DonationCoder.com Forum
Main Area and Open Discussion => Living Room => Topic started by: zridling on November 26, 2008, 05:00 AM
-
It's called the QWERTY phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QWERTY). David Williams nails it again, this time in a column titled, Why doesn't everyone just run Linux? (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/21825/1141/)
In one sense, the Redmond monopoly is self-perpetuating. The first reason Linux doesn't have a stronger foothold in the market is because Windows is already there. For most people their first experience with a computer is Windows. That's the operating system bundled with almost every desktop and laptop you can buy from retail outlets.... Consequently, any competing operating system is at a disadvantage from the beginning: unless a person seeks out Linux or is introduced to it in some way there will be no catalyst for change. Even if the computer operator grumbles about Vista's many foibles, they will lump it often not realising that a choice exists.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ] (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/21825/1141/)
Technology -- and in this case Windows -- symbolizes the way in which it can all too often serve not as a force for progress but for keeping things stuck as is. Look at the QWERTY arrangement: it has no rational explanation, only a historical one. It was introduced in the 1870s in response to a problem in the early days of the typewriter. The keys would jam. The idea was to minimize the collision problem by separating those keys that followed one another frequently. If you're over 45 you might remember using a manual typewriter in school.
Once QWERTY was adopted, it resulted in many millions of typewriters and -- the social cost of change -- mounted annually with the vested interest, created by the fact that so many fingers now knew how to follow the QWERTY keyboard layout. QWERTY has survived despite the existence of other, more "rational" systems, which we never think to consider. QWERTY works!
The same phenomenon applies to Linux adoption, as David Williams illustrates in the article above. Once you spend time immersed in it, you can't imagine ever going back to Windows. However, I don't think the same applies to Apple, because the transition is made easier, less geekier, so to speak. Many see it easier to switch to Apple than to Linux.
-
There's much truth to this!
The obvious remedy would be and EXTREMELY detailed official XP-to-ubuntu transition site where almost any feature in XP can be looked up -- and the Ubuntu equivalent is presented. There are some such sites around (http://www.osalt.com/ is a good example when it comes to software) but I haven't seen one that is comprehensive and simple enough for the imagined target audience.
-
There is a huge difference between keyboards and this IMO. You can easily learn new operating systems (we didn't all start on vista, afterall, many of us started on windows 95 or even DOS). Learning to type on a different keyboard arrangement such as DVOARK (most likely the wrong word, but work with me here Edit: did have it wrong, the v and o were switched, fixed now) is synonymous with learning to speak a new language in many ways. It's something that comes natural and has to do with the physical movement of your body.
I think that there is a lot of truth to the article, but I think the analogy that it's the same thing as the QWERTY adaptation is a bit of an exaggeration. I do believe that if new PC's came with linux more than other OS's, it would make adaptation go at an amazing rate. I believe that linux on a new PC, especially if it meant a few bucks knocked off of the bottom line, would mean that people would really begin to switch. There are few motivators as strong as money in America.
-
Kamel, actually the analogy isn't so exaggerated.
Think of it this way:
You're used to scanning for viruses having come from Win 95 and suddenly this Linux comes without any scanning requirements and you're twiddling and thumbling your fingers while chanting the mantra "Linux is much more secure than Windows. Linux is much more secure than Windows..." then suddenly due to a hardware/software failure, some thing broke in your Linux! You can't access this or you can't boot that and you're thinking, well when something goes wrong in my Windows (often attributed to a virus) I'll just ask this guy I know to fix it and cross my fingers I won't have to reformat BUT suddenly this guy doesn't use or know Linux and suddenly all these step by step instructions require you asking in the forums.
Now you're ****ed. Day in and day out, you receive the dreaded "well...no PC is the same so you'll have to list this and that and check this and that" Wait...where's my Hijackthis. What? No Hijackthis? It's most likely not due to a virus because Linux is uber secure? NOOOOO!!!
Finally you decided to trash everything and just re-boot Linux from it's default settings but wait...what's this? You have to upgrade within months? NOOO!!! Pressure...pressure... the casual user inside of you keeps chanting "You don't need to upgrade now. You don't need to upgrade now." and soon you find yourself delaying your upgrades that Linux has become slightly less secure.
So now as a casual user similar to someone who's not getting DVORAK, you're thinking...wait... Why do I need to learn DVORAK when I know QWERTY and the results are the same? For Linux, you ask...Wait, why do I need Linux when I can secure a much more familiar Windows XP with an antivirus? Come to think of it... I did read that Norton was a bad antivirus and Win 95 was outdated but outside of DOS, Win XP sounded the same...and the only reason I'm settling for DOS games was cause Linux didn't have any modern games...wait...What the...?! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Hail to my new Windows XP! Pirated copies if Microsoft doesn't want my arm and leg. Hell no! I'm not giving away my hot wife!
-
Kamel, but learning a new OS these days isn't so simple, especially from scratch. Perhaps I should have compared it to switching to a new kind of keyboard. For example, my wife absolutely hates the Microsoft Natural keyboard whereas I'm lost without one. But just like learning a new language in a different country, immersion speeds the process.
Paul makes some good points about user psychology, and no doubt those many Linux fanboys who keep one hand on a Windows system nearby. It takes application and hard work. I honestly cannot imagine what it's like to drop a person in front of Vista today. It's elegant and powerful, but by no means simple. One look at the Control Panel dialog will cure that illusion.
Whether it's games or security, there are pros and cons -- and you have to love the pros of using Linux/OS X/...whatever and realize that you can do without the pros of using Windows, simply because there's a point at which you can't stand the cons. Of course, you could mirror the same point using any of the three OSes.
-
You can't compare DVORAK/QWERTY to Linux/Windows.
DVORAK is demonstrably better than QWERTY, at least as long as you're primarily writing English.
Linux (and open source software) is usually inferior to Windows/Commercial software in one way or another, be it lack of documentation, less features, more bugs, whatever. Yes, it's free, and the features might be good enough for you, and there are niches where free software is better, fair enough... but usually it's (at least slightly) inferior.
We might all be faster at typing if it wasn't for the designed-to-slow-us-down QWERTY standard, but it's not like if the world would be a magically better place if the majority weren't running Windows.
-
See, I've become more agnostic regarding operating systems.
In short: use whatever works for YOU.
If you run BeOs and think the rest of the world is crazy for not adopting it, fine. If you're a Mac user, good on you. Whatever makes you productive and happy is best.
The constant hand-wringing over Windows being on top despite questionably inferior technology is counter productive. When a better mousetrap comes along, people will adopt it... it's just that simple. Note that until FireFox came along, 99% of Windows users never even considered departing IE.
But "better" has to have quantitative benefits. Just because the kernel is way cooler or open source or from anyplace but Redmond shouldn't (and doesn't) matter. When Linux can kick Windows' ass in a spectacular and compelling fashion, the IE-->FF migration will repeat, but with operating systems.
Until that time, articles like this just piss me off.
-
Until that time, articles like this just piss me off.
-Ralf Maximus
Why?
I didn't see anything in the original article, or in this thread, that warrants anybody getting "pissed off" as you so eloquently put it.
Care to clarify?
-
It's the waste-of-effort of analyzing a well understood trend that irritates me.
The simple fact that articles like this exist, if you will.
Windows is installed on zillions of workstations. Why? Because it's always been that way. When will it change? When something tremendously better compels us to switch. Until then, analyzing why everyone runs Windows when "better" operating systems exist seems like wankery.
BTW, I may sound like I'm hammering this out with fists of fury, but I'm not. I'm quite calm and relaxed right now, thinking about fluffy, fluffy bunnies.
-
It's the waste-of-effort of analyzing a well understood trend that irritates me.
The simple fact that articles like this exist, if you will.
Windows is installed on zillions of workstations. Why? Because it's always been that way. When will it change? When something tremendously better compels us to switch. Until then, analyzing why everyone runs Windows when "better" operating systems exist seems like wankery.
-Ralf Maximus
And therefor, because you have settled this issue in your own mind (and to your own complete satisfaction) this discussion is a waste of everyone else's time too?
My goodness! What would your fluffy bunnies think? ;D
-
But "better" has to have quantitative benefits. Just because the kernel is way cooler or open source or from anyplace but Redmond shouldn't (and doesn't) matter. -Ralf Maximus
Thing is, it isn't. It's not the POS it used to be, but it's still inferior to the NT kernel :)
-
And therefor, because you have settled this issue in your own mind (and to your own complete satisfaction) this discussion is a waste of everyone else's time too?
If you'd like to discuss something, why not the original point of my first response?
You seem to have fixated on the last line of the thing, and ignored the first five paragraphs.
But "better" has to have quantitative benefits. Just because the kernel is way cooler or open source or from anyplace but Redmond shouldn't (and doesn't) matter. -Ralf Maximus
Thing is, it isn't. It's not the POS it used to be, but it's still inferior to the NT kernel :)
-f0dder
I was visualizing the Linux kernal as I wrote that.
Also, nowhere did I say Windows was better than other stuff, or even acceptable, or even total crap. It's just *Windows*.
I've missed you, f0dder.
-
Note that until FireFox came along, 99% of Windows users never even considered departing IE.
-Ralf Maximus
that's an interesting point there - I think there was a lot better than IE there before FF (but I dont honestly know - was there!?)
Opera's always (well, for a long time anyways) been much better but very few people have taken up on it
I think FF is doing really well cause the people working on it had a vision/(business-)plan in this direction - and they worked hard to implement it. Opera had a different vision
I guess I'm saying windows will be replaced when someone makes a huge effort to do so (with lots of financial backing I guess)
I'm not well informed about these things so could well be incorrect ;)
BTW hi Ralph, welcome back!
-
Note that until FireFox came along, 99% of Windows users never even considered departing IE.
I disagree. This is just history revisioning. Even casual techies know that many were still craving for Netscape but it just kept bloating up and being buggy.
Internet Explorer did a Google Chrome, add a monopolistic comes pre-installed with a popular OS and with the right marketing it captured the majority of most people's interest.
If you like to play predictions, you could even say the latest version of Netscape is at the current point where most user friendly Linux distros are today. Featureful but bloated and still often times containing the occassional deadly bug for casual users who don't know how to troubleshoot.
Opera then was Adware and like the early Apple OS's, superior but never considered as a viable alternative. Macs today are highly popular in their niches. The same phase could be said for where Opera is going. Desktop market share wise, they're lingering at the bottom but like Macs, they're focusing to the future. Where Apple eventually focused more on laptops and portables, Opera is gaining new grounds with their browsers being on Wiis, cellphones, handhelds, PDA, etc. Of course it can be said that the company is still missing a Steve Jobs but how notable was the name Steve Jobs then to the mainstream tech crowd?
So to give Firefox credit for all their success like they came out of nowhere is a blatant disregard for all the circumstances that led them here. Remember before Firefox, the main reason why Firebird gained notoriety was it was finally Netscape that got what IE had going for while retaining most of it's features through add-ons while doing the right marketing.
This is pretty much the same pattern the Linux Distro worlds are going through right now. As Windows 7 and Leopard constantly add buggy or irrelevant eye candy, Linux developers are forging the "light on resources" ahead by stabilizing Wubi, improving MintInstall, finally auto-adding a separate user partition, taking advantage of the maturity of cloud technology to sidestep vendor lock ins.
All these while patiently riding under the upcoming bloatware and as the community grows, it could potentially do what Firefox eventually evolved from: A less lightweight Firebird that changed it's mascot and took advantage of the growing dissent and lack of true useful innovation from the competitors.
I guarantee you that had Firefox started like Firefox 2.0 or Firefox 3.0, it won't gather half the marketshare and half the add-on developers like it has now to leverage it's uninnovative architecture and 99% of those using Windows won't be considering switching from IE especially because if the Firebird product had just been delayed a little bit further, the popularity of IE shells would rise and everyone would instead be saying "Why do I need to switch from Firefox if Maxthon can do this anyway?" except for the few open source zealots.
-
[Ralf M.]: Windows is installed on zillions of workstations. Why? Because it's always been that way. When will it change? When something tremendously better compels us to switch. Until then, analyzing why everyone runs Windows when "better" operating systems exist seems like wankery.
Perhaps you misunderstood David Williams, Ralf? Maybe not, but he's saying that since [most] everyone uses Windows, unless you have a compelling reason for an alternative to it, then you'll never consider your options. I only used the QWERTY phenomenon as an example of similar historical precedent. Tried buying a retail computer in 2008 without having to pay for a pre-installed copy of Windows on it? You damn sure nearly can't, unless you have the sleuthing skills to find Dell's Linux pages or you just start waving $100 dollar bills in the air toward an Apple product. If Windows works for you, then the explanation fits. You're happy. Microsoft is happy. Story ends.
Forget computers or OSes. Water the analogy down and apply it to anything else in your life -- favorite brand of shoes, toothpaste, power tools, auto, even your preferred soft drink.
-
Zaine, the analogy would have worked if the de-facto product was flawed compared to the alternatives - QWERTY is clearly handicapped compared to DVORAK, as mentioned previously... for most other markets with a dominating product, this isn't the case.
-
Thanks f0dder for the clarification. I see what you mean.
-
Zaine! I've missed you. :)
Yes, upon re-reading I didn't get that from the QWERTY article. I guess I got hung up on the IDEA of switching, and/or debating the value of one O/S over another, which is a discussion that rapidly bores me. Sure, compare & contrast the differences, promote one over another for particular tasks... but too many of those threads descend into Mac bashing and Redmond hating. My reflex kicked in, and it blinded me to the core of the essay. Thanks for pointing that out.
I still stand by my IE/FF example, as it pertains to the desire to upgrade.
FF 1.0 was released in September 2004. In that year, Microsoft shipped approximately 100 million XP SP upgrades. That's *just* XP, and only upgrades from previous XP editions. One can easily envision that number being x5 or even x10 when all Windows editions sold prior to 2004 are factored in.
If only 1% of 100 million users hated IE and used Opera, Netscape, Lynx (etc) that's a substantial number -- a million people -- and supports the meme that power users wanted something better, but typical users didn't know/care enough to even think about switching. From supporting a large help desk, I know for a fact many otherwise intelligent adults think of IE as "the internet," as if it's just a drive share or some magical thing on their computer ("You need software to see the internet?").
That was my point.
Awareness was raised by the FF phenomenon, and Microsoft's monopolistic issues in Europe at that time. Suddenly open source anything was in the news, and that also boosted interest in Firefox.
But until that time, I think it's safe to say 99% of Windows users didn't even know there was an upgrade path away from IE, and the vast majority would have shrugged anyway had they known.
-
The obvious remedy would be and EXTREMELY detailed official XP-to-ubuntu transition site where almost any feature in XP can be looked up -- and the Ubuntu equivalent is presented. There are some such sites around (http://www.osalt.com/ is a good example when it comes to software) but I haven't seen one that is comprehensive and simple enough for the imagined target audience.
-Nod5
You know, this comment by Nod5 left me thinking. Because it reminded me of what Microsoft itself did when faced with a similar situation, i.e. being the "underdog" in a popular software category. And I'm not talking about the browsers war with Netscape, but the fight against WordPerfect for the supremacy in the word processing category. Do you remember how Microsoft included in every single version of Word a special "Help for Wordperfect users" to ease the transition from WordPerfect? I can't recall which was the first version of Microsoft Word to include that but I'm pretty sure that back then WordPerfect was the dominant program for word processing. And they still have it in Word 2003 (I'm not running Word 2007, so maybe someone else can confirm if it's still there in that version). I'm not saying that that was the sole determinant in Microsoft success in placing Word as the #1 program in the category, but it sure must have helped.
So, what would happen if, say, Ubuntu started including a special "Help for Windows users" as part of the standard help files of the OS? I confess my utmost ignorance about Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular, so maybe this is already there, but I highly doubt it. Such a move would be probably denounced as "sacrilege" by some members of the community, but I think it'd be a wise move on their part since I guess that most first time users of Ubuntu come from Windows rather than another Linux distribution or Mac.
-
If only 1% of 100 million users hated IE and used Opera, Netscape, Lynx (etc) that's a substantial number -- a million people -- and supports the meme that power users wanted something better, but typical users didn't know/care enough to even think about switching. From supporting a large help desk, I know for a fact many otherwise intelligent adults think of IE as "the internet," as if it's just a drive share or some magical thing on their computer ("You need software to see the internet?").-Ralf Maximus
Again, several things went against those browsers you mentioned to make them viable alternatives then:
1. Opera - free version had Ad-ware then which if you don't know, was an even bigger issue for pseudo-power users then who knew no better than Adware = evil. Even if you weren't bothered by Adware, Opera unlike Firefox had a unique interface compared to Firefox/IE. The fact that numerous Firefox add-ons today which Opera has always had still gets much praise is just proof that Opera was ahead of it's time BUT also didn't get the market as the Ad they have for example severely made Firefox look more minimalistic from the get go than Opera. Finally the nail in the coffin was website compatibility, lack of developer support and a familiar help for IE users. All critical areas that were important even for power users.
2. Netscape - same with Opera, people don't like using software that feels buggy.
3. Lynx - text browser.
If you can name me how any versions of those browsers were as easy or familiar to use as Firefox at that time, then you might have a case but the fact is, none of those were as easy a switch at that time.
Awareness was raised by the FF phenomenon, and Microsoft's monopolistic issues in Europe at that time. Suddenly open source anything was in the news, and that also boosted interest in Firefox.
But until that time, I think it's safe to say 99% of Windows users didn't even know there was an upgrade path away from IE, and the vast majority would have shrugged anyway had they known.
The problem is that there was no "upgrade" path from IE at the time. There were different flavors of browsers but none of them were stable, free and familiar.
Here's what the Firefox "phenomenon" pretty much was:
1) Security - Opera had this but how can you develop confidence in ad-ware?
2) Tabs - Again, killer feature but not something that works well if you have a big block of ad on top or buggy software.
3) Ad-blocker - Suicide for companies like Opera and Netscape at the time. You might find this silly nowadays but back then these were all you heard from forums hyping Firefox besides Tabs and Security.
4) Extensions - Let's face it, part of the hype back then was contributed by marketers who thought they could eventually evolve a business model from it. Part of it was also people wanting to get instant net fame by copying Opera's features. Finally part of it was blogs making lists of these that made Firefox looked like Google Chrome as far as how most of the net were talking about it.
Now look how much these word of mouth contributed to Google Chrome's fast market share rise without it even having an ad-blocker and security and you will see that the phenomenon wasn't much of a phenomenon at all as much as "Ad-blocker". Remember part of the whole open source movement at the time was contributed by a rise of Ad-ware applications like Bonzi Buddy that exposed these security risks to users which was also contributed by the strong detection rates of popular antiviruses at the time which eventually got disfigured into ad-ware = evil everything.
-
Paul, I respect your deep knowledge. You have a very precise style of laying out facts that is a pleasure to read.
But. I feel like you're fixating on key words in my text (e.g. "upgrade", "lynx") and running with those, breaking things down to the subatomic level and reassembling them differently than I meant. Obviously I am not able to articulate my real point: that O/S agnostism is something to strive for, and spending time worrying about why Windows both rules and sucks at the same time is not productive. I view that as a failure on my part, as I pride myself on communications skills. Maybe as we get to know each others' posting style this will ease somewhat -- I'm really a nice guy, and I'm sure you are too. No harm, no foul.
But for now I will bow out of this thread, declare you the winner of a debate I didn't even know I was participating in, and let things go.
-
Ralf: There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, or a strong feeling about something. But the one thing you can expect at DC is to have your opinions challenged and debated. It's pretty much in the nature of the place from what I can tell.
I've had my butt handed to me on more than one occasion when I've posted something on DC that I either: didn't properly think through, articulate clearly, or double-check for accuracy. And I've benefited from that experience. I know it's improved my forum skills - and it's definitely encouraged me to become (with mixed success) a better writer.
It's also made me painfully aware of how easy it is to fall into the trap of truthiness. (see quotes below*)
Don't bow out (or yield) if you think you've been misunderstood. It's not a competition. We're all seeking clarity here, no matter how divergent our points of view. So please, get in there with your facts and rationale for why you've formed the opinion you have - and share it with the rest of us.
Look at it this way: You may be right. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness
Truthiness is what you want the facts to be, as opposed to what the facts are. What feels like the right answer as opposed to what reality will support.
~ Stephen Colbert
October 17, 2005 The Colbert Report[/b]
Truthiness is the reality that is intuitively known without regard to liberal ideals such as reason and logic. It is the truth that is felt deep down, in the gut. It can't be found in books, which are all facts and no heart (except for the one true book, I Am America (And So Can You!) It is absolute, and can only be infallibly known by the gut of Stephen Colbert. It can only be felt by Americans with huge brass balls.
In the past decade, occurrences of truthiness have tripled in the United States. The rest of the world, sadly, lags far behind.
American Dialect Society's Word of the Year
On January 6, 2006, the American Dialect Society announced that truthiness was selected as its 2005 Word of the Year. The Society described its rationale as follows:
"In its 16th annual words of the year vote, the American Dialect Society voted truthiness as the word of the year. First heard on The Colbert Report, a satirical mock news show on the Comedy Channel, truthiness refers to the quality of stating concepts or facts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true. As Stephen Colbert put it, 'I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart.'"
Apparently after realizing that "truthiness" was found in the Oxford English Dictionary, the Society later changed the wording of this press release on their website, from "First heard on The Colbert Report..." to "Recently popularized on The Colbert Report..."
-
Ralf, nice to meet you too, and what 40hz said.
Communication problems weren't totally entirely your fault, I was partly to blame too.
The reason it sounded like I was focusing on key phrases of your argument was because I was.
I do agree with your general premise and in fact, I was originally considering writing something too similar to your reply on the futility of this discussion, decided not to and then I read your reply and pretty much lurked here until I felt your analogy with the browsers read too much historical revisioning compared to the version I knew of that it was worth a rebuttal not necessarily for the goal of winning but to cementify my own thoughts if I'm wrong as well as inform readers/lurkers who chance upon this topic that might not have any true idea and hopefully one way or the other, they get a better version of the events out of reading through the topic.
In hindsight, it would probably have been simpler to imitate f0dder's trail of argument by focusing on the actual QWERTY-DVORAK analogy but at the time, I just felt I had more hands-on opinion of browsers and the idea that QWERTY was inherently flawed compared to DVORAK just left a sour taste in my mouth.
It just comes off like an argument saying ergonomic chairs are much superior to cheaper generic models but often times it turns out that it's my sitting posture that's the problem and was the missing perspective to my dilemmas.
In a way, by following this premise I just felt like it was ignoring the innovations and hardships many distribution developers had done to improve parts of Linux to be better than Windows out of the box which rather than prove the futility of the discussion and treating the topic as a well done analogy, ends up forcing the analogy to be unnecessarily over-thought in my head.
-
Thanks for being cool about all this. I understand now what you were trying to accomplish.
However, I'm uncomfortable with the response my simple statement of opinion generated. I've spent entirely too much time defending and explaining a position I don't even care about.
The end result is that I no longer feel qualified to express opinions unless I am prepared to do battle, High School Debate Club style. That's not fun, and not why I come here. I am not a newbie -- check my stats.
So, I'll go back to posting fun/amusing doo-dads and leave the heavy debate to the more qualified.
Have fun.
-
The end result is that I no longer feel qualified to express opinions unless I am prepared to do battle, High School Debate Club style. That's not fun, and not why I come here. I am not a newbie -- check my stats.
So, I'll go back to posting fun/amusing doo-dads and leave the heavy debate to the more qualified.
Have fun.
-Ralf Maximus
We will. Hope you do too.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Wizard hat, bunny ears, or Jester's cap - whatever you're most comfortable wearing. The dress code is pretty loose around here. ;D
-
Careful with the robe and wizard hat... We're not THAT loose :o :o
-
Careful with the robe and wizard hat... We're not THAT loose :o :o
-Edvard
I'll be sure to keep the sash firmly tied.
Just be grateful I didn't say a tam–o'–shanter and kilt!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65hOhj94ZGE ;D
-
There is definitely a lot of truth in all of this.
I've given Ubuntu a fair try many times, and I'm experimented with some other distros of Linux. I use and love Ubuntu Server for running a personal web server because it's free and it does the job well on minimal hardware. I started out my server using Linux.
But on my desktop, it's much different. I've always used Windows and probably will continue to use Windows for a long time. The reason is simple. I've always used Windows, it works fine, and I personally like it. Sure, it has it's quirks. But so does Linux, even more so than most hardcore Linux users will admit.
Especially for those who know little about computers, there's no reason to switch to Linux. The world uses Windows and it works for them. Without a huge incentive to change (and simply being free isn't really as influencing as you might initially think, since Windows usually comes preinstalled).
Whenever I talk to my friend, who has completely switched from XP to Ubuntu, I can't seem to explain to him why I have no desire to switch. Sure, Ubuntu is great for a free, open source system. In fact, it's incredible for that. But in my opinion, it can't compete with Windows yet. It's not really Linux's fault either. Things like hardware support are lacking (though getting much better quickly) in Linux, but they are strong Windows simply because hardware manufactures write drivers for the OS that is used by the majority of people. I'm happy with Windows as it is (I run XP, by the way, not Vista). I'm looking forward to Windows 7. And I simply don't have a good enough reason to switch to Linux.
-
[compeek]: I've always used Windows and probably will continue to use Windows for a long time. The reason is simple. I've always used Windows, it works fine, and I personally like it.
Now there's a man who knows what he likes. I envy that kind of resoluteness.
Especially for those who know little about computers, there's no reason to switch to Linux.
If it's their first system, I would hope they'd start with Linux. At the very least, they'd save money and have an opportunity to master it before going the other way with the comparison, which is "Linux isn't Windows, who knew!" No, it's not, and that's a good thing for both.
The world uses Windows and it works for them.
Unless, like the Chinese, you've stolen it and your screen goes dark because you won't register it. :o I'd much rather people around the world use Linux than steal Windows. Microsoft has invested a lot of untold blood, sweat, tears, and acquisitions over the years to make Windows something good enough for 90% of users willing to pay for it. They keep it updated and at the least, they're constantly eliminating its weaknesses.
-
I'd much rather people around the world use Linux than steal Windows
-zridling
BUT, Microsoft'd much rather people around the world steal Windows than use Linux (lesser of two evils, of course, not that they're necessarily happy with it)
-
Interesting points of view from everyone :)
For myself, these days I just stick with Windows because it's good enough and widely supported. My curiosity about other OS's has pretty much died out. Most of the fun went out of computers when I started using them for business, rather than just as a hobby.
-
Most of the fun went out of computers when I started using them for business, rather than just as a hobby.
-cranioscopical
That happened to me too. That's why I started playing with Linux.
Hmmm...but now that Linux has become part of my business, I wonder if that will happen all over again?
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
I'd much rather people around the world use Linux than steal Windows
-zridling
BUT, Microsoft'd much rather people around the world steal Windows than use Linux (lesser of two evils, of course, not that they're necessarily happy with it)
-city_zen
Now that is a very interesting thought! >:D
(I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that were true. :Thmbsup:)
-
If it's their first system, I would hope they'd start with Linux. At the very least, they'd save money and have an opportunity to master it before going the other way with the comparison, which is "Linux isn't Windows, who knew!" No, it's not, and that's a good thing for both.-zridling
You do have a very good point there that I haven't thought about much. Someone who has always used Windows is definitely more likely to try Linux and say, "Hey, it's not like Windows! I don't like it." They would be much more open. But I guess that brings up the question, is it better for the world to turn to an open source OS and eliminate for-cost competition? Personally, I say no.
city_zen said that Microsoft would prefer you steal Windows that use Linux. I don't seem to have the link bookmarked any more, but I read an article a while back about that. The basis of the article was that even though stealing Windows takes away money from Microsoft (more like stops them from having your money, I guess), it still helps to keep Windows mainstream. I definitely think that's at least partly true. However, stealing is still illegal and it's still wrong. It hurts the companies who are trying to sell their product.
Back to Windows and Linux. I think having both open source software and software you buy helps to boost the use of both. There's no better competition to a paid-for product than a free one that does the same thing. It helps to keep the paid-for product of high quality, while at the same time it keeps the developers on the open source product to make the free one be as good as the paid-for one. Know what I mean? If Linux (or any free OS for that matter) ever became more widely used than Windows (or any paid OS), I don't things would be so good. There's no guaranteed support for an open source product, which might scare away companies from using the free product. Sure, there's the whole internet for support, but that's still not as solid of support as talking directly to the creator.
This post could go on and on, so I'm going to wrap it up now. I think Linux is great for how far it's come and how far it's probably going. I look forward to major improvements in distros like Ubuntu. There are many situations in which I'd use Linux. For example, sometime I'd like to build an HTPC. I've dabbled in MythTV and it seems extremely promising for this. Running Windows on my HTPC would cost me the price of Windows, but I also would have the opportunity to get the many plugins developed for free by others. But for my main desktop for work and play, I think I'd feel a lot safer using Windows. It's very widely supported. It works. That's the bottom line for why I refuse to switch to Linux completely, even if I wanted to.
-
city_zen said that Microsoft would prefer you steal Windows that use Linux. I don't seem to have the link bookmarked any more, but I read an article a while back about that.
I think Mouser posted about that here: https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=765.0
@40hz: Google "robe and wizard hat" and you'll see what I mean. On second thought, don't.
-
Edvard: would that get us the legendary bloodninja chat transcript? NSFW, but fairly innocent imho :)
-
Microsoft does not only allow it, they let you say it in their face. There was an old article about a Transylvanian Prime Minister (I think?) that hosted a conference where he thanked Bill Gates for all the pirated copies of Windows and Bill Gates just laugh.
Piracy hurting business is a myth for large companies especially monopolies. Rentals hurt their business but piracy doesn't.
It's classic supply and demand. MS knows they can't compete with the supply of free programs so what they do is they create demand for their products and let piracy take care of their supply.
The moral guys will pay for their products and the immoral or poor guys will pirate it. MS knows the poor guys outweigh the immoral guys by a lot so they let these immoral guys be their free salesmen to these poor guys. Since poor guys won't be able to afford legitimate products anyway, they lose little in net gains but they gain alot in brand marketing and maintain their influence around the world.
Add a little bit of anti-piracy message and MS gets away with supporting piracy indirectly.
In fact, they're almost a pioneer of this concept just based on their success with this while many novelist/musicians are only starting to wisen up to this marketing strategy of providing their paid products for free via p2p.
-
[Paul]: In fact, they're almost a pioneer of this concept just based on their success with this while many novelist/musicians are only starting to wisen up to this marketing strategy of providing their paid products for free via p2p.
Wow. So true. However, cheaper generally wins. How many times over the years have we seen a program break out during its beta and 1.x versions, gaining wild popularity, only to declare it's going shareware in version 2.0, and then it falls off the table? Even for music, the new DRM-free MP3 store (http://www.amazon.co.uk/MP3-Music-Download/b/ref=sa_menu_dm1?ie=UTF8&node=77197031) at Amazon.co.uk (http://www.amazon.co.uk/) is a better value than any DRM music.
-
I think it depends on the actual items. Apple products for example are king of using price to create value.
Creative is widely known time and time again for releasing a better mp3 player in general at a cheaper price but the Ipod continues it's dominance time and time again because of the right hype that is partially due to it's image as a quality item that requires an above average price in the eyes of the masses.
I think cheaper generally only wins if it can give the image of a bargain in a definitive clear cut manner.
-
I think it depends on the actual items. Apple products for example are king of using price to create value.
-Paul Keith
I think "create value" is too modest. Apple uses price to create a whole separate reality for their customers.
I wonder if Jobs got his marketing plan from Dr. Seuss's classic story The Sneetches? ;D
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
THE SNEETCHES
by Dr. Suess
Now the Star-bellied Sneetches had bellies with stars.
The Plain-bellied Sneetches had none upon thars.
The stars weren't so big; they were really quite small.
You would think such a thing wouldn't matter at all.
But because they had stars, all the Star-bellied Sneetches
would brag, "We're the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches."
With their snoots in the air, they would sniff and they'd snort, "
We'll have nothing to do with the plain-bellied sort."
And whenever they met some, when they were out walking,
they'd hike right on past them without even talking.
(Read the rest here: http://www.uulongview.com/sermons/bellies_with_stars.html )
-
40hz, ;D
(I know this was too short to post but that was funny)
-
Heaven help me but I couldn't resist!!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
@f0dder: sadly, yes...
-
Now the Mac-using Sneetches, their bellies had apples
While the Win-using Sneetches were nothing but dappled.
Just plain yellow dapple, without any graphic
To show off in public, or maybe stop traffic.
And although no OS makes you 'better in bed',
You'd never suspect from some things that were said.
And so, the Mac-Sneetches would taunt, and would boast,
That "Our systems are better, and you'll soon be toast!
If you don't come on over and use these machines,
Then the projects you're working on won't be worth beans.
'Cause you can't be productive, creative, or cool
If you're using an OS that's just so old-school."
(Should I go on? ;D)
-
Edvard, 40hz
You, gentlemen, are droll!
-
Should I go on?-40hz
Yes, preferably a long trip! ;D
-
keep going 40hz, i'm loving it.
and nice pic Edvard -- how about the two of you team up and make a version of the book for mac vs pc.
-
keep going 40hz, i'm loving it.
and nice pic Edvard -- how about the two of you team up and make a version of the book for mac vs pc.
-mouser
There's a nice idea!
-
Careful now... It took at least 3 accidents with copy and paste to make that (and a perspective tool).
Taking on such a project would involve me actually learning something! :o
(though I think it's a good idea too...)
p.s. Anybody have scans of the book, maybe I'll give it a good running start and see if I can actually complete something.
-
If the Mac-using Sneetches came up with new apps,
Did they share it with others, like some decent chaps?
"Not a chance!" Big Steve laughed, with his wings all akimbo.
"You won't run our genius on Windows, you Bimbos!
Our license is Berkley's - it's not GPL.
So before you see open, I'll see you in hell!"
If the Mac-using Sneetches appeared at tech shows,
They'd just hang out together, in small, clubby droves.
They'd act mostly amused by whoever was talking.
And if not about Macs, well...they'd mostly keep walking!
-
keep going 40hz, i'm loving it.
and nice pic Edvard -- how about the two of you team up and make a version of the book for mac vs pc.
-mouser
Whassup Mouser? You looking to score your very first DMCA takedown notice? ;D
(Come to think of it, am I looking to get sued just in time for the holidays? :tellme:)
-
Should I go on?-40hz
Yes, preferably a long trip! ;D
-cranioscopical
Hey! I just noticed it's pretty damp at this end of the pier! ;D
-
Oh, what have we done?
Then one day at DEVCON, while the Sneetches of PC
were moping, just moping after Jobs' keynote at three,
sitting there, wishing their bellies had logos,
up zipped a stranger in the strangest of Volvos.
"My friends, " he announced in a voice clear and non-heinous,
"My name is Torvalds, first name of Linus"
I've heard of your troubles; I've heard of your burden.
But I can fix that; I've got a new kernel version.
I've come here to help you; I have what you need.
My prices are low, and my licence is freed,
and my work is one tenth of one cent guaranteed."
-
Come to think of it, am I looking to get sued just in time for the holidays?
-40hz
Sued, or stewed? ;)
-
(https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/esmileys/gen3/4Medium/TFR1EA.gif)
Ed, I was waiting for that! (And thinking much the same thing about where to take it.)
"Great minds think alike." :Thmbsup:
Of course my GF puts it a different way. "When it comes to The Gutter - every street always has two."
(https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/esmileys/gen3/4Medium/TFR1EA.gif)
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
Come to think of it, am I looking to get sued just in time for the holidays?
-40hz
Sued, or stewed? ;)
-cranioscopical
That's burned either way, I'm afraid. 8)
-
No worries, it is parody. That is protected....now stewed, that may be a problem... :P
Lovin' the story though. Sure to make other Blogs once it is put together.
-
You guys may not have the balls to say that "linux is better", but I certainly do. There are thousands of quantitative reasons, which can be very easily argued among computer science literate individuals of why linux and the linux kernel is _FAR_ superior to windows. This isn't just something computer scientists argue that means nothing to the end user, it just means that the regular computer user simply does not understand these concepts, and if they did they would probably just revolt with senseless nonsense like "so, that's not important", when if properly adopted it would be very important.
Here are a few reasons why linux is far superior to windows in design. First and foremost, linux has found what is wrong with windows and fixed it. This is something linux can do because users of linux are phenomenal at fast adaptation of changes in standards. Windows users, however, are phenomenal at slow-to-no adaptation of new standards. If a change in windows will negatively affect a business, it will not happen in windows. Linux, however, is different. This is just a concept, lets get to tooth and nail differences that make one superior.
Preemptive multitasking. Basically means linux can not crash unless the kernel crashes. Very important for many reasons. How many times you had to reboot your computer because of a hung app? Even though it's gotten better, windows still yet does not use preemptive multitasking. Windows relies on processes being 'polite', and giving the processor to each other when needed, while the linux kernel gives a process a set time for holding the processor before the kernel retrieves the processor back. No matter the 'opinion' of the process, it can not hold the processor longer than it has been allotted.
Everything is a program. Meaning, Linux can be less than 2MB in size for a fully functional Linux operating system. Windows can't do this, not even its compact edition.
Portability. Linux can be ran, easily and natively, on basically every CPU architecture made. It can run on a powerpc mac, it can run on x86 windows processor, a RISC chip in mobile devices, the list goes on. This is something that windows and mac both can definitely not say. Yea, it can be ported, but this takes a long tedious time. The linux kernel just needs recompiling with the drivers for the device loaded. This calls for rapid deployment on a very wide range of new devices.
Linux can be as big or as little as necessary (see portability), meaning it can pretty much run on any computer ever made, or any embedded device, for that matter. One look at Windows Vista requirements, and it becomes obvious to you very quickly that Vista was not designed with older PC's in mind. Windows XP, for that matter, has quite steep system requirements when compared to its predecessor Win98. I know you're going to say windows has gotten better, and hardware has too, making it make sense to require more resources.... save it, I'm not an idiot, I know this. What you fail to realize though is that basically this means older PC's can't run anything but windows 98, which is no longer supported officially by microsoft meaning that viruses and so on run rampid. Basically this means there is no way in a 'windows-user' mind to be able to use an old PC such as that. Suddenly, this means that the computer is useless and must be thrown out. What was that about saving the environment you were just on about? Do you realize just how many toxins are in PC's? Especially older ones.
There are many other reasons, but I'm too lazy to go on and I need to get some things done before the sun goes down. My primary point in this whole thing is that Linux *IS* better, in many ways than windows. As far as design, it's basically like comparing a regular built house to a hurricane resistant built home on the coast of Miami. Yea, one can argue (lol) that the regular house is "better", since "better" is a relative term, but from an engineering standpoint there is absolutely positively no comparison.
The primary reasons Windows excels beyond Linux so well is because it is made with commercialism as its number 1 concern. Linux, however, is not. Therefore, it may never be commercially fit (unless that very thing changes). Linux has too many arguments, and has a problem with coordination and no "feature freezes" of the linux operating system as a whole. If you simply say you are using linux, this means nothing at all as Linux is not unified. If you say "I'm using windows XP", however, that really means something because windows XP is a very strongly unified body of code. This is the simple and pure advantage windows has on linux, and its so strong that while linux may get bigger, I seriously doubt it will ever take over unless there is commercialism as a primary driving means. Commercialism prioritizes things that linux not only does not care about, but outright refutes, such as everyone using one way to do something. It only takes 1 linux user thinking there is a better way and making that 'better way' to create 2 ways to do something, meaning after you are doing something that requires a program standing on the shoulders of 20 apps, you have something to the effect of 20^2 different software configurations to get to that point, and any number of things could be going wrong. This essentially makes it so that people are damn near impossible to figure out exactly what the problem is with their linux system and how to fix it the best way. This is difficult even in the extremely unified windows and many times results in a system restore/reformat. Linux just makes it exponentially harder due to its lack of unification.
It's because of these reasons that Linux is not well adapted, and it's because of that reason that commercial developers care very little about their software running on Linux. This puts Linux at a double fatal downfall. Few things are designed for it, hardware or software, and Linux does not care for commercialism currently meaning it will never grow to become a commercial product.
-
Preemptive multitasking. Basically means linux can not crash unless the kernel crashes.
That's not what pre-emptive multitasking means.
What it means is that the whole system won't hang if a thread doesn't Yield() (or does a system call that yields). It's entirely possible to make a pre-emptively scheduled OS that can be crashed by non-kernel processes (ie., you could run everything at ring0 privilege). Btw, windows has been pre-emptive since win9x.
How many times you had to reboot your computer because of a hung app?
Since win9x, never. Because of a BSOD? Since NT, only because of badly written drivers.
Even though it's gotten better, windows still yet does not use preemptive multitasking.
Please do your research.
Everything is a program. Meaning, Linux can be less than 2MB in size for a fully functional Linux operating system. Windows can't do this, not even its compact edition.
While "Windows" as a whole isn't super-modular, you can get the windows kernel below... what was is... a couple hundred kilobytes? (check the original stripped-down NT kernel used in the XBOX).
Portability. Linux can be ran, easily and natively, on basically every CPU architecture made. It can run on a powerpc mac, it can run on x86 windows processor, a RISC chip in mobile devices, the list goes on. This is something that windows and mac both can definitely not say. Yea, it can be ported, but this takes a long tedious time. The linux kernel just needs recompiling with the drivers for the device loaded. This calls for rapid deployment on a very wide range of new devices.
For linux to be recompiled, first GCC + binutil + libc + <other stuff> needs to be ported. Then there's a few (or more) kernel modifications that need to be done. You're trivializing the porting process, which is nowhere near as simple as you're claiming. Sure, NT doesn't run on as many platforms as linux does, but because of it's HAL design it can be ported pretty well. Because of it's commercial nature, it isn't ported where there isn't a demand, though. This does, however, include the Alpha, x86, x86-64, Itanium, Itanium2, ARM (iirc) and some other handheld devices. So it's not like NT isn't portable, it's just that it's not ported where there isn't a (strong) demand).
Linux can be as big or as little as necessary (see portability), meaning it can pretty much run on any computer ever made, or any embedded device, for that matter.
Try getting it to run on an 8-bit embedded controller - good luck. Even if it's possible, it'd be in such a stripped-down state that it doesn't make much sense, and you'd be better off running a custom OS.
One look at Windows Vista requirements, and it becomes obvious to you very quickly that Vista was not designed with older PC's in mind. Windows XP, for that matter, has quite steep system requirements when compared to its predecessor Win98.
Now you're comparing a kernel (linux) to a full OS (Windows). There's quite a difference between those concepts... even the Vista kernel could be ported to a lot of different architectures. It's default settings are tweaked with modern machines in mind (following the BSD mentality of "unused RAM is wasted RAM").
Btw, try running a full modern linux distribution on the hardware that would accomodate win98 before making any silly claims :)
If you look at a the argument with OS design in mind (and actually knew something about it), you'd realize that (while linux has gotten better) the NT system still has the upper hand. How many linux distributions have (stable!) support for ACLS? How far is the progress of moving video mode switching (and other fundamental stuff) from usermode to the linux kernel? How far has integrated sound and video support come? et cetera. There's so many places where linux currently lags behind, both as a kernel and as an operating system. Most don't matter if you're only casually surfing the web or writing some documents or watching pr0n, but compared to what a Windows or Mac system can do... there's a looooooooong way of catching up.
-
You guys may not have the balls to say that "linux is better", but I certainly do. There are thousands of quantitative reasons, which can be very easily argued among computer science literate individuals of why linux and the linux kernel is _FAR_ superior to windows.-Kamel
We have the balls to start that argument, but the question is, will we solve it? Absolutely not. That MY-OS-IS-BEST argument plays in many different flavors, depending on who you are and what you do with a computer. Since the Linux vs. Windows (vs. Mac) argument is ongoing -- I've seen Mac and Microsoft go at it for almost 25 years and both are still there, as Linux has been since '94 and will be -- the argument is never finished. To me, there are better ways to spend my time.
My own argument is not which OS you use, but can I collaborate with you? I'd rather my OS seek to establish interoperability among products built to the IETF, OASIS, HTML 5, World Wide Web Consortium, and other standards (http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/web_services/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212300212&subSection=Development). Other questions one should ask are:
-- Do I have the freedom to leave?
-- Are my data portable?
-- Do interoperable products for the 'product class' exist; that is, are they interchangeable?
Software interchangeability goes beyond formats, protocols, APIs, user interface, and operating system support, and also includes in-application programmability. Note that these issues apply not just to standalone desktop applications but also to software delivered through a web browser. Does your choice of OS promote this concept or does it frustrate it?
The primary reasons Windows excels beyond Linux so well is because it is made with commercialism as its number 1 concern.... Few things are designed for it, hardware or software, and Linux does not care for commercialism currently meaning it will never grow to become a commercial product.-Kamel
Ah, the No Free Lunch reason is alive and well. The "cloud" is largely a marketing myth promoted to give false hope to customers who will only later discover that implementations, not standards, dictate costs. Otherwise it is merely a race where the fastest company to market is not permitted to outpace the slowest gazelle, or as it's playing out right now, the company with the deepest pockets can give away the most services, and by doing so, dominates the market until everyone else's pockets are empty.
(See Sun.)
Microsoft can't buy Linux. It can't sue it for patent infringement (it's threatened to, but it has no case there). Microsoft can't sell Windows cheaper than Linux, since it's already free. And it can't outspend Linux. Because of the portability and scalability you mention, Linux is already built for the cloud, for mobile, for netbooks, for mainframes, for large Hadron Colliders, and so on. Windows has to be retooled for a netbook, and even then, you're going to get an 8-year old version of their last OS that will cost you at least $150-$200. Traditional, big corporate takeover attack methods don't apply to Linux, so the whole damn enterprise that is 'Linux' leaves Redmond frustrated and feeling threatened, not on the desktop of course, but on the server side, where the real money is.
______________________
The best thing Microsoft could do would be to make sure Win7 is the opposite of what Vista was. Win7 doesn't have to be perfect. All it has to do is be lighter and faster, and less annoying in some areas (UAC, Explorer, fewer than a half dozen versions). If they do this, they'll be fine, and a billion people will be happy again.
-
You guys may not have the balls to say that "linux is better", but I certainly do. There are thousands of quantitative reasons, which can be very easily argued among computer science literate individuals of why linux and the linux kernel is _FAR_ superior to windows. This isn't just something computer scientists argue that means nothing to the end user, it just means that the regular computer user simply does not understand these concepts, and if they did they would probably just revolt with senseless nonsense like "so, that's not important", when if properly adopted it would be very important.
***
There are many other reasons, but I'm too lazy to go on and I need to get some things done before the sun goes down. My primary point in this whole thing is that Linux *IS* better, in many ways than windows. As far as design, it's basically like comparing a regular built house to a hurricane resistant built home on the coast of Miami. Yea, one can argue (lol) that the regular house is "better", since "better" is a relative term, but from an engineering standpoint there is absolutely positively no comparison.
-Kamel
Balls? Balls? We don't need no steenking balls!
Wow! I haven't heard somebody spouting the old "party line" so vociferously in many a moon. And I'm a long-time Linux user that hangs with a pretty hard-core NIX/FOSS crowd. ;D
I'm going to ignore several logical and technical errors in your posting and merely offer this in response:
I think you need to reread this thread. The topic under discussion is not the relative superiority of one OS to another; but rather the factors that influence the adoption of a technical solution, and it's subsequent establishment as the sui generis standard.
If you take a look at the history of technical innovation and adoption, you'll quickly see that technical superiority is seldom the deciding factor. In fact, in many instances, it was not a factor at all.
-------------
BTW: Welcome to the thread! :)
-
Sorry if my post wasn't completely accurate. My studies on the workings of linux are aging and it's showing. My memories of it are beginning to fade and I can no longer present a 100% accurate to book argument about it, and I am too lazy to research the topics as they come up.
Ultimately, I don't see any of you doing much better, however. I wont go through and quote all of your quotes as you did mine, because I value my time more than that. The arguments brought up against what I have had to say, however, are pretty weak. There is a power with Linux, just admit that. I have admitted that Windows is better in many aspects, so I don't see why you can't throw Linux a bone too.
I wont argue with people who are unable to think from a neutral standpoint on the subject, as I am willing and able to do. I say these things not as a linux or windows advocate, I actually hate both equally. Mac is no where near something I love, either. I have an appreciation for all operating systems, but there isn't one that I truly love beyond others. Are there OS's I think are better? Yea, I clearly stated that in the beginning of my post when I said that Linux is better, and I truly still think it is. Some of my examples may be flawed, but there are a million more where they come from. Ultimately, Linux puts power in the hands of its users, whereas Windows does not, and this is where the power of Linux comes into play. Linux does many things way differently... And in many ways, "better". Linux is normally the first to adopt new things such as IPv6, and is inherently more secure.
Your whole analogy about a more complicated mouse trap verses a more complicated trap is absolutely positively untrue. If you disagree yourself, then why does Windows Vista try to implement new administration features which mirror that of the way Linux has worked from its outset? Linux and BSD have both worked very well to box things in, keep things seperate, jailed, etc. While Windows has more or less been on a model of personal computer 1 account 1 user etc. Sure it has multiple user accounts, but support for multiple users and multiple access privileges on a PC are very weak, especially when compared to strong user systems such as any *NIX style OS.
BTW, sorry about being wrong about preemptive multitasking not being available on Windows. I am well capable of making mistakes, and did not intend for my post here to be taken as a college thesis. Had I truly been wanting to make a case of windows vs linux, I would certainly give it more time and attention as well as site all of my sources. That isn't my intent, rather my intent is to let others know my *opinion* (take it or leave it) about the topic. Quickly stated, my opinion is that in many ways Linux is better (and therefore is overall *better*), but I also feel it will never take over as a dominant operating system. Disagree all you like, but truth does indeed support my opinion of it.
Finally, I'd like to say just because I believe Linux is overall "better" than Windows doesn't mean I dislike Windows, or believe it's a terrible OS. I feel it will stay in the lead, and I am more than happy with it doing that. I like windows, and I really don't think its ease of use is behind anything. Windows is a master at allowing a user to truly feel in control, even of powerful easy to do tweaks and such without a heck of a lot of knowledge or effort on the users behalf. The same is most definitely not true (in my opinion) when it comes to Linux.
-
Linux is normally the first to adopt new things such as IPv6, and is inherently more secure.-Kamel
How is linux "inherently more secure" than NT? The NT-style ACL based permissions (based on what VMS had) are a lot more flexible than traditional *u*x user/group style permissions, and both linux and BSD have tried copying that during the last few years, but it still isn't a "standard" feature supported by all distros. As for the security aspect, what makes linux "more secure"?
NT can run with limited user accounts (and people have been doing that since the early 90es) - it's a shame there's a lot of poorly written software that wants administrative privileges, but that really is the fault of uneducated programmers who haven't been adhering to the rules Microsoft have outlined in their documentation.
If you disagree yourself, then why does Windows Vista try to implement new administration features which mirror that of the way Linux has worked from its outset?-Kamel
The only feature I can think of that you could be referring to is UAC, and that isn't really equivalent to anything linux had has since "it's outset". You could argue that UAC is just "sudo" (which it is indeed similar to), but it's more than that as well.
While Windows has more or less been on a model of personal computer 1 account 1 user etc. Sure it has multiple user accounts, but support for multiple users and multiple access privileges on a PC are very weak, especially when compared to strong user systems such as any *NIX style OS.-Kamel
NT's user/group/permission system is actually a lot stronger and more flexible than what *u*x traditionally had, the big flaw is that Win9x was allowed to live beyond Win95, and that it took until Vista to make the default user account non-administrative. Because of this, a lot of crappy programmers (hobbyists as well as professionals) have made too many assumptions, and made it harder to run as a non-administrative user (or without having a lot of UAC pop-ups on Vista). Some of that can be fixed by modifying NTFS and registry ACLs, though.
Quickly stated, my opinion is that in many ways Linux is better (and therefore is overall *better*),-Kamel
You just haven't pointed out any areas where linux is actually better, though :)
IMHO having an open-source kernel is a nice thing, and I wouldn't mind if Windows had that. Open-source drivers are also nice, although I don't see that as an absolute necessity (I can understand why nvidia and AMD/ATI want to guard at least part of their drivers - R&D costs a lot of money). I also certainly wouldn't mind having a much more modular and flexible operating system (the NT kernel itself allows for quite a deal of flexibility, but the OS install doesn't).
On the other hand there's a lot of things about linux I'm not a fan of. Like that lack of a unified configuration format (/etc/messy-files-with-a-zillion-formats instead of the registry), a pretty incoherent filesystem layout, the horrible X Windowing system (and the horrible X11/XOrg implementations of it, please do move graphics drivers to the core OS with proper kernel support), etc...
-
I started reading this thread about 10 minutes, so please forgive my dated replies.
I'm afraid I can't subscribe to this IE/FF metaphor gentlemen. As a sysadmin, I'm bound to windows as a part of my job.
I am, however, free to choose my browser. Why? Because my browser is not nearly as central to the use of my machine as my operating system is. Nor does it create nearly the level of compatibility problems using Linux in a Windows workplace would (fortunately most webmasters have had the foresight to steer clear of ActiveX in-browser).
Nor can I concur with the comparison to QWERTY/DVORAK. If you have a problem with Linux, you search for a solution and you fix it. If you don't know how to do something in Linux, you search for instructions and you follow them.
If you move to DVORAK, you're completely on your own. Not only that, but if you've been typing 50 WPM in QWERTY, how do you then function typing 20 WPM in DVORAK?
On a more personal note, there's a gentleman where I work that uses DVORAK on his work laptop. Since I've been there (almost 3 months now) I've had to reset his password 4 times. That does not include any occasion when my boss has done it. I've not yet had to reset the password of any other member of staff more than once.
Ehtyar.
P.S. Yay 40hz and Edvard :Thmbsup: :Thmbsup: :Thmbsup:
-
Ehtyar, but much like your native language, had you started out using a DVORAK keyboard, you'd likely have the same learning curve with a QWERTY keyboard. There's only three [desktop] apps that stay open all day on my computer: (1) browser, (2) file manager, and (3) text editor. Everything else is at-hand when I need it, or in the cloud, accessed through #1, the browser.
____________
Oddly, kids say they prefer simple keypads to larger QWERTY pads on mobile devices. I presume it has something to do with their netspeak, or whatever the term for the slang is.
-
Oddly, kids say they prefer simple keypads to larger QWERTY pads on mobile devices. I presume it has something to do with their netspeak, or whatever the term for the slang is.-zridling
QWERY keypads are inefficient on mobile devices. Either they become big and clumsy (and requires moving your fingers "large" distances == slower typing, potential strain) or the keys become way too small (hard to hit). The standard 12-key pad (8 keys with characters, 4 for controlling case, space, special chars) combined with the efficiency of T9 dictionaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T9_(predictive_text)) makes it very fast and efficient to write text messages - even without resorting to the ugly SMS language that teens (and, sad to say, some adults) use.
-
[rant]
T9 transforms any language into trash and is the first thing that gets disabled, those dictionaries are useless, if you would ask me.
Come to think of it, T9 will be viewed in the history time-line as most important thing that brings all (major) global languages together into the same trash heap.
Sorry for my (bit of) ranting, but I came from a school that deducted a full point of reports that had to be written (yes, not typed...written). You got fast in thinking how to be as clear as possible, you needed to know the grammatical and spelling rules (instead of the text editor) and you also learned a bit of calligraphy as well.
This was not so bad but you needed to write at least four of those 5-page reports each week while being swamped by 19 other classes each requiring at least 2 hours of homework and 40-hours of school per week as well.
Mainly the reasoning behind those reports were that you always should be able to write a decent report, because technical reports with errors inside them are never taken seriously in a field of peers. And right they were.
Which is also why I don't take people serious when they write a T9 message (with or without errors) to my cellphone. Honestly, they would be lucky if they even get any response from me. If you want to write me, do it in an e-mail, my phone is able to handle those.
Slashdot had a nice article (http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/28/079254) about how telecom providers rip you off (I should have said: r*pe) with what they charge for each and any of those messages.
[/rant]
-
I know that SMS data is transferred in the "control channels", but does that mean there's no telco peering costs involved? Even if there is, I'm still pretty confident that it's super overprice. But it's extremely handy, and not everybody has super fancy phones with email capabilities (GPRS/EDGE traffic is insanely expensive too, btw) - personally I'm back on a Nokia 3310 after my SE k750i died.
I don't agree with you that T9 is a bad thing, not at all actually. I really hate "R", "U" and all that SMS-speak, but that's not the fault of T9 (au contraire, actually - T9 makes it possible to write proper words). Kiddos use that kind of writing even when they're on a proper keyboard, and when there's no time-pressure (ie, forum posts or email as opposed to instant messaging). Fortunately, a lot of them grow out of the habit.
Not taking SMS seriously is imho a bit too elitist - as long as you aren't faced with inane babble like "wat r u doin?" :)
-
I used to have a RAZR (never again) and the predictive text was utterly tragic. Most everyone who knows me knows I don't do SMS, but since I got my new Nokia 6300, SMS is almost a pleasure to write (I'll never get into them big time, they're a complete ripoff, but they're handy on the rare ocasion). The predictive text even heightens the order in which common words you use are typed. Nokia has struck gold IMO with their predictive text.
Ehtyar.
-
Here in Paraguay the official language is Spanish, but not the European version. The unofficial language that everybody speaks is Guarani (especially when you set one foot outside the capital). Have you any idea how hard it is to get something from a message when both languages are mixed together and words are shortened to one character?
To me it is a royal pain in the (insert here other word for donkey), so to speak.
Elitist...never looked at it that way, though. :-[
Again, to me it is only natural to take the time to write something properly. Grammar and spelling, I mean. Content is a whole other matter. And use a proper medium to do deliver the message. 160 characters is not that much when trying to convey a message properly in my point of view.
-
Shades: I feel your pain :), but imho that's the fault of the lazy people not typing properly, rather than the technology. Obviously you're not going to write a love letter or novel using SMS (well, some people are, but...) - but it's very suitable for things like "Do you want to come by my place tomorrow for dinner and a movie?", "what's the homework for tomorrow?", "I'll be arriving by train at 14, please pick me up". Short and concise messages, without all the formality-blabber a phone conversation usually includes.
-
Bah, sorry, I went and forgot all about this post. Well, like I said, it's been a long time since I've been deep in study on this subject and just to 'prove' to some strangers with no real benefit to me or Linux isn't compelling enough for me to write a well documented point in case about Linux and the reasons it's superior, and thus to fully explain myself, the reasons it's inferior. It's a great thing and has its place, but its place isn't necessarily on the mainstream PC for many reasons. It is possible that perhaps that will change someday, but only if there is a drastic change which is usually triggered by something.
I appreciate linux for all that it is, but a Windows replacement is not what it is.