quote:

Originally posted by rizen erm too much to list on why i hate M$, but i probably blame the game developeres except a few that keep me chained to windows just hope when zeta goes final, it turns out to be great. once open office is ported to it, you have a complete and fast multimedia system. for gaming though, linux is most likely your only option, unless theres better wine support under mac os x/xwindows

That's essentially how I see it as well, I can't wait to move away from windows, i'm hoping to start playing with redhat in the next few months.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

Monopolies are very good when you are dealing with standards. Its great our government has a monopoly over money, because if there were 12 different currencies we could trade in, it would be a headache for everyone and more costly, as companies would encure more costs in printing, time calculating, and IT spending... etc.

Like it or not Windows is a standard, and if I'm a program developer I know I will be able to program in a windows environment and I will have an audience to sell it to. If there were 25 environments, I would spend perhaps most my time porting the software to the 25 different envrionments, wasting my time on porting instead of the features of software. So you either lose money, lose time, or lose features if such a world would exist with 25 desktop envrionments. Not to mention a complete loss of standards.

As for Linux crashing, yes I've had the kernel crash on me a few times, and I've had a lot of the other "modules" crash on me a lot more. However admittedly most the time it is not the kernel that crashes, just like most the time windows crashes it is not the kernel either.

A recent "defect" of Linux was when I setup the wireless network here. I have two computers running linux at my home, and I reconfigured my routers (pressed the reset button) to accomodate for the new IPs and features of the network. Now Windows 98 computers needed a restart to adjust to the new network settings, Windows XP did not, it was instantly recongized and at the next click of the button I was back to surfing TA.com. Now Linux on the otherhand, was not able to accomodate the new adjustment.. it needed a restart. I restarted one network associated service before restarting the whole thing to no avail.. and perhaps I should have restarted more, but one being completely clueless about which one service I should restart and the proper command to do it, restarting the whole linux box was simply faster (and linux doesn't boot up fast either).

As for installation, I don't know but for me "configuring" then "making" and then "making install" every program I want to add to linux (otherwise the precompiled binaries give me problems 90% of the tiem) takes MUCH longer than double clicking on a .exe in windows.


Sure windows has no sensical services, so does linux.. I remember going into the kernel build and turning on things that weren't available and turning off those things I completely didn't need. But it was much quicker for me to go into Windows services, and click all those off I didn't need during startup.


Now I'm not advocating a monopoly in the software environment, I am just really happy at the current situation, M$ has a defacto monopoly, yet has the pressure to keep its software competitive. So we basically enjoy the best standards.

What I dread is a world with 25 desktop operating system of equal market share, or a world with only 1 desktop operating system. But so long as it is as it is, 1 desktop operating system with hundreds of small competition. I think it is for the best.

This is not to say I'm not for the free market. I am, but the tendancies of the freemarket are always to monopolize, so I am not very lassie faire as well. Though I'd put myself probably somewhere in the mug between lassie fair and restricted capitalisim.

Regardless aside from the price, I don't really see any real fallacies with Windows, especially for the services of its target market... I think the software is really world class.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Monopolies are very good when you are dealing with standards. Its great our government has a monopoly over money, because if there were 12 different currencies we could trade in, it would be a headache for everyone and more costly, as companies would encure more costs in printing, time calculating, and IT spending... etc. Like it or not Windows is a standard, and if I'm a program developer I know I will be able to program in a windows environment and I will have an audience to sell it to. If there were 25 environments, I would spend perhaps most my time porting the software to the 25 different envrionments, wasting my time on porting instead of the features of software. So you either lose money, lose time, or lose features if such a world would exist with 25 desktop envrionments. Not to mention a complete loss of standards.

like there couldn't be open standards set by anyone else than Microsoft? it's not like it is impossible to get things working on many platforms, take QT for example, with a simple recompile you can port the program to like 10 different platforms, from one single source. Microsoft could EASILY do that with their .NET language to, but they don't want to, because that would make their position less dominant.

as for your example with currencies, what if the government had no control over them? what if everyone needed them anyway? what if they took 2$ to buy 1$ (or 1$ a year, but of course they would get the newest money available, even if they could make it as good with the old ones...)? wouldn't that be sick?

quote:

As for Linux crashing, yes I've had the kernel crash on me a few times, and I've had a lot of the other "modules" crash on me a lot more. However admittedly most the time it is not the kernel that crashes, just like most the time windows crashes it is not the kernel either. A recent "defect" of Linux was when I setup the wireless network here. I have two computers running linux at my home, and I reconfigured my routers (pressed the reset button) to accomodate for the new IPs and features of the network. Now Windows 98 computers needed a restart to adjust to the new network settings, Windows XP did not, it was instantly recongized and at the next click of the button I was back to surfing TA.com. Now Linux on the otherhand, was not able to accomodate the new adjustment.. it needed a restart. I restarted one network associated service before restarting the whole thing to no avail.. and perhaps I should have restarted more, but one being completely clueless about which one service I should restart and the proper command to do it, restarting the whole linux box was simply faster (and linux doesn't boot up fast either).

/etc/init.d/network restart

should have done the thing

okay i would agree that all linux dists isn't very user friendly, but some are and i guess that it would have been no problems with that ones... but yes linux is not as user friendly as windows, perhaps that is because of that newbies don't use linux anyway (due to lack of windows apps etc)...

quote:

As for installation, I don't know but for me "configuring" then "making" and then "making install" every program I want to add to linux (otherwise the precompiled binaries give me problems 90% of the tiem) takes MUCH longer than double clicking on a .exe in windows.

if you use some kind of good package handler (like apt, yum or emerge) that is NEVER a problem, and by far easier than installing a windows app.

quote:

Sure windows has no sensical services, so does linux.. I remember going into the kernel build and turning on things that weren't available and turning off those things I completely didn't need. But it was much quicker for me to go into Windows services, and click all those off I didn't need during startup.

also this is very easy in some distributions.

quote:

Now I'm not advocating a monopoly in the software environment, I am just really happy at the current situation, M$ has a defacto monopoly, yet has the pressure to keep its software competitive. So we basically enjoy the best standards.

and enjoy their high prices...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew as for your example with currencies, what if the government had no control over them? what if everyone needed them anyway? what if they took 2$ to buy 1$ (or 1$ a year, but of course they would get the newest money available, even if they could make it as good with the old ones...)? wouldn't that be sick?

I can't follow that for the life of me.

quote:

/etc/init.d/network restart should have done the thing

Should have indeed, it didn't. I was a linux "geek" two years ago, and my father is still a very big Linux geek (he subscribes to no less than TWO linux magazines!). I gave it up since it simply didn't seem "worth" the input. To much input, for to little gain IMO. We also tried restarting the eth0.

This whole restarting linux to get the wireless up was a really big thing. My father was getting into a real heated debate with me that it was the "networks" fault and not his linux, and that it would work if he restarted those services (it was not the networks fault as all other machines were able to connect to the net, and one of the linux machines I restarted had no problem adapting to it). He was extremely reluctant to restart his linux distro, and only after much pleas for him to restart, and framing the request in a form that its not linux's fault, just my stupidity, did he become quiet after it was restarted and worked.

Though I admit, linux makes a very good free, stable, server. I program a lot, and use free open source programs (php, mysql), and so still retain a familiarity with it. Yet I see the advantages and disadvantages of all of them (asp.net for instance is nice for complex, bloated programs once you get used to it).

And since I am not completely poor, I have no problem paying the $5 a year (or looking through Kazaa) to get the latest most userfriendly, simple, and trouble free operating system out there. For all my day to day work I really need nothing more than it.

quote:

if you use some kind of good package handler (like apt, yum or emerge) that is NEVER a problem, and by far easier than installing a windows app.

Ya, but you need to open the package handler, etc.... Windows, you just double click, its quick and easy. All the installation part is on the onious of the programmer, not the user.

quote:

and enjoy their high prices...

You get what you pay for

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Monopolies are very good when you are dealing with standards. Its great our government has a monopoly over money, because if there were 12 different currencies we could trade in, it would be a headache for everyone and more costly, as companies would encure more costs in printing, time calculating, and IT spending... etc.

There are more than 12 different currencies - and you *can* use them for trading as long as your trading partner agrees with your choice of currency.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Now I'm not advocating a monopoly in the software environment, I am just really happy at the current situation, M$ has a defacto monopoly, yet has the pressure to keep its software competitive. So we basically enjoy the best standards. What I dread is a world with 25 desktop operating system of equal market share, or a world with only 1 desktop operating system. But so long as it is as it is, 1 desktop operating system with hundreds of small competition. I think it is for the best.

The problems you foresee do not exist as long as every company would used standard formats for data, and had their programs interpret data in the way it is supposed to be according to standards.
M$ is notoriously bad at this point. In spite of being heavily represented in standard comitees like w3, they consistenly fail to adhere to the standards.
Furthermore, for years organizations such as ISO has provided standards, which have worked quite well. There is no need for a monopoly in order to have standards.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Like it or not Windows is a standard, and if I'm a program developer I know I will be able to program in a windows environment and I will have an audience to sell it to. If there were 25 environments, I would spend perhaps most my time porting the software to the 25 different envrionments, wasting my time on porting instead of the features of software. So you either lose money, lose time, or lose features if such a world would exist with 25 desktop envrionments. Not to mention a complete loss of standards.

Well, your statement is highly dependent on the type of software project you intend to take on. If your are constructing a piece of firewall software, or software for a highly specialized task, you would be more concerned with having a platform which fulfils your requirements rather than having the software run on the majority of PCs. And when evaluating a platform on something which is not software back-catalogue or size of user-base, Windows does tend to lose out.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus As for installation, I don't know but for me "configuring" then "making" and then "making install" every program I want to add to linux (otherwise the precompiled binaries give me problems 90% of the tiem) takes MUCH longer than double clicking on a .exe in windows.

Well, for me, I like that my programs are placed - in their entirety - in a directory, and can be removed by a simple rm-command. On Windows, you have libraries and configuration files spread over your entire directory tree, and its [IRONY]ingenious[/IRONY] referencing system will ensure that removing the program through the control panel leaves ample room for left over files, which eventually starts cluttering the system.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Ya, but you need to open the package handler, etc.... Windows, you just double click, its quick and easy. All the installation part is on the onious of the programmer, not the user.

Well on Windows, you need to find a place to download the installation file, go to the folder where you downloaded to, and then double click it. With something like synaptec you just type the name of the package or a file included in it, and it is downloaded and installed in one go.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Sure windows has no sensical services, so does linux.. I remember going into the kernel build and turning on things that weren't available and turning off those things I completely didn't need. But it was much quicker for me to go into Windows services, and click all those off I didn't need during startup.

The difference is that when you turn off things in Windows, it means "do not use this thing", but a series of checks is still performed during operation and the memory requirements for the kernel are unaffected. When you compile a new kernel for linux, the parts you do not want are not included in the running code, and you hence gain more efficient execution.

With regards to Windows being user-friendly: It is true that if you ask the average joe to do something with a Windows PC and then ask him to perform the same tasks with linux, he will probably have a harder time using the linux distribution. But I claim that is mostly to do with habbit, as the newer distributions like RedHat and Mandrake have similar configuration tools and applications as Windows.
Only if you start messing with low level stuff do you need to be an expert. But you would also need to be an expert if you should do low level stuff (e.g. repartitioning or changing file system) on Windows.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Its great our government has a monopoly over money

It's the Federal Reserve that has a LEGAL, and PRIVATELY OWNED monopoly over our currency. Kennedy was trying to shut down the FED with Executive Order 11110 shortly before he was assassinated. Needless to say, the FED still controls our dollars.

I agree with Yoepus (OMG)

people forget how there was 435720547502 OS about 20 years ago, and only one seems to be able to survive now and its Windows.

Its called evolution and its inevitable.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek I agree with Yoepus (OMG) people forget how there was 435720547502 OS about 20 years ago, and only one seems to be able to survive now and its Windows. Its called evolution and its inevitable.

Except that Windows didn't survive by virtue of it's own strengths, but because its predecessor was the OS chosen for the first open architecture machines.

i can't understand how so many people can advocate a market with monopoly, competition is needed!

and once again, it's not like it's impossible to make a program multi platform with just one sourcecode. the problem is that mircrosoft don't want things to be like that. they want windows apps to work on windows and nowhere else.

competition can be done on the OS market too without any bigger problems than in the car industry!

you're just a hater!

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek people forget how there was 435720547502 OS about 20 years ago, and only one seems to be able to survive now and its Windows.

Eh?

Linux is actually gaining users rather than losing them, especially in the Business community where there seems to be a large 'open source' push going on at the moment. Macs still have a strong (And loyal) following, especially amongst the graphic design/art community.

That's my understanding anyhow.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

All I know is that those Linux commercials with that scary albino-like kid are pretty crappy.