ass-backwards to others. Just listen to a mac vs windows argument sometime.
And for the record, I am a hardcore osx and linux fan. At home, I run osx on 2 macs, and debian sarge on a dual athlon (which is suffering from a bad mother board right now). Windows doesn't exist once I leave the office.
-
You'd think that Windows would have stable drivers LMAO!
In general most Windows drivers are stable.
It's so damn funny. The most popular, and supposadly stable OS out there
No one said Windows is the most stable OS.
and the MANUFACTURERS are FUCKING IT UP with SHIT DRIVERS!
GO MANUFACTURERS!
So both Windows and Mac drivers are shit then.
GNU/Linux may be excused, for it recieves too damn little manufacturer support (good thing?), and the manufacturers don't give two fucks about the drivers they do make for it (good thing?).
Of course they do, if one company's drivers are shit but the hardware is a lot better value than another vendors but their drivers are better, people will pick the one with the moast reliable drivers.
So by your logic you can write better drivers by reverse engineering. :rolleyes:
-
So by your logic you can write better drivers by reverse engineering. :rolleyes:
That's what it looks like. That the geeks can write better drivers by reverse engineering.
I suppose it's probably worth noting that I've only ever once bothered to try to get my pi-ece o' shite Lexmark something printer working in GNU/Linux. And that was on Slackware a long time ago. I _eventually_ got it working, just about, but it was no easy job. And then, I could print. It didn't crash the system or anything like that, just worked.
My USB 8-in-1 memory card reader works like a dream on all distros. Just stick in the card and check /dev/sd[whatever]
I don't have a scanner to try and get working.
Okay. You are free to use linux and nothing else. Now that MS is out of the way, everything can be Linux. And only Linux.
LMAO, how wrong could you be. In the 10 months since ditching Windows, I've used (as in installed and learned a bit about; For most other OSes I can't get on ISDN, because the OS either doesn't have sufficient support or because I couldn't get it working when I tried) multiple GNU/Linux distros, FreeBSD (5.3-Release), Debian GNU/Hurd (!), Mac OS X (brothers powerbook... I use it alot, and teach him about it :cool: ), BeOS Max (good enuff), and I'm not sure that ReactOS counts.
Have I forgotten anything?
"linux and nothing else" I laugh so hard.
-
And I forgot one BTW:
FREEDOM!
I agree,
WTF is that about? I've used Windows for years and I am not going back to that pi-ece o' shite no-matter what.
And I can't make Windows work the way I want to. I can't make it stable. I can't make it secure. I've tried everything under the Sun. It doesn't work. The only solution: ditch that pi-ece o' shite!
I agree, but
GNU/Linux may be excused, for it recieves too damn little manufacturer support (good thing?), and the manufacturers don't give two fucks about the drivers they do make for it (good thing?).
How the hell can that be a good thing?
-
How the hell can that be a good thing?
Well apparantly crappy manufacturer drivers is what fucked up Windows. I don't get it either.
-
Saying that Linux drivers are better because they're hacked togeather by a process of reverse engineering simply doesn't make sense. Writing a driver without any information about a piece of hardware is like learning to program in C with out any examples or documentation.
-
Saying that Linux drivers are better because they're hacked togeather by a process of reverse engineering simply doesn't make sense. Writing a driver without any information about a piece of hardware is like learning to program in C with out and examples or documentation.
Whatever way they're put together,
the result _is_ better.
In my experience (I didn't wanna destroy the rhyme with brackets).
What about your experience, Aloone?
-
"linux and nothing else" I laugh so hard.
Keep laughing. Just about every Linux user I have met spouts the same shit. They are just as bad, if not worse, than Windows apologists and mac addicts.
-
Keep laughing. Just about every Linux user I have met spouts the same shit. They are just as bad, if not worse, than Windows apologists and mac addicts.
I laugh so hard.
You see it's funny, because I have my own reasons for disliking GNU/Linux (the linux part of it, really). If I didn't have this fucking Junior Cert. in 2 weeks you could bet your ass I'd be posting this from GNU/Hurd, or at least FreeBSD.
-
If I were at home, I would be posting from osx... 10.4 even. whoa.
I sorta laughed at it.
Not that hard though. I really don't care what you prefer to use.
-
If I were at home, I would be posting from osx... 10.4 even. whoa.
You are so cool. I wish I could be more like you.
-
Whatever way they're put together,
the result _is_ better.
In my experience (I didn't wanna destroy the rhyme with brackets).
What about your experience, Aloone?
My Leximark printer/scanner would print though it wouln't scan and it was slower under Linux than Windows.
My graphics card was very slow in Redhat Linux (2.4.x kernel) so I installed a different driver but it still was slow. In Vector Linux and knoppix (2.6 kernel) it was a lot faster for general purpose desktop graphics but the 3D graphics on games are still very slow.
The winmodem would work under the 2.4.x kernel but it wouldn't work in 2.6.x becuase the driver wouldn't compile and the documentation said it was designed for 2.6 only.
Windows on the other hand isn't too bad, my Cannon LBP-660 printer works on Windows XP even though the driver was designed for NT4. I believe there's now a Linux driver for this too though I haven't tested it. This shows how in one area I've found Windows to be more backwards compatable than Linux.
I've had a few problems with the graphics card with Windows too, often it crashed when going into the screen saver, but this was fixed by adjusting the monitor power saving configuration.
My personal experiance backs up my theory, however now let me talk about the exeptions to the rule, drivers by manufactures who release information about their hardware or even better release free drivers are likely to be better.
-
You are so cool. I wish I could be more like you.
First thing would be to stop adding fake tags to your post. It's not like the sarcasm was that hard to detect.
If you can't keep windows XP stable, you are doing something wrong. I leave the machine on all the time. I rarely turn it off for the weekend. It has yet to give me any problems. If it is so bad, shouldn't I have blue screened by now? Shouldn't it have locked up a few dozen times already today?
-
I've never setup a printer/scanner before, but I would've thought it'd be install the printer *then* install the scanner (or vica versa). Not like an all in one thing (maybe it is).
If you're using the manufacturer gfx card drivers.. I've never had any problems with them. But I don't use them any more (non-free, plus I don't play games and son't need them).
What gfx card do you have?
Winmodems were designed for Windows (as was most of the other hardware too I suppose).
I have no idea about the backward-compatible thing.
Free manufacturer drivers... I wish.
3dfx used to have open-source drivers, dunno if they were proper(GNU)-free tho.
-
First thing would be to stop adding fake tags to your post. It's not like the sarcasm was that hard to detect.
If you can't keep windows XP stable, you are doing something wrong. I leave the machine on all the time. I rarely turn it off for the weekend. It has yet to give me any problems. If it is so bad, shouldn't I have blue screened by now? Shouldn't it have locked up a few dozen times already today?
No because your drivers are CLASS!
Blame the drivers when it's unstable. Blame them when it's stable :thumbup:
-
No because your drivers are CLASS!
Blame the drivers when it's unstable. Blame them when it's stable :thumbup:
Blame Windows too?
I am failing to see the problem with Windows. Does anyone have a good reason to not use it. When I am selecting new machines for new employees, why would I not choose windows as the os? Why would I choose Linux? Because it's free? That is hardly a good reason. I happily pay for the upgrades to my software. Money isn't an issue. Stability? Of all the machines at the office right now, one was giving us problems, and that has been resolved. Our office is stable. No problems there. Secure? Yeah, it sure does have problems there. However, we haven't been hacked or compromsied. Our shop is a nice blend of *nix and windows. Everything runs smoothly.
Is it a feeling of moral superiority? You are just "better" because you can get by without giving into the "man"?
-
Is it a feeling of moral superiority? You are just "better" because you can get by without giving into the "man"?
None of that fucking bullshite.
Anyhow, Windows is going well for you. I've a feeling I'll not be fit to convert you to the rightous side but what the hell.
How about this: You don't give a shit about money. Do you give a shit about where your money goes to? It goes to Microsoft, one big fat ugly monopoly. We all know monopolies are bad, evil fuckers. ESPECIALLY Microsoft.
And it's YOU who's funding them! YOU EVIL-... Let's not go there.
No wonder the evil bastards have been alive for so long, and their still standing strong because of YOU!
Either accept responsability for the evil MS, or stop funding the evil bastards.
That's as low as I can go :thumbup:
* sits and waits...
-
I rarely turn it off for the weekend.
Off-topic
Is the <2 minutes time you save on Monday morning worse than the environmental effect of you leaving the computer on for 48 hours?
Even if your PC was sucking a modest 20-30 watts, the energy used is not inconsiderable.
-
None of that fucking bullshite.
Anyhow, Windows is going well for you. I've a feeling I'll not be fit to convert you to the rightous side but what the hell.
How about this: You don't give a shit about money. Do you give a shit about where your money goes to? It goes to Microsoft, one big fat ugly monopoly. We all know monopolies are bad, evil fuckers. ESPECIALLY Microsoft.
And it's YOU who's funding them! YOU EVIL-... Let's not go there.
No wonder the evil bastards have been alive for so long, and their still standing strong because of YOU!
Either accept responsability for the evil MS, or stop funding the evil bastards.
That's as low as I can go :thumbup:
* sits and waits...
hehe. Tell me what Microsoft has done that is worse than WalMart, or Nestle? If anything, google is the worst. We are foolishly and blindly being "sold" as a product for thousands of evil greedy businesses. We are googles product. Isn't that of much more concern?
Off-topic
Is the <2 minutes time you save on Monday morning worse than the environmental effect of you leaving the computer on for 48 hours?
Even if your PC was sucking a modest 20-30 watts, the energy used is not inconsiderable.
I'm american, we don't care about shit like that ;)
j/k
Very good point though. Does putting the machine in sleep and turning the monitor not help at least?
-
hehe. Tell me what Microsoft has done that is worse than WalMart, or Nestle? If anything, google is the worst. We are foolishly and blindly being "sold" as a product for thousands of evil greedy businesses. We are googles product. Isn't that of much more concern?
No. If I had to pay for the search engine, or for Gmail etc. I'd be worried. "evil greedy businesses" PAY Google for a spot on my screen. I promptly ignore that spot. The "evil greedy businesses" only lose, and I get a kick ass search engine, some kick ass email etc.
I dunno anything about Walmart, is it like the South Park episode?
Nestle are evil bastards too. I don't buy much from them. They're not the richest company in the world. They don't have an increadible amount of control.
I'll not lose much sleep over them.
Very good point though. Does putting the machine in sleep and turning the monitor not help at least?
Not enuff.
First you fund Microsoft. Now you're gonna destroy the world.
YOU MAKE ME SICK!
(Don't worry, I'll not use this time)
-
Wow, Penguin pretty much said what I was thinking.
Except:
(Don't worry, I'll not use this time)
...liar... :D
-
Wow, Penguin pretty much said what I was thinking.
Except:
...liar... :D
:D
I noticed you guys are thinking of how wonderful it would be for everyone to switch from Windows to linux, but I fail to see the great benefit - at least from a security perspective.
Are you sure? Because I think you do:
Root permissions you say? Who the heck needs root permissions to set up shop inside a user
-
Hey guys... I'm just pushing buttons.
But, to answer your reply. The learning curve for a user that hasn't used either system would be equal, if not leaning towards Fedora or another simple distro. For a windows user going to Linux, its more difficult. It was for me, but I learned. I do not use Windows at home. I am very much anti-windows, and I have my reasons. I just don't see anyone giving a good excuse for such hatred of a company. I am "free" to install what software is available on any system I use. I am "free" to run any os i deem necessary to accomplish whatever task is at hand. I am not bound to only use Windows because Mr. Gates tells me to. Now, I am not free to modify or see the source of MS software. But that doesn't concern me. I am not a developer, I dont snoop through code, or wish to make those kinds of changes. If the software doesnt work the way I want, I find something else. Most of the time, MS software fails me. Windows failed me. So I don't use it. I have it at work, because I don't care enough to migrate my mail, my settings, my work environment to another system. I am leaving this place in one week anyways.
As for giving employees linux. I am not having them create print and web materials with GIMP. It has never been up to the task. Not that I actually prefer them to use Windows, but it is the best tool at my disposal currently. We are not a mac shop. I will never convince management to invest in Apple machines. Linux will not cut it. Maybe for the techs, and maybe for sales and billing, but not my department. In that sense, we are not "free". We are tied to windows. I just don't see it as being that big of a deal. Not anymore.
-
:D
"Removal of infections would be easier since the virus wouldn't have the benefit of root permissions" There's at least one benefit of the masses switching from Windows to GNU/Linux right there. Thanks!
Yes - one small benefit. The problem is the vast majority of people who's machines are "owned" never realize it, so the ease of removal itself becomes irrelevant.
"damage to the internet"? I don't see how that has anything to do with what OS everyone is using.
"the damage to the internet (spam/DoS bots) would be the same."
Umm... I think the hole "dangerous internet" arguement is quite-irelevent. It has nothing to do with OSes AFAIK, and I can't see it being fixed anytime soon.
We're looking at this from different philosophical viewpoints. You hate Microsoft and are on the Free/freedom bandwagon, so the simple act of moving away from Windows, regarless of the real benefits to the world is enough you. The problem of "owned" machines is very relevant to me as am IT professional who is affected by what goes on on the internet. If I thought everyone switching to linux could help solve the problem of spam/DoS bots, then I would be all for it.
Right now, such a system is not necessary. One day it might be. And it will be provided. Free(-of-charge) or otherwise.
Sure it will be provided - it would have to be. But I can assure you, it will not be free.
-
The learning curve for a user that hasn't used either system would be equal
I wouldn't have thought that because:
Windows is very n00b-friendly. And it's good at being n00b-friendly of all things.
It's much more n00b-friendly than almost all GNU/Linux distros, except the ones targeted at n00bs themselves (and I'd say it'd still be a tough one).
Kudos to MS. For their software is friendly to (the millions of) n00bs.
If the first computer I got had Slackware on it rather than Windows 95, I probably wouldn't have ever bothered with the computer at all. Although if it was Ubuntu (which didn't exist at the time but what the hell), I probably would've used it. And as soon as I knew how to use it, I probably would have learned all about the command-line and then more advanced stuff. And I probably would be on Slackware in no-time.
The leaning-curves are beautiful on GNU/Linux, especially for the curious ones, and also for the not-so-curious ones.
For a windows user going to Linux, its more difficult.
Definetly!
I'd say it wouldn't be too hard for a Slackware user (who has never used Windows before) to migrate to Windows.
Even though they're used to doing things "the hard way", they'd figure the easy way out just as easy as the n00bs would.
Obviously they wouldn't feel at home. For Windows was not developed with them-kinda-people inmind (and yes, I mean it).
I am very much anti-windows, and I have my reasons. I just don't see anyone giving a good excuse for such hatred of a company.
My personal experience with Windows was not pretty.
I do not like MS's software. I do not like MS's evil (http://www.answers.com/evil&r=67) business practices. I do not like MS's incredible control. I do not like the fucking insane amount of support MS gets (from OEMs, manufacturers, etc.) when there are much better alternatives out there. And I definetly do not like MS's FUD (especially when people buy it).
They are evil bastards who do NOT deserve my support.
And buying their products IS supporting them, just like using their products is.
On the other hand, I fucking love the GNU philosophy.
It is right (http://www.answers.com/topic/right?method=6). It is good (http://www.answers.com/good). It is honourable (http://www.answers.com/honorable&r=67). It makes sense.
It is a step forward for mankind.
IT deserves my support, and it deserves more support than the world could possibly supply (and it isn't supplyin', BTW).
I am "free" to install what software is available on any system I use. I am "free" to run any os i deem necessary to accomplish whatever task is at hand. I am not bound to only use Windows because Mr. Gates tells me to. Now, I am not free to modify or see the source of MS software. But that doesn't concern me. I am not a developer, I dont snoop through code, or wish to make those kinds of changes. If the software doesnt work the way I want, I find something else. Most of the time, MS software fails me. Windows failed me. So I don't use it. I have it at work, because I don't care enough to migrate my mail, my settings, my work environment to another system. I am leaving this place in one week anyways.
If that's what you call freedom, seems a little shallow to me. You are damn right to but "free" in quotation marks though.
As for giving employees linux. I am not having them create print and web materials with GIMP. It has never been up to the task.
That's interesting - explain please.
Not that I actually prefer them to use Windows, but it is the best tool at my disposal currently. We are not a mac shop. I will never convince management to invest in Apple machines. Linux will not cut it. Maybe for the techs, and maybe for sales and billing, but not my department. In that sense, we are not "free". We are tied to windows. I just don't see it as being that big of a deal. Not anymore.
How in the hell isn't it a big deal?
Do you have computers on-show kinda thing? Because if you do, you could put Ubuntu or something decent on it, and tell the customers a little about GNU/Linux. Then give them the CHOICE between Windows and Ubuntu. The choice that so many of them never got...
-
The freedom IMHO is in the independence from the Empire. You can indeed switch OSes any time you want, and often without even losing your data, but more importantly, you are Free to give your favorite GNU/Linux distro to your friends, install it on any computer that crosses your path and, of course, your toaster.
And then there's the part where you become a member of a community. A community in which people are there to help you, and to recieve your help. The community stands on Free standards, and the people who contribute to the software do so only because they want to (with a few lucky exceptions). Feedback is usually enough of a reward.
I myself am now at the lowest levels of the community, learning, accepting. I am slowly rising, though, and who knows, maybe one day, I'll make my own distro, or fund an OSS project, or just help someone who is having trouble with their computer.
A question rises, though, and that is: will the community hold as strong if GNU/Linux starts dominating the IT world?
I, for one, believe it will.
-
Yes - one small benefit. The problem is the vast majority of people who's machines are "owned" never realize it, so the ease of removal itself becomes irrelevant.
Wait, isn't this about viruses? If the virus is bad enough, wouldn't it be known to the user?
We're looking at this from different philosophical viewpoints. You hate Microsoft and are on the Free/freedom bandwagon, so the simple act of moving away from Windows, regarless of the real benefits to the world is enough you.
:confused: I hate MS, I hate Windows. I hated Windows before I hated MS. I hated MS before I heard anything about GNU or GNU/Linux.
The problem of "owned" machines is very relevant to me as am IT professional who is affected by what goes on on the internet. If I thought everyone switching to linux could help solve the problem of spam/DoS bots, then I would be all for it.
You said yourself nothing would change.
Sure it will be provided - it would have to be. But I can assure you, it will not be free.
If it's free software that's all I ask. I wouldn't mind paying for the service. And I'd more than likely be paying the makers of whatever distro I use. Perhaps an incentive for me to spend some money on this excellent free software I use all the time.
And, it could be free. You do not know.
If MS fell to GNU/Linux, somebody would be making alot of money. Probably Red Hat or Novell, would come out on top. They'd sell software, and if it was good software (or the best distro for me), and it was free software, I'd buy it. If it wasn't free software, I'd stick to free software.
-
I don't have any real problems with windows. Its IE I hate.
Thank God for FireFox!
-
will the community hold as strong if GNU/Linux starts dominating the IT world?
I, for one, believe it will.
I just hope it does. But it'd be very possible for some frickin' crap company to make a relatively-crap GNU/Linux distro if/when MS starts falling, market it well, charge lots for it, ship with non-free software, and fucking own the show. Such a distro probably wouldn't have a very good community. Let's just hope it doesn't happen.
I'd rather see people go to Ubuntu than the likes of SuSE. Ubuntu is a great distro, and has a fecking great community. In fact I'd say things probably will go Ubuntu-direction. And I'd love if they did.
I hope also that if the masses started using GNU/Linux, the manufacturers would free all their drivers, and the software companies would make more of their software free. If they don't, it could be a disaster freedom-wise. And that would damage the community slightly.
Right now, GNU/Linux users are safer on the net than they might ever be. But I can imagine alot of programmers employed to fix vulernabilities fast if GNU/Linux was to replace Windows.
And if GNU/Linux was the standard OS, it wouldn't be so hard to get a job as a programmer where you don't need to make non-free software. Perhaps there is hope for me in the future.....
There'd be alot of investment going into whatever GNU/Linux distro.
EDIT: If GNU/Linux replaced Windows, it would probably be much less a community thing actually. Most of the programmers would be working in house.
-
piratePenguin,
I agree with most of what you've said apart from a few things. :)
:D
Are you sure? Because I think you do:
"Removal of infections would be easier since the virus wouldn't have the benefit of root permissions" There's at least one benefit of the masses switching from Windows to GNU/Linux right there. Thanks!
Well when I use Windows XP I use a limeted user account so the programs don't have root permissions.
But then why are there so many unstable Windows systems?
And there're aren't unstable Linux systems? Holly fuck Redhat Linux kernel panicked more than Windows XP locked up.
I dunno what to say about all your driver problems Aloone except that GNU/Linux doesn't get enough manufacturer support. And of course you already knew that.
Anyhow, what GFX card do you have? ATi/nVidia? ATi's drivers are suposadly shit. I have an nVidia card, and never had any problems back when I used nVidia's drivers.
Give them GNU/Linux, they'll never be able to repay you enough for giving them such a great headstart :D
A shitty on board pro-savage DDR, and I did isntall the correct driver I found on the internet, as well as the default one.
-
Well when I use Windows XP I use a limeted user account so the programs don't have root permissions.
Well, compare MS's attitude to the root a/c to that of the typical GNU/Linux distro. A shitty posting on a shitty site that nobody reads is NOT ENOUGH!
I wonder has MS learned, and are they gonna put a guest a/c onto the default config of Longhorn. I can almost hear the cries of helpless Windows users "wwhhyyy is there two users? There's only one of me!".
EDIT: They'll think they're pure genius when they manage to delete the guest a/c :p
And there're aren't unstable Linux systems? Holly fuck Redhat Linux kernel panicked more than Windows XP locked up.
In which case "Redhat Linux" is shit. Simple. Get another distro, it's not like they're limited.
So you like Vector Linux, use that rather than "Redhat Linux". And there, you've got yourself a stable and secure GNU/Linux system.
"Wouldn't it be nice if we could make our own Windows distributions?" (I'm not saying anyone said that, although someone has said something about Widows distros here in one thread I was posting in (probably the "muzzy, why does windows rule?" one), use yer imagination :p) Anyhow, you can't do such a thing on Windows. If it offered the same freedom, or should I say, if it offered less RESTRICTIONS, you would be able to do that (I don't think, other than the restrictions, there's much else to prevent it being done (like it's not a technical thing), but I dunno). But it doesn't, whereas GNU/Linux does, and now you can get all sorts of GNU/Linux distros. GNU/Linux has less of the restrictions that DO NOT make the system any better.
A shitty on board pro-savage DDR, and I did isntall the correct driver I found on the internet, as well as the default one.
OK so Via don't give a fuck about GNU/Linux. I'll make note of that, and add them to my boycott list :D
-
Well, compare MS's attitude to the root a/c to that of the typical GNU/Linux distro. A shitty posting on a shitty site that nobody reads is NOT ENOUGH!
I wonder has MS learned, and are they gonna put a guest a/c onto the default config of Longhorn. I can almost hear the cries of helpless Windows users "wwhhyyy is there two users? There's only one of me!".
Didn't you say slackware only makes a root account by default. I agree it's a bit differant as it's not aimed at newbs like Windows is, but still.
In which case "Redhat Linux" is shit. Simple. Get another distro, it's not like they're limited.
So you like Vector Linux, use that rather than "Redhat Linux". And there, you've got yourself a stable and secure GNU/Linux system.
That's why I don't use Redhat and use Vector Linux instead. My point was there are unstable Linuxs systems as they're unstable Windows systemsm. I found both systems very stable which is good.
"Wouldn't it be nice if we could make our own Windows distributions?" (I'm not saying anyone said that, although someone has said something about Widows distros here in one thread I was posting in (probably the "muzzy, why does windows rule?" one), use yer imagination :p) Anyhow, you can't do such a thing on Windows. If it offered the same freedom, or should I say, if it offered less RESTRICTIONS, you would be able to do that (I don't think, other than the restrictions, there's much else to prevent it being done (like it's not a technical thing), but I dunno). But it doesn't, whereas GNU/Linux does, and now you can get all sorts of GNU/Linux distros. GNU/Linux has less of the pointless restrictions that DO NOT make the system any better.
I agree but you can always just download warez Windows. :D
OK so Via don't give a fuck about GNU/Linux. I'll make note of that, and add them to my boycott list :D
It's not a very good card but it more than suits my needs.
-
Didn't you say slackware only makes a root account by default. I agree it's a bit differant as it's not aimed at newbs like Windows is, but still.
If the Slackware installer created an un-privilaged user a/c, that would make it more user-friendly. Slackware aims to be as user-UNfriendly as possible, so creating an un-privilaged a/c automatically would be a bad thing. In fact, I can't even remember if you need to reboot to use 'useradd' to add a user to the install, you mightn't, you could probably 'chroot' into the system if it didn't do so already. Or you could edit /etc/passwd manually (although probably without shadow unless you 'chroot' + 'passwd'). And there ya go!
there are unstable Linuxs systems as they're unstable Windows systemsm.
Yes yea but like they're not near as frequent...
In fact, I should've mentioned this earlier, I had a free class today in the computer room, so I decided to turn on the computer, out of curiosity. I waited. And waited. And eventually Windows 2000 (I think it was 2000. Doubt it was '98. But I don't remember. It COULDN'T have been 98) loaded, and I logged in (username: "student39" (that's the computer number that I was on, not the student number heh), password: "2logon" (same pass for all the a/c's lol)), and soon the desktop loaded up. I clicked on the start menu and it wouldn't popup for like the 30secs I waited, so I held down the power button and that was the end of my session on Windows.
Friend next to me said "you're supposed to wait" :thumbup:
Is this 1965 or what? (damn! I should've taut of that at the time :()
I agree but you can always just download warez Windows. :D
Or you can use (read: support) Free Software.
-
I wouldn't have thought that because:
Windows is very n00b-friendly. And it's good at being n00b-friendly of all things.
It's much more n00b-friendly than almost all GNU/Linux distros, except the ones targeted at n00bs themselves (and I'd say it'd still be a tough one).
Kudos to MS. For their software is friendly to (the millions of) n00bs.
If the first computer I got had Slackware on it rather than Windows 95, I probably wouldn't have ever bothered with the computer at all. Although if it was Ubuntu (which didn't exist at the time but what the hell), I probably would've used it. And as soon as I knew how to use it, I probably would have learned all about the command-line and then more advanced stuff. And I probably would be on Slackware in no-time.
The leaning-curves are beautiful on GNU/Linux, especially for the curious ones, and also for the not-so-curious ones.
I thought that Fedora was quite noob friendly. As was Mandrake. I even did a write up on mandrake at promote-opensource a long time ago in relation to ease of use for the average user.
Definetly!
I'd say it wouldn't be too hard for a Slackware user (who has never used Windows before) to migrate to Windows.
Even though they're used to doing things "the hard way", they'd figure the easy way out just as easy as the n00bs would.
Obviously they wouldn't feel at home. For Windows was not developed with them-kinda-people inmind (and yes, I mean it).
My person experience with Windows was not pretty.
I do not like MS's software. I do not like MS's evil (http://www.answers.com/evil&r=67) business practices. I do not like MS's incredible control. I do not like the fucking insane amount of support MS gets (from OEMs, manufacturers, etc.) when there are much better alternatives out there. And I definetly do not like MS's FUD (especially when people buy it).
They are evil bastards who do NOT deserve my support.
And buying their products IS supporting them, just like using their products is.
On the other hand, I fucking love the GNU philosophy.
It is right (http://www.answers.com/topic/right?method=6). It is good (http://www.answers.com/good). It is honourable (http://www.answers.com/honorable&r=67). It makes sense.
It is a step forward for mankind.
IT deserves my support, and it deserves more support than the world could possibly supply (and it isn't supplyin', BTW).
I will have to agree with you there. They are an evil business. So is walmart, best-buy, nestle, any large corporation really. They are all doing what they can to dominate their markets and maybe branch into other ones. They want the biggest slice of the pie.
If that's what you call freedom, seems a little shallow to me. You are damn right to but "free" in quotation marks though.
That's interesting - explain please.
I do not know a single designer who knows the software. Image compression out of GIMP is poor. Layer groups, non-destructive editing tools, native CMYK support, on and on. Unless all this has been added in recent versions. And then, the interface is non-intuituve and clumsy. I do not mind paying the price for Adobes software. And I will happily pay the upgrade fees.
How in the hell isn't it a big deal?
Do you have computers on-show kinda thing? Because if you do, you could put Ubuntu or something decent on it, and tell the customers a little about GNU/Linux. Then give them the CHOICE between Windows and Ubuntu. The choice that so many of them never got...
It isn't a big deal because we can get our work done just fine using windows. We don't have computers on show. We have designers getting ads and brochures to print, web designers and developers working on layouts and applications, and there is no reason to use Linux. None at all.
-
Image compression out of GIMP is poor. Layer groups, non-destructive editing tools, native CMYK support, on and on. Unless all this has been added in recent versions. And then, the interface is non-intuituve and clumsy.
Oh.. I'll have to look into some of that. I heard about it's CMYK issues, they were fixed apparantly (but I dunno, it could still have problems).
At first I couldn't get around The GIMP's interface. But now I can, and I like it.
There used to be a script here (http://codemills.com/blog/?p=4) that "hacked the GIMP's UI so it looked like photoshops" (stole it from a different forum). Although, IIRC, it still had the multiple windows, which I don't find that annoying, anymore.
there is no reason to use Linux. None at all.
Oh I see. Well.. That's a shame :o
-
I'll use it for Apache, MySQL, and PHP, but my mac handles that just fine.
-
you are Free to give your favorite GNU/Linux distro to your friends
Yes, very important, the freedom to help your neighbor.
If anybody hated MS enough, they would NOT give their money to MS. Even if they "like" Windows or the Xbox (360, even) or whatever, or if it's not their choice, or if they think that there's no need to go switching to the perhaps better (or worse) alternatives.
Doing so is funding MS, and good-as supporting their evil business practices and such. For to carry out them evil business practices, to pay for their marketing et cetera, they need money.
-
Yes, very important, the freedom to help your neighbor.
If anybody hated MS enough, they would NOT give their money to MS. Even if they "like" Windows or the Xbox (360, even) or whatever, or if it's not their choice, or if they think that there's no need to go switching to the perhaps better (or worse) alternatives.
Doing so is funding MS, and good-as supporting their evil business practices and such. For to carry out them evil business practices, to pay for their marketing et cetera, they need money.
So is using a warez copy of w98 evil? Apart from being stupid, that is...
-
I don't think he meant that.
Anyway spreading warez Windows boosts the number of Windows users so Microsoft still benefits indirectly.
-
I don't think he meant that.
Anyway spreading warez Windows boosts the number of Windows users so Microsoft still benefits indirectly.
Exactly.
And I did mean that Jenda/Aloone :D
Using warez MS products is far better, than paying for them IMO.
MS won't get your money. But in a way you are still supporting them as Aloone said.
Although I'd much rather see more people use alternatives to MS software than see them use warez MS software, and I'd much rather see them use warez MS software than use legit MS software.
You should listen to the first half hour or so of http://wm-eddie.info/rms.html (http://wm-eddie.info/rms.html) if you've got time to burn. RMS touches on why "piracy" is better than legit non-free-software (and he's fecking funny the way he does it too), at least in the share-with-your-neighbour way.
He said something like this but in far better language and that of course:
If your friend asked you for a copy of X (where X is some non-free software), you should give him a copy of X regardless of what the licence says.
We can assume that your friend has treated you decently, unlike the vendors of X who are denying you your freedom et cetera
Just look at my alias, piratePenguin :D
(even though there's no pirate software on my system (there's loads of pirated music) and there likely will never be. That name came to me as a fluke and I couldn't resist.
Anyhow, FAR better than pirating MS software (which is still benefiting MS, as Aloone said) is to switch to a free/otherwise alternative.
And FAR better than giving MS your money for a ligit copy of Windows is to take it off a friend/the internet for a "pirate" version, in which case MS won't get your money, but you're still supporting them.
Paying for MS software, while bashing MS, I just don't get it.
To answer your question Jenda, using a warez version of win98 beats the shite outta paying MS for a legit version of Win98 (for they would have your money!).
-
My PC came with shitty MS works so I was contemplating getting hold of warez MS office 2000 (fuck paying for it) then discovered OpenOffice so I downloaded it and I was pleasantly suprised.
I agree:
warez > paying < free software
Edit:
Only where MS software is concerned.
-
I completely disagree with that.
If you are dreaming of an OSS utopia, which RMS seems to be, then you will expect users and other developers/corportations to honour the GPL - your licence of choice.
But at the same time he says it's fine to disregard the terms of use and licences regarding proprietary software?
Bullshit.
Talk about being a balls-out hypocrite...
Note: I havn't listened to the article, so if i'm slating RMS it is on merit of what piratePenguin posted. Time for bed.
-
warez > paying < free software
That's a better way of putting it :D
-
I completely disagree with that.
If you are dreaming of an OSS utopia, which RMS seems to be, then you will expect users and other developers/corportations to honour the GPL - your licence of choice.
But at the same time he says it's fine to disregard the terms of use and licences regarding proprietary software?
Bullshit.
Talk about being a balls-out hypocrite...
Lol. Well that's the thing. Free software developers, like the FSF et al, they give a shit about the users freedom (among other things...). MS did NOT write their licences with the user in mind.
Note: I havn't listened to the article, so if i'm slating RMS it is on merit of what piratePenguin posted.
No problemo. I don;t think what I said was misleading (compared to what the man himself said) in any way.
-
So, piracy is a good thing?
haha.
-
piratePenguin and I didn't mean that.
I meant while using MS warez you're helping Microsoft but not as much as would woud be if you paid, and using freesoftware is much better than MS payware or warez.
-
let's put it a different way then (I'm assuming that you know (because it is a fact) that MS are evil bastards):
pirate MS software > paying < alternatives
Whoever believes that buying MS software, and therefore giving the evil bastards money, is better than either pirate MS software (not giving the evil bastards money) or switching to alternatives, stand up and speak (and don't just laugh).
-
I agree, but why don't you just make it "Alternative > Pirated MS > Paying for MS".
-
That's much better.
-
I agree, but why don't you just make it "Alternative > Pirated MS > Paying for MS".
I was going to do that but decided not to change it much (in fact that's not really changing it, it's just reordering it) out of respect for Aloone :D
So we can use that now.
If pirate software wasn't possible, MS would be even richer than they already are.
Sure, some people might switch to the alternatives rather than pirate, but not a huge amount, and MS would be richer.
-
I was going to do that but decided not to change it out of respect for Aloone :D
I'm glad I have some respect and I respect you too. :D
So we can use that now.
I agree BobTheHob's idea is better.
If pirate software wasn't possible, MS would be even richer than they already are.
Sure, some people might switch to the alternatives rather than pirate, but not a huge amount, and MS would be richer.
Well you could argue that if people haden't have distributed MS pirate software in the first they wouldn't have established such a strong monopoly position. We all know this is bull because if it wasn't Microsoft it would've been IMB with OS/2 I doubt it would've been free software as there were no alternatives in a strong enough position. Oh I forgot Mac OS but that's not the PC and I doubt any other hardware would've dominated.
-
I totally agree. Because of all Microsoft's "monopoly" together with all the Windows software there are hords of people who can't or don't want to pay for software ex Windows and then pirates it. Because of this most people are used to their software and the exlusive software that runs on it. That's a very big achievement for Microsoft as most people would rather buy Windows than a GNU/LINUX distro.
-
I agree except I wouldn't call it a big achievement since all Microsoft's done is strike up OEM deals with the hardware vendors and most people don't even know about GNU/Linux hence Windows is the only operating system for the x86 platform.
-
piratePenguin: then it might please you, that I do have a warez w98 on my computer, altho it's largely unused, and that prolly because I haven't seen my computer in almost a year. There is also a copy of mdk 9.2,, and both of the OSes will be soon removed in favor of Ubuntu.
(in fact that's not really changing it, it's just reordering it)
I disagree - the > < version lacks the information that warez < FSW... but the < < version states my opinion exactly. I do NOT consider myself a Microsoft supporter though, because I am NOT dependent on Windows and therefore do NOT contribute to the immense devotee base MS has clustered over the past decade.
-
piratePenguin: then it might please you, that I do have a warez w98 on my computer, altho it's largely unused, and that prolly because I haven't seen my computer in almost a year. There is also a copy of mdk 9.2,, and both of the OSes will be soon removed in favor of Ubuntu.
:thumbup:
I disagree - the > < version lacks the information that warez < FSW... but the < < version states my opinion exactly.
Did you get that mixed up (there are a few versions floating about)?
I didn't look into that much detail before (fair play to you though), but in anycase:
For MS haters: legitimate MS software < illegitimate MS software < alternative to MS software.
For free software advocates: legitimate non-free software < illegitimate non-free software < free software alternative.
Do either of them suffice Jenda?
I do NOT consider myself a Microsoft supporter though, because I am NOT dependent on Windows and therefore do NOT contribute to the immense devotee base MS has clustered over the past decade.
I feel like saying something that involves the word "taint (http://www.answers.com/tainted&r=67)" and your system (computer system that is :p), but it's not really necesary.
Instead, a complement: you're headed in the right direction ;)
RMS, of all people, has (recently) said that if he really needed to on a once-off basis (like at an internet cafe), he would use non-free software to do whatever he needs to do.
-
Did you get that mixed up (there are a few versions floating about)?
I was talking about the warez > paying < free software
version and the Alternative > Pirated MS > Paying for MS
version. Now your last two versions are indeed very good, but for my personal case, being both MS-hater and a FLOSS advocate, a very complex inequasion is necessary:
Tartaros < MS ($) < warez MS < other ($) < other warez < FLOSS < Nirvana
As for my PC being tainted - there really aint much I can do. I am in Canada. My PC in Prague. As soon as I get back there, ta ta Windoes! I was less educated in the matter before, so I kept Windows for the moment... I might still keep a very simple copy on, say five gigs, until I need the space. I am not a big fan of games, but form time to time, I like to try them. And thanks for the dictionary link... I do have Firefox, and I do have the necessary extensions, so it won't be needed next time...
-
for my personal case, being both MS-hater and a FLOSS advocate, a very complex inequasion is necessary:
Tartaros < MS ($) < warez MS < other ($) < other warez < FLOSS < Nirvana
Lol.
As for my PC being tainted - there really aint much I can do. I am in Canada. My PC in Prague. As soon as I get back there, ta ta Windoes! I was less educated in the matter before, so I kept Windows for the moment... I might still keep a very simple copy on, say five gigs, until I need the space. I am not a big fan of games, but form time to time, I like to try them.
That computer still has MS Windows 98 on it. That makes it tainted IMHO, just like every other system with MS Windows on it. But there's not much you can do about it, and I understand that. MS isn't benefiting much (if at all) in this rather rare case.
And like I said: you're headed in the right direction.
And thanks for the dictionary link... I do have Firefox, and I do have the necessary extensions, so it won't be needed next time...
I like using those dictionary links. I use them in my posts when confusion is in any way possible, and also when I've checked the meaning of the word to make sure it fits the occasion suitably.
If nothing else, regard them as an "I've done at least a small bit of extra work" guarantee.
-
I disagree - the > < version lacks the information that warez < FSW
warez > paying < free software
If "warez > paying" and "paying < free software" then warez < free software.
-
I would discourage non-MS pirate software, I don't have a problem with paying for software in general, just MS software.
-
I would discourage non-MS pirate software, I don't have a problem with paying for software in general, just MS software.
I have no problems with paying for free software, so long as it's not a rip-off.
I don't like the crazy restrictions that are placed on some (read: most to all) non-free software. Their licences are designed to restrict the user.
The GPL is about guaranteeing freedom, and I think the "guarantee" part is important. Although not necesary. I like the BSD licence, for example, but it doesn't guarantee the same freedom that the GPL does. Therefore, I prefer the GPL. But I still like the BSD licence. RMS wants to build (well he has. but he has greater goals now :D) a community in which non-free software does not exist. If the developers used, for example, the BSD licence, anyone could copy the software, make it non-free, add in some nice features, and the community's future could be at risk if the software is good enough.
A rather extreme example, cedega:
If any of you wanted cedega, I'd prefer you to get an illegit copy of it, rather than buying it from Transgaming that is.
Contrary to popular belief, cedega is not free software. It uses code from wine, sure, but that code is from before wine was GPL.
And I would pay for free software, if the software seems worth it. I wouldn't pirate it. I don't think. Unless I needed it and could not afford it.
-
A rather extreme example, cedega:
If any of you wanted cedega, I'd prefer you to get an illegit copy of it, rather than buying it from Transgaming that is.
Contrary to popular belief, cedega is not free software. It uses code from wine, sure, but that code is from before wine was GPL.
I was just wondering about that... thanks for clearing it up. Added to don't-use list.
warez > paying < free software
If "warez > paying" and "paying < free software" then warez < free software.
A little (OK, very) o/t, but NOT TRUE.:thumbdwn: This is math. If [(x > y) and (y < z)], then all [(x < z), (x > z) and (x = z)] are possible. Try substituting with numbers, you will see that both [x=5, y=3, z=8] and [x=7, y=2, z=8] comply with the original statement that [(x > y) and (y < z)].
I hope this rant doesn't annoy you too much (just a little...).:)
-
If the developers used, for example, the BSD licence, anyone could copy the software, make it non-free, add in some nice features, and the community's future could be at risk if the software is good enough.
I'm so sick if this argument. It amounts to little more than FUD. This type of thing you worry so much about hardly ever happens. I challenge you to find more than one or two examples of this happening over the last twenty years.
A rather extreme example, cedega:
If any of you wanted cedega, I'd prefer you to get an illegit copy of it, rather than buying it from Transgaming that is.
Contrary to popular belief, cedega is not free software. It uses code from wine, sure, but that code is from before wine was GPL.
It's not illegal to buy Cedega and then give it out to your friends. The Cedega license specifically permits it. They also permit you to build it yourself from the source. I found a few detailed howtos on how to build it from the CVS on linux, so if your so mad about having to pay, build it yourself.
And I would pay for free software, if the software seems worth it. I wouldn't pirate it. I don't think. Unless I needed it and could not afford it.
lol.
"I would never do _x. Unless I really wanted to do _x. Then I would do _x"
-
Fair enough Jenda, I stand corrected. :D
I have a different point of view regarding the licence:
To me when I'm choosing a piece of software for a particular purpose I weigh up the pros and cons of each package before I make a decision.
I consider the features, cost and compatability with my hardware before I even think about the licence. I don't care whether it's BSD, GPL, or closed source as long as it represents good value for money.
-
A little (OK, very) o/t, but NOT TRUE.:thumbdwn: This is math. If [(x > y) and (y < z)], then all [(x < z), (x > z) and (x = z)] are possible. Try substituting with numbers, you will see that both [x=5, y=3, z=8] and [x=7, y=2, z=8] comply with the original statement that [(x > y) and (y < z)].
oh yer right :thumbup:
I hope this rant doesn't annoy you too much (just a little...).:)
I stand corrected, too.
I'm so sick if this argument. It amounts to little more than FUD. This type of thing you worry so much about hardly ever happens. I challenge you to find more than one or two examples of this happening over the last twenty years.
Little more than FUD eh? I said that it "could" happen, could it not?
As for the examples, the only one that I know of is X (although it didn't use the BSD licence).
But if all the GPLed programs suddenly switched to the BSD licence, wouldn't you think someone (eg, the evil bastards that are MS) would take advantage, especially when the licence allows it (I'm talking about using the BSD licenced code in some program, and distribute it in binary form)?
For a start, people/companies have been caught violating the GPL for using GPL licenced code, http://www.gpl-violations.org/ (http://www.gpl-violations.org/).
Cedega and Wine would probably be another (more recent) example (rather than X) but I dunno what licence Wine used to use.
It's not illegal to buy Cedega and then give it out to your friends. The Cedega license specifically permits it. They also permit you to build it yourself from the source. I found a few detailed howtos on how to build it from the CVS on linux, so if your so mad about having to pay, build it yourself.
It doesn't matter. It's still not free software.
And I'm not mad about having to pay, I'm mad that it's not free software.
It uses the "Aladdin Free Public License" (bottom of http://www.transgaming.com/license.php?source=1 (http://www.transgaming.com/license.php?source=1)), to quote from it:
[/color][/color]This License is not an Open Source license: among other things, it places restrictions on distribution of the Program, specifically including sale of the Program. While Aladdin Enterprises respects and supports the philosophy of the Open Source Definition, and shares the desire of the GNU project to keep licensed software freely redistributable in both source and object form, we feel that Open Source licenses unfairly prevent developers of useful software from being compensated proportionately when others profit financially from their work. This License attempts to ensure that those who receive, redistribute, and contribute to the licensed Program according to the Open Source and Free Software philosophies have the right to do so, while retaining for the developer(s) of the Program the power to make those who use the Program to enhance the value of commercial products pay for the privilege of doing so.
Seems fair enough, but it won't suffice for moi :D
[/color][/color]"I would never do _x. Unless I really wanted to do _x. Then I would do _x"
You appear to have misinterpreted what I said.
Unless I needed it and could not afford it.
I consider the features, cost and compatability with my hardware before I even think about the licence. I don't care whether it's BSD, GPL, or closed source as long as it represents good value for money.
I only consider that other stuff after I know that the program is free software. And as far as I'm concerned, when I'm picking programs, BSD licence == GNU GPL.
Closed source... Some chance :D
-
Little more than FUD eh? I said that it "could" happen, could it not?
Sure it could, and from time to time, it does, but you speak with the premise that it is a universally bad thing and/or that only bad can come out of a company adopting and relicensing BSD licensed software.
As for the examples, the only one that I know of Well, it doesn't matter weather it was "the" BSD license. It's was a "BSD Style" license. People still use X today, no? If I'm not mistaken, the picture on my screen is being rendered by Xorg 6.8.x as I type. Companies have taken X, modified it, and sold it, but it has hardly hampered the success of open source X.
But if all the GPLed programs suddenly switched to the BSD licence, wouldn't you think someone (eg, the evil bastards that are MS) would take advantage, especially when the licence allows it (I'm talking about using the BSD licenced code in some program, and distribute it in binary form)?
Well, yeah, some "evil companies" might do this, but again I point out your premise. Your focus of your argument is wrapped entirely around the theme of possesion. "Take", "Steal", "Mine", and "Yours" are frequently used words/terms found in GPL advocates' arguments. When making arguments as to why the BSD license, GPL advocates get so wrapped up in these ideas of possesion, that they miss the point of BSD style licenses. Back to the point of why I label the argument FUD. Many people throw the term FUD around a lot without realizing (or conveniently ignoring) the fact that "FUD" is a standard marketing technique that has been used for eons to promote things.
The defenition of FUD from dictionary.com:
"An acronym invented by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software."
When promoting GPL by pointing out a possible bad things that might happen by using a BSD style license, then you are by definition spreading FUD.
Every company partakes in the spreading of FUD.
Here are some examples:
Intel(fanboy) FUD: "AMD chips might not be fully compatible with your software."
linux FUD: "If you use Microsoft products, you can't see the code, and are at the mercy of Microsoft to fix security problems."
Microsoft FUD: "If you use linux, you might have to spend lots of money re-training your sysadmins or hiring new sysadmins to support it."
Political FUD: My opponent wants to take away your Social Security.
These are common examples of Marketing by FUD. The primary focus lies not on the positive aspects of using the marketer's products, but around the possible negative consequences of using the other guy's product.
For a start, people/companies have been caught violating the GPL for using GPL licenced code, http://www.gpl-violations.org/ (http://www.gpl-violations.org/).
No doubt, the majority of violations stem directly from the complexity of the GPL license. Most violators of the GPL do so in ignorance.
Cedega and Wine would probably be another (more recent) example (rather than X) but I dunno what licence Wine used to use. It doesn't matter. It's still not free software. And I'm not mad about having to pay, I'm mad that it's not free software.
Perhaps you should be more angry that the free software community has failed on this front. If you feel that Cedega should be free, then feel free to take the original Wine and build your own "WineX". The original Wine is still alive and kicking. I took a look at the WinHQ site and noticed that it is licensed under the LGPL. AFAIK, the LGPL is compatible with what Cedega is doing.
-
Sure it could, and from time to time, it does, but you speak with the premise that it is a universally bad thing and/or that only bad can come out of a company adopting and relicensing BSD licensed software.
As for the examples, the only one that I know of Well, it doesn't matter weather it was "the" BSD license. It's was a "BSD Style" license. People still use X today, no? If I'm not mistaken, the picture on my screen is being rendered by Xorg 6.8.x as I type. Companies have taken X, modified it, and sold it, but it has hardly hampered the success of open source X.
Well, yeah, some "evil companies" might do this, but again I point out your premise. Your focus of your argument is wrapped entirely around the theme of possesion. "Take", "Steal", "Mine", and "Yours" are frequently used words/terms found in GPL advocates' arguments. When making arguments as to why the BSD license, GPL advocates get so wrapped up in these ideas of possesion, that they miss the point of BSD style licenses. Back to the point of why I label the argument FUD. Many people throw the term FUD around a lot without realizing (or conveniently ignoring) the fact that "FUD" is a standard marketing technique that has been used for eons to promote things.
The defenition of FUD from dictionary.com:
"An acronym invented by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software."
When promoting GPL by pointing out a possible bad things that might happen by using a BSD style license, then you are by definition spreading FUD.
Every company partakes in the spreading of FUD.
Here are some examples:
Intel(fanboy) FUD: "AMD chips might not be fully compatible with your software."
linux FUD: "If you use Microsoft products, you can't see the code, and are at the mercy of Microsoft to fix security problems."
Microsoft FUD: "If you use linux, you might have to spend lots of money re-training your sysadmins or hiring new sysadmins to support it."
Political FUD: My opponent wants to take away your Social Security.
These are common examples of Marketing by FUD. The primary focus lies not on the positive aspects of using the marketer's products, but around the possible negative consequences of using the other guy's product.
So you obviously think it'd be pretty safe for all the copyright holders using the GPL to relicence their code under the BSD licence. I disagree. If mplayer used the BSD licence, MS could (and probably would, seeing as NOBODY can stop them (the licence allows it)) help themselves and make a kick-ass next WMP release. They'd be ALLOWD to. With the GPL, they are NOT allowd to (unless they used a free software licence (I think that's the way it goes), like the GPL, which they would NOT). That's why I prefer the GPL.
No doubt, the majority of violations stem directly from the complexity of the GPL license. Most violators of the GPL do so in ignorance.
So they run through the code, change a few error messages (not all of them, of course), mess it up a bit, and release it (under some shit non-free software licence). Without looking at the original (GPL) licence? As if the GPL would allow such a thing. Unlike the BSD licence.
Perhaps you should be more angry that the free software community has failed on this front. If you feel that Cedega should be free, then feel free to take the original Wine and build your own "WineX". The original Wine is still alive and kicking. I took a look at the WinHQ site and noticed that it is licensed under the LGPL. AFAIK, the LGPL is compatible with what Cedega is doing.
GNU LGPL qualifies is a free software licence. Cedega's licence does NOT.
The LGPL is used for libraries mainly, so non-free programs can link with them. Other than that I think it's pretty much the same as the GPL.
Wine probably needs the LGPL so Windows applications can link with it's libraries, I think.
Wine wasn't always GPL. If it was, Cedega would either not exist (improvements would go straight into Wine), or it WOULD HAVE TO BE free software (probably with the same subscription fee, which I wouldn't mind paying (if I wanted to play Windows games, which ATM I don't) or recommending).
-
So you obviously think it'd be pretty safe for all the copyright holders using the GPL to relicence their code under the BSD licence. I disagree.
I never said that. The GPL can be very usefull (Ask IBM) in certain situations. I just disagree with the idea that not using is inherently bad.
If mplayer used the BSD licence, MS could (and probably would, seeing as NOBODY can stop them (the licence allows it)) help themselves and make a kick-ass next WMP release. They'd be ALLOWD to.
Mplayer? Mplayer sucks rocks compared to WMP. You may not agree, but I guarantee you Microsoft would.
You seem to have a deep misunderstanding of Microsoft, it's culture, and it's history. I was going to touch on this in my last post, but forgot. If you look at the roots of the NT kernel you'll notice that it is based upon VMS, which is widely regarded by people who had the pleasure of using or administering it as one of those most stable/kick-ass operating systems ever made.
Dave Cutler, who was the chief architect of VMS, and the cheif architect (read: evil nazi dictator) of NT in it's early days, hated Unix with a passion (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000060.html). Alot of NT's design is based around the widely held belief (http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/handbook.html) in the scientific community that UNIX is an old, tired Operating System design which has absoultely no place in today's computing world. For Microsoft to take an OS like BSD and base their next OS on it, would contradict their goals. Their current TCP stack isn't even based on the BSD stack. In earlier versions of NT, it was, but later on, they ended up buying a TCP stack from another company to integrate into Windows 2000 and XP.
-
Mplayer? Mplayer sucks rocks compared to WMP.
VideoLAN player (http://www.videolan.org/) kicks the ass of WMP, although it can't play WMV's (yet).
-
I never said that. The GPL can be very usefull (Ask IBM) in certain situations. I just disagree with the idea that not using is inherently bad.
What I said:If the developers used, for example, the BSD licence, anyone could copy the software, make it non-free, add in some nice features, and the community's future could be at risk if the software is good enough.
[/color][/color]What you said:I'm so sick if this argument. It amounts to little more than FUD. This type of thing you worry so much about hardly ever happens.
Let's just put it this way: if a non-copyleft, free software licence (eg. BSD) was used (by RMS and GNU, etc.), nothing could stop anyone from ripping off the code and making their own non-free program based entirely on the non-copyleft, free software (eg. BSD) licenced code. It has happened before. It could happen all the time if the BSD licence was used rather than the GPL.
And that's part-of what I was saying.
You call it FUD. I call it FACT. If you disagree that it is FACT, then please let me know what would stop anyone from doing that.
"inherently bad", who said that? I, for sure, would rather see everything use the GPL than everything use the BSD licence.
Mplayer? Mplayer sucks rocks compared to WMP. You may not agree, but I guarantee you Microsoft would.
Possibly a bad example. AFAIK, mplayer has lots of features that WMP lacks. MS could take (read: steal, if you so desire) them and implement them in WMP. There would eventually be no question: mplayer would "suck rocks" compared to WMP.
Why should we help the evil bastards when they never help us?
You seem to have a deep misunderstanding of Microsoft, it's culture, and it's history. I was going to touch on this in my last post, but forgot. If you look at the roots of the NT kernel you'll notice that it is based upon VMS, which is widely regarded by people who had the pleasure of using or administering it as one of those most stable/kick-ass operating systems ever made.
VMS eh? I'll check it out sometime.
Bill Cutler, who was the chief architect of VMS, and the cheif architect (read: evil nazi dictator) of NT in it's early days, hated Unix with a passion (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000060.html). Alot of NT's design is based around the widely held belief (http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/handbook.html) in the scientific community that UNIX is an old, tired Operating System design which has absoultely no place in today's computing world. For Microsoft to take an OS like BSD and base their next OS on it, would contradict their goals. Their current TCP stack isn't even based on the BSD stack. In earlier versions of NT, it was, but later on, they ended up buying a TCP stack from another company to integrate into Windows 2000 and XP.
Err.
*vaguely sees what this has to do with anything.*
What exactly is MS's goals then? To create the most unlike-UNIX or unlike-*BSD OS in the world? Or to make the best OS in the world (let's leave all the other reasons like "to take over the world" and all that aside for now)? In which case, the FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD (I actually amn't sure about what licence OpenBSD uses. But I think it's safe to assume it's BSD.) code would come in very handy.
And if all the GNU tools used the BSD licence too, MS (et al) could help themselves to that. Same goes for Linux, GNOME, KDE, and all other free software.
You do know that in my previous posts where I said "BSD" I always meant the BSD licence, right?
VideoLAN player (http://www.videolan.org/) kicks the ass of WMP, although it can't play WMV's (yet).
Indeed. I actually don't have any video player (read: decent video player) installed ATM. Might use VLP one when I need one.
-
What exactly is MS's goals then? To create the most unlike-UNIX or unlike-*BSD OS in the world? Or to make the best OS in the world (let's leave all the other reasons like "to take over the world" and all that aside for now)?
The same as every othre company in existence; To make money.
In which case, the FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD (I actually amn't sure about what licence OpenBSD uses. But I think it's safe to assume it's BSD.) code would come in very handy.
And if all the GNU tools used the BSD licence too, MS (et al) could help themselves to that. Same goes for Linux, GNOME, KDE, and all other free software.
Microsoft sees BSD/linux/UNIX and all of the things that come along with them as inferior to their products. That is why I don't think they would make use of the code.
-
The same as every othre company in existence; To make money.
Hehe. Why didn't I think of that?
Microsoft sees BSD/linux/UNIX and all of the things that come along with them as inferior to their products. That is why I don't think they would make use of the code.
Well, heck, anyone could take advantage of the BSD licenced code.
Anyone could take FreeBSD, for example, make it a bit more user-friendly, and sell it under some crappy non-free software licence. Whereas if FreeBSD was all GPLed it would have to be released under a free software licence.
I'm aware that there's some GPL licenced code in FreeBSD (and it's packages. Or is it just it's packages?), let's disregard that for a while.
-
Microsoft sees BSD/linux/UNIX and all of the things that come along with them as inferior to their products. That is why I don't think they would make use of the code.
Come on! Do you mean that? They say they think so, but in fact, you can never really know what they really think - that is, until you read the Hallowe'en documents.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
Microsoft, as well as all of us here, knows very well that FLOSS is WAY superior to their garbage, and the only thing protecting it from Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V ripoff is the GPL! And just wait for Long-Born flashing the new, unknown features that have all been copied off Linux & other FLOSS...
-
the Hallowe'en documents.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/ (http://www.opensource.org/halloween/)
First time I came across that (I tend to stay away from opensource.org), and it's bloodey interesting.
Would make a good feature article.
-
Here's an amusing quote from Dave Cutler:
"I won't pollute it [NT] with crap!" -- Cutler to Bill Gates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler
-
First time I came across that (I tend to stay away from opensource.org), and it's bloodey interesting.
Would make a good feature article.
What's wrong with os.com?
Are you referring (wrong word...) to the differences between the Open Source community and the Free Software one?
(BTW, just asking. I am on GNU's side. For me, Freedom itself is much more important than the source code - that is just a prerequisite.)
-
"(...) I had a rubber stamp made that proclaimed 'Size Is the Goal' and proceeded to stamp every last bit of correspondence to make sure that all the programmers and project managers understood" -- David Cutler
-
DOH!
You didn't even bother to point out the fact that I accidentally typed "Bill Cutler" instead of "Dave Cutler"
I corrected my post above.
-
What's wrong with os.com?
Are you referring (wrong word...) to the differences between the Open Source community and the Free Software one?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
I don't hang around opensource.com much.
Everyone's talking about "open source" rather than "free software", and I think that makes the free software movement weaker, in a way.
-
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
I don't hang around opensource.com much.
Everyone's talking about "open source" rather than "free software", and I think that makes the free software movement weaker, in a way.
I agree with you there. I think a big problem is that Free Software DOES make ppl think of free beer. People understand Open Source much better. (BTW i already read that. If I have the time, I will read the whole GNU website through :-).)
The fact remains, though, that GNU.org does NOT show you the Hallowe'en docs...
-
I think a big problem is that Free Software DOES make ppl think of free beer. People understand Open Source much better.
Yep, I agree.
(BTW i already read that. If I have the time, I will read the whole GNU website through :-).)
Goodluck!
I haven't read the half of even the philosophy (every now and again I browse through it and pick something to read), some of the GNU humor on it is unreal funny though.
The fact remains, though, that GNU.org does NOT show you the Hallowe'en docs...
Yup.
-
The halloween docs were not exactly earth shattering. If anything they show that Microsoft 'got it' when it came to Open Source.
They were written back when Microsoft's main server platform was WinNT4. As someone who has run a large network which went from NT4 to 2000 and will be moving to 2k3 in the next year or so, I have seen the quality of Microsoft's server products increase dramatically over the last five years.
I can thank the healthy competiton that linux/open source brought for that.
Another thing. You guys really shouldn't read these docs at Opensource.org. They are littered with EXTREMELY biased commentary from OSS zealots.
This quote from the commentary is my favorite:
"Instead, Microsoft has been trying to sandbag Linux with supposedly "objective" studies by third parties that turn out to have been bought and paid for by the boys in Redmond."
Biased studies, like this study (http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html#Conclusions), which showed NT4 pantsing linux in a head to head performance comparision? The first time they ran the comparison a bunch of linux fans claimed it was biased, so Mindcraft allowed them to come in and tweak the linux server any way they wished. They then ran the benchmark again and the results were the same. NT4 squashed linux.
-
Linux file- and Web-server performance appears to be bottlenecked in the operating system kernel, not in Samba or Apache. This was demonstrated best when the Red Hat engineers ran the Zeus Web server. Zeus performance topped out at about the same place as Apache, using fewer resources. The major performance problems are with the TCP stack, which is single threaded in the 2.2.x Linux kernels, and with large-grained kernel locks that degrade multiprocessor performance. The Linux community is addressing these performance problems and others in their 2.3.x kernel series.
Thank god, that was...ages ago.
-
I'm not too sure on this, but has anybody taken the time to prove that the Halloween docs did, in fact, come from Microsoft. I'd like to believe that they do originate from MS, but I can't be sure.
-
Thank god, that was...ages ago.
Indeed, and it is irrelevant today, as linux has come a long way since then, but the commentary I quoted was referring to studies that were done during that time (~1999).
-
Yeah. I never knew 2.2.x was so shitty...
-
I'm not too sure on this, but has anybody taken the time to prove that the Halloween docs did, in fact, come from Microsoft. I'd like to believe that they do originate from MS, but I can't be sure.
Microsoft itself authorised them. Good enough?