M$ at it again...

[Jammrock]

And who's fault is that?
So, nobody can produce an OS to rival MS's so lets punish MS instead! The home user has a choice, do I go for Windows, do I go for Linux. Hummm, well it would appear the public voted, they choose Windows, naughty MS - how dare you produce such a successful product.

Actually...it's IBM's and Apple's fault. Linux is not an option for anyone except advanced users and people with a lot of time to play. Although I hear some of the new releases are very user friendly.

Back to IBM and Apple...as the story goes, IBM was shopping around for an OS for this revolutionary new idea they stole from Xerox called a Personal Computer. They went to a few software companies and they told IBM to, "take a hike you evil devils." Bill Gates, already being a devil, signed away and became the soul (pun intended) OS provider for the PC from IBM. IBM of course ruled the business industry, so all the cool geeks with money bought IBM PC's for home.

Apple, in the meantime, decided to rule the education industry. What they failed to realize is that educated people don't have any money. Apple lost the home battle fairly quickly and the IBM PC ruled. M$ had exclusive rights to the OS, and so M$ ruled the OS world, despite better products being available. And yes, at the time Macintosh's OS was LIGHT YEARS ahead of anything M$ had. Mac just picked the wrong people to market to.

Time went on and companies like Compaq and HP started making clones of PC's to compete with IBM. IBM trying to stop it, they failed and competition began. The hacker and the hardware geek were born as people finally had options to put inside their $5000, 386 20 MHz monster! Apple completely blocked geeks out from toying with the hardware, so they all switched to IBM PC if they hadn't already. M$, seeing an opportunity to sieze even more control, made deals with Compaq and others for exlusive OS rights for the PC clone makers. After all, you have to use an M$ OS for it to be a true PC, right?

And thus we see how we reached today's current issue. M$ has kept their control through the dirty business practices they learned from IBM. Apple only thinks they are cool. Linux rules the server world (despite what Paulr will tell you). The masses still use M$ OS's because that's the way it's always been. Only that, and nothing more.

Jammrock

[Gurm]

And because there are no apps for anything else.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

- Gurm

[cjolley]

Oh, you should have resisted.
Too easy.
Chuck

[Paulr]

"Linux rules the server world"

Linux recently moved into SECOND place.
Over the past month they overtook Novell to claim SECOND place.

Second place, not first, that is second, as in somebody is still ahead of them.
Everybody remembers the winners, very few remember the runner-up's.

[NocturnDragon]

Give me photoshop for linux and i'll switch to it! As long as that doens't happen i'm with MS

[KvHagedorn]

LOL
And you are how old?
I am sorry but you feel that anybody who supports Microsoft must work for them?
LOL
I'm sorry, but the more I read that quote the more I laugh.
LOL

Care to denigrate and attempt to discredit this Microsoft critic any more?

That is why I support MS.
Because I actually use the products on a daily basis.
I am on the front line when it comes to MS products and I'm yet to have one let me down.
I don't sit back and bash MS because as far as I can see and as far as my network shows I have
got nothing to bash them about.

I actually use the products on a daily basis as well. They serve their purpose adequately enough. I wouldn't call them perfect, like you do, but of course that is not the point, which you seem to be missing (on purpose?). The truth is, we both use Windows because it's the only game in town. I'll tell you this much, I'm old enough to remember when there was debate about which company made the best this or that software.. when people were actually trying OS/2, when Macs had a chance. When it was a requirement to know Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect. What happened? A predatory company named Microsoft slowly strangled these companies because they could, because they made the operating system which had to be bundled with every PC. This is why an operating system should be an industry standard thing, outside the realm of one company to control it. It just gives them too much power. When people who purport to be intelligent allow some all-powerful monopoly to think for them, that is where I get very suspicious.

[RedRed]

kV has a couple of good points there, that I ahve to agree with....

I remember Windows 3.0/3.1 with its hidden API's. Lotus 1-2-3 WOULDNT run on it for ages..... that probably single handedly killed that app - 10 time better than excel in its day..... WordPerfect - performed like a dog - again whupped Word for features.... Borland Quattro Pro - an amazing spreadsheet - destroyed by windows..... (it came with a dos and windows version in the same box in the end.....)

The OS SHOULD be App-manufacturer independant. No question.

On saying that I have done dozens of windoze XP installs on small networks (to w2K servers, mostly) with NO problems AT ALL.... out of the box....

redred

[KvHagedorn]

Apple
completely blocked geeks out from toying with the hardware, so they all switched to IBM PC if
they hadn't already.

Actually, I tweaked my old Mac SE30 several times with Ram, processor, and video card upgrades, so it really wasn't totally blocked, but those proprietary slots and such made upgrade parts expensive (which is why Mac went to PCI slots.) The real reason was the Mac O/S itself. It was so far ahead of its time that it was harder for people to program for it than it was to program for DOS, and there was the issue of color, too. There were a myriad of issues there, but it really boiled down to MS making it easier for programmers initially, then stabbing them all in the back when Billy boy decided to take applications markets away from them. Apple certainly wasn't perfect either, but at least they were honest up front about being control freaks, which of course alienated people right away. Microsoft just slowly tightened their fist until everyone willingly submitted to their will. Sad, eh?

[RedRed]

perhaps all is not yet lost, Kv.... Perhaps one day we will see mac OS X or OS XX available for the PC type architecture?

Oh.... I wish..... I have seen it and played with it and it is truly nice to use..... These days with a unix core, it cant be that much more difficult than windows?

(the only programming I did on macs was with smalltalk at uni - a b*llocks of a language!
redred

[Technoid]

In to the fry again!

Here I am again, Defending Linux once again......

And I who don't use it either

1.

Originally posted by cjolley
I'm not sure I understand the advantage of a system where the kernel is stable & everything else flys apart at slightest provocation.
Most users are actualy doing something with thier computers.
If thier program crashes they've lost thier work whether they need to cold restart or just restart the app.

That often happens on Win9x systems to

I've installed Linux every once & a while since 1995 & it is still not ready for general use.
I doubt that you could realy get the long uptime stats that people talk about on a Linux box that was used for a lot of different programs they way most home PCs are.
And printer support!? Ha!!!!!!

I have been called a blody lier becase I claimed that it was posible to run a win9x box for more than 2 hours at a time

In fact my wife & I took a Linux night class just a couple of months ago and we saw RedHat 7.1 crash many times a night on just the 8 PC that were in that room. Of course, we didn't learn as much as we hoped because so much time was spent by the Linux Zomby teacher talking about how bad Windoz is.
I'm with Gurm on this one. Festering Pile is pretty close to the truth.
Chuck

Bad example:
Those machines would probably have chrached as nuch on any os.....
And the teacher probably had had a week of "Gurms" and was a little fed up and disilusioned.

2. Why do all Linux bashers think that the only way for linux to succede is to convert into Windoze clone?

3.

Originally posted by KvHagedorn


Some poor average Joe or Josie who bought XP with their new E-machines for $499.00 and doesn't know any better. Maybe Senator Joe or Josie who doesn't know any better, and watches tittie movies (or worse), which info MS threatens to leak unless said senator votes their way. It's just the principle of the thing, and it's rotten to the core. Again, I'm wondering what your particular interest might be in defending Microsoft's behavior, Gurm.

Originally posted by cjolley

If they can't do that, how the heck are they going to get anything working in Linux at all?
It's just not an option for most home users.
Linux is a hobby and there is no near term fix for that.
Chuck

Believe me!
It don't matter what OS a newbie gets, he either lerns or not.
From no knowledge scratch its not harder to learn Linux than WinXp or macosx!!

And it doesen't either matter from what OS you switch to who!
It will always be the same dificulties!!!

(and going from w9x to XP does not qualifie as switching OS!!!!)


4.

Originally posted by Paulr

And who's fault is that?
So, nobody can produce an OS to rival MS's so lets punish MS instead!
The home user has a choice, do I go for Windows, do I go for Linux.
Hummm, well it would appear the public voted, they choose Windows, naughty MS - how dare you produce such a successful product.

(this one is to interesting to pass up)

How is it posible to compete?
If you write a good OS and Apps then the chance is that the big oem's will touch it because MS might get angry...

And if you only Do a OS that will run Win apps nativly you can count on being sued directly by MS

And if you do App for win os then you can bet your ass on that MS will kill it if it is to succesfull...

What actualy would be a good thing is if there where 2 or more "windows" compatible OS from other companys in the same way as there is "IBM" compatible computers...

One last sentence:
The "monkey thesis" aplayes to MS!

[Gurm]

The problem that I see here, is that Linux users ("Lusers"?) are unwilling to admit that the application support isn't there.

While we can argue the merits of the Linux kernel (if you want to get into OS theory I can rip it apart 8 ways to Tuesday, but I can do the same to the Windows kernel, so let's not go there), it irrelevant.

And it's irrelevant how good or bad MS is.

What IS relevant is two things:

1. Linux isn't easy enough to use yet for the average user to switch to it.

2. Linux has no professional application support to speak of.

These problems have killed better OS'es. OS/2, my personal favorite, was beaten into the ground due to lack of application support.

All other things aside, Linux IS a viable OS. It ISN'T a viable desktop OS - yhet.

- Gurm

[Marshmallowman]

try a new distribution, I am sick of this linux/MS dogma

say mandrake 8.2

printer/network/usb2/3d hardware configured in the first install run, very easy to use install interface, It does rival win xp for simplicity.
It even supports a lot of video capture and tuner cards...and older hardware which windows is canning.

The application support is there, it even comes on the CD's you get the OS on, and if you buy the whole package($60) you get commercial apps(Star office 6..etc)...no licensing, Web updates works well, and security problems and bugs are reported and distributed quickly not hidden..

ease of use..Ha if you a used to the windows regimented way of doing things, you may have problems adjusting(NOT). There is a local guy(no profit) here who recycles old hardware for the disabled and retired people, he uses linux now (becuase MS was going to sue because he as using old win 3.1 win 95 )
and believe me these "expert" useres have no problem getting on the net and browseing, writing letters..etc once linux has been set up (about the same as windows)

not a viable desktop OS....please, just #$#$ try a decent distro, its good..and you have a choice of interfaces from console to the tiniest gui, to the fully bloated windows clone.

professional apps...what do you want (and don't expect them to be the Brand your want)

A few things...the whole right click context type gui was in x windows from the start, I think windows has "borrowed" a lot of the basic gui operation from that, admittedly they slickified it a lot earlier than most X desktops... But X stuff always had it

What about the manufacturers like compaq and a few others that were begining to release dual boot windoes/linux machines. MS stopped that pretty quickly. But one manufatcuere is still doing it...but you have to run a program in windows to enable the boot menu, but they have to hide it ....MS don't compete or inovate...they are the borg,,, assimilate or die

[Marshmallowman]

hehe...and again

http://theregus.com/content/4/24363.html

and another nice snippet

http://theregus.com/content/4/24367.html

all your windows belong to us...

[Technoid]

Originally posted by Marshmallowman
try a new distribution, I am sick of this linux/MS dogma

say mandrake 8.2

printer/network/usb2/3d hardware configured in the first install run, very easy to use install interface, It does rival win xp for simplicity.
It even supports a lot of video capture and tuner cards...and older hardware which windows is canning.

The application support is there, it even comes on the CD's you get the OS on, and if you buy the whole package($60) you get commercial apps(Star office 6..etc)...no licensing, Web updates works well, and security problems and bugs are reported and distributed quickly not hidden..

ease of use..Ha if you a used to the windows regimented way of doing things, you may have problems adjusting(NOT). There is a local guy(no profit) here who recycles old hardware for the disabled and retired people, he uses linux now (becuase MS was going to sue because he as using old win 3.1 win 95 )
and believe me these "expert" useres have no problem getting on the net and browseing, writing letters..etc once linux has been set up (about the same as windows)

not a viable desktop OS....please, just #$#$ try a decent distro, its good..and you have a choice of interfaces from console to the tiniest gui, to the fully bloated windows clone.

professional apps...what do you want (and don't expect them to be the Brand your want)

A few things...the whole right click context type gui was in x windows from the start, I think windows has "borrowed" a lot of the basic gui operation from that, admittedly they slickified it a lot earlier than most X desktops... But X stuff always had it

What about the manufacturers like compaq and a few others that were begining to release dual boot windoes/linux machines. MS stopped that pretty quickly. But one manufatcuere is still doing it...but you have to run a program in windows to enable the boot menu, but they have to hide it ....MS don't compete or inovate...they are the borg,,, assimilate or die

Downloading it NOW!
Sounds interesting!

[Gurm]

Yes, Mandrake 8.2 is nice.

But since I still can't have Photoshop, good PLS, good 3d modeling, good sound editing, or play my games under it, it's a non-starter.

Oh, and the lack of 100% office compatibility is STILL a kicker.

*sigh*

You STILL aren't seeing the point.

I _know_ it's a thrilling, wonderful, tweak-happy hacker-happy OS. I have it running on at least one machine around here. It's just not ready for my prime work/play machines yet.

- Gurm