Micro$oft acting like a bully

[DeltaLover]

Microsoft, for once again is trying to bully the open source community playing dirty tricks with its new windows 8 operating system (http://www.zdnet.com/torvalds-clarifies-linuxs-windows-8-secure-boot-position-7000011918/). To discourage users of installing Linux on new machines coming with Win8 reinstalled they invented the concept of secure boot having as an excuse the security of the OS while just trying to restrict multi OS booting capabilities. What is really concerning is that hardware manufacturers seem to not ship new machines without an OS already installed and of course the OS of their choice seems to always be Win8!

Personally, whenever I buy a new PC, the very first thing I am doing is to get completely rid of Windows and install Linux on a clear machine. Even this has been complicated with the latest breed of machines who come with a new version of BIOS that complicates the installation of a new OS. It took me close to half an hour to realize what I had to do to go around and this has to do with activating a BIOS option called Booting from Legacy Devives!

You can read more here:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5298417





http://www.zdnet.com/torvalds-clarifies-linuxs-windows-8-secure-boot-position-7000011918/

[Tom]

MS has always substituted size and power for quality.

[DeltaLover]

MS has always substituted size and power for quality.


Tom, can you please be a bit more specific about what exactly you mean?

[vegasone]

This is old news and workarounds have been worked on by the Linux community although there are disagreements as to how to implement workarounds.

Making UEFI Secure Boot Work With Open Platforms

"Secure boot" is a technology described by recent revisions of the UEFI specification; it offers the prospect of a hardware-verified, malware-free operating system bootstrap process that can improve the security of many system deployments. Linux and other open operating systems will be able to take advantage of secure boot if it is implemented properly in the hardware. This document is intended to describe how the UEFI secure boot specification can be implemented to interoperate well with open systems and to avoid adversely affecting the rights of the owners of those systems while providing compliance with proprietary software vendors' requirements.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/making-uefi-secure-boot-work-with-open-platforms

[DeltaLover]

This is old news and workarounds have been worked on by the Linux community although there are disagreements as to how to implement workarounds.

Making UEFI Secure Boot Work With Open Platforms

"Secure boot" is a technology described by recent revisions of the UEFI specification; it offers the prospect of a hardware-verified, malware-free operating system bootstrap process that can improve the security of many system deployments. Linux and other open operating systems will be able to take advantage of secure boot if it is implemented properly in the hardware. This document is intended to describe how the UEFI secure boot specification can be implemented to interoperate well with open systems and to avoid adversely affecting the rights of the owners of those systems while providing compliance with proprietary software vendors' requirements.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/making-uefi-secure-boot-work-with-open-platforms


The problem starts with the specific implementation of secure boot by M$
This is what Linus article is about

[Dave Schwartz]

Gotta agree with Delta on this one.

Micro$oft is all about Microsoft. Always has been, though more subtly in past years.

The bottom line is that MS is playing dirty to slow down the erosion of server market share by Linux because they are having a hard time stopping them.

It is just like the Mac: a far better OS than MS. The only thing that keeps MS on top is that they have market share and most of the apps.

Nobody sees the future better than MS. That is because they are getting better and better at controlling the future.

[Dave Schwartz]

Loved T's response:

Torvalds then goes on, in his own take-no-prisoners style, to suggest a plan on how to deal with Secure Boot signed keys and modules, which "is based on REAL SECURITY and on PUTTING THE USER FIRST instead of your continual 'let's please Microsoft by doing idiotic crap' approach.' "

[DeltaLover]

Gotta agree with Delta on this one.

Micro$oft is all about Microsoft. Always has been, though more subtly in past years.

The bottom line is that MS is playing dirty to slow down the erosion of server market share by Linux because they are having a hard time stopping them.

It is just like the Mac: a far better OS than MS. The only thing that keeps MS on top is that they have market share and most of the apps.

Nobody sees the future better than MS. That is because they are getting better and better at controlling the future.


Definitely M$ is in the position to dictate (to some extend) the evolution of the industry considering its dominance on the market. The problem is that they try way to hard to assure their future success often resulting to applying brutal force.

Besides its phenomenal market success, Windows is an inferior operating system compared to Linux, Unix of MacOS but it is superior marketing and tricks like the one described on this thread that keep it as the OS of choice when it comes to consuming computing.

When I first got my hands to their (terrible) new OS Win8, testing a beta version of it, a year ago I had the optimism to believe that it would ended up as a major failure, probably even worse than Vista. From how things are going on though, I have to admit that I was probably wrong on my original assessment as their marketing department seems to be doing a great job promoting and even imposing Win8 wherever possible.

[vegasone]

Not arguing what MS is wishing it could do, just what they are really able to get away with. Originally Linux people were running around Chicken Little style till they figured out people wanting to run Linux can still do so. When they finalize the workarounds it should be no more difficult than any older system.

[DeltaLover]

Not arguing what MS is wishing it could do, just what they are really able to get away with. Originally Linux people were running around Chicken Little style till they figured out people wanting to run Linux can still do so. When they finalize the workarounds it should be no more difficult than any older system.

Modern linux distros like Ubuntu for example are extremely simple to install and use.

I dare to say even simpler than windows.

[MightBeSosa]

Whenever I looks at what passes for the latest and greatest Linux build (in a VM) I am always amazed at how pitiful it seems next to Windows.

The Emperors clothes.

I'm not running a web server or a back end, or anything that needs to run for 5 years at a time.

I would never recommend Linux to anyone for daily use.

[DeltaLover]

I would never recommend Linux to anyone for daily use.

This is a very bold statement.

Can you please explain why?

[PaceAdvantage]

When I first got my hands to their (terrible) new OS Win8, testing a beta version of it, a year ago I had the optimism to believe that it would ended up as a major failure, probably even worse than Vista. From how things are going on though, I have to admit that I was probably wrong on my original assessment as their marketing department seems to be doing a great job promoting and even imposing Win8 wherever possible.Were you using it on a touchscreen? If not, I can see where you would have these thoughts.

Windows 8 doesn't work (figuratively) if you're not using touch...

[DeltaLover]

Were you using it on a touchscreen? If not, I can see where you would have these thoughts.

Windows 8 doesn't work (figuratively) if you're not using touch...

No, I have only used as a desktop OS. Installed VS2010, SQLserver and some Open Source stuff and played with it for a while, that's all... As far as touch screens my experience is limited to android, mostly from the user prespective...

[Dave Schwartz]

This is a very bold statement.

Can you please explain why?

How about the lack of software that meets the needs of many of us.

Sure, we can get word processing, spreadsheets, etc. but for people who want something specific there just is not enough high quality stuff be made for Linux. And if there is, it is not being marketed so we never see it.

Eve the Mac world, as big as it has become, now relies on a lot of Windows software (via emulations, dual boots, virtual Windows, etc).

As long as there is not a lot of shrink-wrapped software available for Linux, the world will remain Windows' oyster.

[DeltaLover]

How about the lack of software that meets the needs of many of us.

Sure, we can get word processing, spreadsheets, etc. but for people who want something specific there just is not enough high quality stuff be made for Linux. And if there is, it is not being marketed so we never see it.

Eve the Mac world, as big as it has become, now relies on a lot of Windows software (via emulations, dual boots, virtual Windows, etc).

As long as there is not a lot of shrink-wrapped software available for Linux, the world will remain Windows' oyster.

Dave, I have to disagree.

As a developer what I find the strongest advantage of Linux is exactly the huge variety of software and the easiness of its installation.

Setting aside the extremely extensive collection of software that can be found on open source repositories like https://github.com/ and http://sourceforge.net/ to name a couple linux has an extremely comprehensive array of third-party software covering any need:

http://www.mysql.com/
http://www.postgresql.org/
http://www.mongodb.org/
http://www.r-project.org/
http://www.numpy.org/
http://docs.scipy.org/doc/
https://one.ubuntu.com/

are some examples.

Talking about programming languages you can find whatever you need, from C and C++ to Haskel and Lisp, from Java to Python and even a C# port under the mono project.

You can find whatever you can imagine available as open source always seconds away to be installed on your box!

[vegasone]

It is basically, they don't have what "I" am using so it must be useless. Lack of imagination or having the time or willingness to try something different is the main problem. It is easier to keep using what you have. Something I fall for also. End users just want something to work, developers use what is best for their needs and will give a variety of things a try, Linux etc. Lots of open source programs available to do whatever you want.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, I have to disagree.

As you are certainly entitled to do.

However, one does not have to look very far to find support for my point of view. Just consider the very forum you are on. Please point me to (say) the software apps that will compete with what is available in our industry. Point me to (say) a half-dozen apps that are comparable to what is currently available to use BRIS, DRF or HDW data.

Now, I do not mean simply readers/converters but commercially viable software.

And open source stuff without a significant following and support is just not going to work for the less sophisticated user.

See, those are the problems:

1) The end user is forced to scrounge for software in a vertical niche rather than simply choose from several (or even many).

2) The less-sophisticated user is quickly left behind because of the lack of what he needs.

That is my opinion. Perhaps others disagree.


Dave

[DJofSD]

Gotta agree with Delta on this one.

Micro$oft is all about Microsoft. Always has been, though more subtly in past years.

The bottom line is that MS is playing dirty to slow down the erosion of server market share by Linux because they are having a hard time stopping them.

It is just like the Mac: a far better OS than MS. The only thing that keeps MS on top is that they have market share and most of the apps.

Nobody sees the future better than MS. That is because they are getting better and better at controlling the future.
The more things change the more they remain the same.

I still have multiple books on my shelves like "Undocumented DOS" by Andrew Schulman, et al. which appeared when Windows was introduced and many things in DOS were changed to accomodate it.

[MightBeSosa]

Dave pretty much covered it. Linux, for the average user, is still a poor mans Windows, both in usability and especially in the variety and functionality of software available.



It's just not reasonable to suggest Linux its preferable to windows, other than to make a political statement.

[DeltaLover]

A very early directional decision taken by M$ was to introduce proprietary standards and try to force software developers to comply to them. That was proven to be a very effective marketing trick as for a certain period the whole software development industry seemed to follow M$ guidelines which gradually evolved from the primitive original 'Petzhold' style of win32 programming to the full scale platform we now today as .NET. During this long period that spans close to three decades M$ has introduced quite of few 'standards' and platforms attempting to become a one stop platform dictator with the authority to change directions on demand. Some of these technologies were proven by the test of time eventually maturing to consist high quality solutions (like .NET and C# for example) while most of them eventually disappeared or lost their momentum and their original scope (MFC, ActiveX and Front Page are few of them).

As time goes by, developers are getting more experienced about M$ tricks and try to avoid as much as possible anything new coming out of that company, direction that is easier to follow today, that the desktop development as we saw it in the 90's seems to be a thing of the past. Modern development tends to be platform agnostic, relying in industry standards. Traditional fat GUI's have been substituted to a large extend by Web centric browser based applications, while server side development is geared away for M$, utilizing technologies like java, apache, perl, python, mysql that have been proven not only free of purchasing cost but most importantly standard tools, with guaranteed longevity and adaptability in their lifespan.

Based in these, I would consider any tool that failed to evolve from the primitive fat GUI application to a thin and flexible platform, with complete tier separation and openness in its design, as a construct that I would not like to deal with. Dave is right, in that the tools he is referring to are closely coupled with M$ Windows but in this case I would have to question the evolutionary path chosen by the project managers and understand and possibly challenge their motifs.

Now as far as linux been a poor man's windows in usability and functionality, I think this argument is completely wrong. Quite the opposite is truth. Consider for example the file system on both systems and explain to me how you will create symbolic link on Windows, a recursive grep and find, compare the power of native awk, sed and regex's to whatever similar approach you might find in Windows, compare the XWin system versus the monolithic approach taken by M$... The list can grow as much as you want... I think there is not a single thing that M$ Windows can be proven more functional or usable than Linux and I am quite astonished that people are using this as an argument....

[DJofSD]

UNIX was around quiet some time before Windows gained popularity (and a modicum of stability).

Now, I'm not sure how to say this without it coming across as confrontational, so, I won't try: why did Windows become the dominate market leader when it was there for UNIX all along?

[DeltaLover]

UNIX was around quiet some time before Windows gained popularity (and a modicum of stability).

Now, I'm not sure how to say this without it coming across as confrontational, so, I won't try: why did Windows become the dominate market leader when it was there for UNIX all along?

Simply because Windows was focusing the PC user as opposed to UNIX that was running on server class boxes.

Dos and early versions of Windows competed against CP/M which for the time was a better OS but was marketed very poorly.

[Dave Schwartz]

Simply because Windows was focusing the PC user as opposed to UNIX that was running on server class boxes.

And to this day that is what we have.

I would bet that less than 2% of the PA users here even know what "GREP" means.

[DeltaLover]

And to this day that is what we have.

I would bet that less than 2% of the PA users here even know what "GREP" means.

Sure Dave, there is no doubt that the vast majority of (modern) computer users have a very limited exposure to operating systems, command lines, batch programming etc.

Some times I feel nostalgic of the heroic years of home computing when owning a computer meant that you had to program it using machine code or assembly and you had to understand a lot about its architecture in order to use it efficiently..

Today's users have a very distant relationship with the machine, sufficient only for very basic tasks, lacking the curiosity to learn more about how everything works under the hood.

I recall installing linux to a teenager's machine when his M$ OS was affected by viruses assuring his that this would not happen again under his new platform.. I also gave him a very good book about it and showed him the basics... Guess what... A month later I found out that he had reverted back to M$ telling his mother that my advices to him were old fashioned and today's computing is supposed to be a point and click adventure with some occasional keystrokes writing a comment on FB or twiter! I also did the same with an older guy who showed some interest on computers, installing a very nice and easy flavor or linux that should run smoother than M$WIN to his box, but again I found out that he went back after a week or two!

[Dave Schwartz]

Delta, I hear ya!

As one dinosaur to another, I can honestly say that you are preaching to the choir.

Frankly, the computer world was a safer place when we functioned from a DOS prompt.

But in all fairness, Windows gave us connectivity and compatibility with each other on such a fantastic scale that it is impossible to ignore the advances.

Nevertheless, I am with you: The world would simply be better if M$ ceased to exist AND Linux was brought forward to its proper place of excellence.

[DJofSD]

Simply because Windows was focusing the PC user as opposed to UNIX that was running on server class boxes.

Dos and early versions of Windows competed against CP/M which for the time was a better OS but was marketed very poorly.
CP/M marketed poorly? I barely remember it.

I always thought OS/2 was better but botched by Big Blue.

[DeltaLover]

CP/M marketed poorly? I barely remember it.

I always thought OS/2 was better but botched by Big Blue.

Read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M

They did not agree with IBM (demanding a very high price) and M$ was the next choice.

Actually my first PC ever (Multitech now called ACER) a 4.77 MHZ monster, came with both MS-DOS and CP/M original OS disks! Very quickly MS was the only horse in the race... OS/2 came several years later...

Also note that Z-80 home computers like AMSTRAD for example were also running CP/M as an alernative OS and this is how we use to run Turbo Pascal on these machines

[MightBeSosa]

If linux was better then Windows I'd know it. I'd feel it , and I'd see it.

I fail to do any of those things, and I've been around since day 1. There's never been a single thing I wanted to do with any of the Windows iterations that I was unable to accomplish.

It's a bunch of hype. Pure politics. Like being a socialist.

I'd even prefer the Mac to Linux. And that's saying something.

Telling a new user to go the Linux route in any flavor is cruelty to noobs.

[tupper]

This is old news and workarounds have been worked on by the Linux community although there are disagreements as to how to implement workarounds
Yes. As with most technical hurdles Linux world, workarounds and bug fixes happen extremely fast.

However, many feel that the Linux Foundation solution that you linked is just another way of kowtowing to Microsoft (and is possibly a security threat).

[tupper]

Originally Linux people were running around Chicken Little style till they figured out people wanting to run Linux can still do so.Huh?

Linux developers and OS enthusiasts were initially (and still are) angered with secure boot, and most of the current workarounds were discussed at that stage. They definitely were not "running around Chicken Little style."

Furthermore, the "Joe Sixpack" Linux users were (and still are) completely oblivious to Microsoft's move.


When they finalize the workarounds it should be no more difficult than any older system.The recent controversy involved the prospect of putting a Microsoft binary blob in the Linux kernel. Thankfully, Torvalds shot down that notion.

However, most of the other workarounds are already finalized.

Also, many retail motherboards will allow one to choose between UEFI and BIOS, which require no workaround (unless one wants UEFI).

However, a majority of the machines that will be bundled with Windows will probably require workarounds or kowtowing to Microsoft.

[tupper]

Whenever I looks at what passes for the latest and greatest Linux build (in a VM) I am always amazed at how pitiful it seems next to Windows.It is certainly easy to scoff a vague opinion. Please be more specific.


The Emperors clothes.Not sure what is meant by this incomplete sentence, but it sounds like it could end up being painfully ironic if further explored.


I'm not running a web server or a back end, or anything that needs to run for 5 years at a time.Nor am I; nor is my 87-year-old mother, who happily uses Linux Mint and who installed Linux on her own when she was 82; nor are the countless millions around the world who use user-friendly Linux distros as their reliable, easy to use desktop OS.

[DeltaLover]

nor is my 87-year-old mother, who happily uses Linux Mint and who installed Linux on her own when she was 82;

COOL :ThmbUp:

[tupper]

How about the lack of software that meets the needs of many of us.There is plenty of useful, "everyday" Linux software. The Debian repository alone has around 40,000 packages. Add to that the Ubuntu DEB packages, and one has all that is needed.

Furthermore, almost all of this software is free, open-source, which makes it safe and much easier to access and install than it's proprietary counterparts.


Sure, we can get word processing, spreadsheets, etc. but for people who want something specific there just is not enough high quality stuff be made for Linux.This is a common misconception. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially when it comes to hi-end software. I think that you will find that Linux/open-source provides much the finest software available for "power users."


And if there is, it is not being marketed so we never see it.Thankfully, in the Linux/open-source world, one does not rely on manufacturers' advertising to find and decide on software choices. Open source users do not suffer "proprietary bias" when it comes to deciding on applications.

There are plenty of articles and blogs that compare open source software within a particular category, and these comparisons come with no subsidies by software manufacturer to favor their products.

Furthermore, there is no risk in trying different open source applications, because they are all free. If one tests a particular application and doesn't like it, one merely clicks on another similar application in the package manager to try an alternative (and there usually are plenty of alternatives). Un-installs are just as simple, if one so desires.


Eve the Mac world, as big as it has become, now relies on a lot of Windows software (via emulations, dual boots, virtual Windows, etc).Not sure what is the point here, as OSX (the Mac operating system) is proprietary.

However, OSX relies heavily and fundamentally on open source code (Darwin, Webkit, CUPS, etc.), and it even includes ways to utilize Linux software and open source GUIs.

Furthermore, development happens much faster in the open source realm. Most would be surprised at how many advanced features of their proprietary software originated with open source apps.

Which brings up another advantage of open source: most of it is cross-platform. If it works in Linux, it is often also compiled for Windows and OSX.


As long as there is not a lot of shrink-wrapped software available for Linux, the world will remain Windows' oyster.Probably, the reduced adoption of open source software has less to do with it being proprietary, and more to do with all of the FUD and misconceptions proliferated by Microsoft and other proprietary manufacturers.

[Dave Schwartz]

This is a common misconception. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially when it comes to hi-end software. I think that you will find that Linux/open-source provides much the finest software available for "power users."

The key phrase there is "power users."

The point is exactly that: if you are not a power user then there is like a 90% chance you will stick with Windows.

As a long-time Slackware user, I can tell you that I agree with everything that you say. Like I said to Delta, "Preaching to the choir."

But to think that the every day, average application user will to switch to Linux is just never going to happen.

The truth is, most of those "MS Office compatible" products are not perfectly compatible. If they were, then every time I build a spreadsheet in Excel, I would not have to turn it over to my favorite Excel guru in order to get it to work with Open Office.

Sure, they can read the files but they do not contain ALL the functions.

Again, I say, "I am on your side." I wish we had no Windows and all Linux. My life as a programmer would be much easier.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: And one more thing... there is now some hardware - especially laptops and accessories - where there are no drivers available except for the newest version(s) of Windows. We actually had that experience with some hardware we purchased to use with Linux; found there simply were no drivers for non-Windows OS.

[tupper]

However, one does not have to look very far to find support for my point of view. Just consider the very forum you are on. Please point me to (say) the software apps that will compete with what is available in our industry. Point me to (say) a half-dozen apps that are comparable to what is currently available to use BRIS, DRF or HDW data.Well, we are getting into tricky territory here, because many have a strong opinion on their preferred handicapping application. For example, if one were to declare that most handicapping applications are just databases in a pretty dress with a somewhat limiting corset underneath, one would probably incur the unending wrath of numerous PA forum members.

Handicapping software is a decidedly rare, niche exception, so there will be fewer developers in both proprietary and open source. It doesn't necessarily have anything do with the proprietary vs. open source realms -- how many proprietary Mac handicapping apps are there "that will compete with what is available in our industry."

On the other hand, there certainly is no shortage of powerful, open source databases, and anyone who is a high-end sharp will probably employ such an independent database program and apply their own weights, biases and algorithms. (Many sharps will also probably do a bit of physical handicapping, but that is a subject for another section of this forum.)

I recall one Linux/cross-platform handicapping package that was offered free by a member of this very forum. He had done most of the "heavy lifting" It seemed robust, but there were still a few rough edges. As I recall, he even bundled a discount data package (which is one of the biggest attractions offered by some of the proprietary handicapping apps). I can't recall whether or not it was open source.

There are also a couple of nice web-based handicapping applications.


And open source stuff without a significant following and support is just not going to work for the less sophisticated user.Actually, much of open source does have large followings and extensive support.

On the other hand, open source may lack support/following in the handicapping niche, but having such a large user base of a particular handicapping program becomes a double-edged sword, especially in a parimutuel realm. The more there are using such an app, the more there are with similar betting patterns, which can reduce pay-offs.


1) The end user is forced to scrounge for software in a vertical niche rather than simply choose from several (or even many).This scenario happens very rarely, only in exceedingly peculiar niches such as handicapping, and it is not limited to open source (see Mac handicapping app example above).


2) The less-sophisticated user is quickly left behind because of the lack of what he needs.Again, this only happens in an extremely rare niche. In regards to handicapping, we are again getting back into the touchy area -- some might say that such less sophisticated users would do just as well using the easy, existing cross platform software (which is what I happen to use).

Furthermore, such a lack of options usually makes one more resourceful and independent, which can definitely be an advantage with parimutuel betting.

[Dave Schwartz]

Well, I just guess we'll have to agree to disagree after all.

I think that the mainstream windows user would not be caught dead in Linux. You obviously feel differently

[Tom]

Furthermore, such a lack of options usually makes one more resourceful and independent, which can definitely be an advantage with parimutuel betting.

And will turn off any mainstream users.
What most people want to do is turn of the computer like a TV and do what they came to do. I am pissed off that I have to mess around with the updates every other day, or run my security software every so often. I bought a computer to make life easier, not harder. It has not panned out that way.

[tupper]

The point is exactly that: if you are not a power user then there is like a 90% chance you will stick with Windows.Not sure about that actual figure, but the point is understood.

However, whether or not a user decides to "stick with Windows" has less to do with the usability/quality of non-Windows software and more to do with FUD and user complacency. In that regard, most Windows users "stick with Windows" when they could be using proprietary Mac software.


But to think that the every day, average application user will to switch to Linux is just never going to happen.It has already happened. Countless millions of users at home, in business and in government users currently have a Linux distro as their desktop OS. This has been happening world wide.


The truth is, most of those "MS Office compatible" products are not perfectly compatible. If they were, then every time I build a spreadsheet in Excel, I would not have to turn it over to my favorite Excel guru in order to get it to work with Open Office.This point goes back to the core subject of the OP of this very thread: Why should the rest of the world have to cater to being compatible to the product of a company that aggressively and continually tries to break such compatibility?

Obviously, some have complacently accepted such a vicious cycle, and such users could forever be its victims.


And one more thing... there is now some hardware - especially laptops and accessories - where there are no drivers available except for the newest version(s) of Windows. We actually had that experience with some hardware we purchased to use with Linux; found there simply were no drivers for non-Windows OS.This argument is tired (and circular).

Instead of implying that such a scenario is a "disadvantage" of Linux, perhaps it is best ask, "who supplied the Windows drivers, and why didn't they supply drivers for Linux?" Actually, an even better question would be: Why didn't they just supply open source drivers, so that the drivers can be compiled for any platform.

It is also important to note that such drivers will not work with earlier versions of Windows. So, if one does not have the latests and greatest, one is just as screwed as the open source user, and is forced to upgrade to the most recent Windows version.

Another significant point is that most of such drivers are eventually reverse engineered into open source versions (even without the source code).

[tupper]

And will turn off any mainstream users.Keep in mind that the point to which you replied involved handicapping software -- an exceedingly rare and niche user base. Probably, less than 0.01% of computer users run handicapping software.

If there is any "mainstream" software that open source does not provide, please list it.


What most people want to do is turn of the computer like a TV and do what they came to do.That is precisely what Linux and open source software does.


I am pissed off that I have to mess around with the updates every other day, or run my security software every so often. I bought a computer to make life easier, not harder. It has not panned out that way.Your computer trials and tribulations are well documented on this forum.

All of your troubles could be instantly eliminated instantly eliminated if you used Linux Mint or some other newbie Linux distro:
- You would probably never have to run security software.
- You would never have to defrag.
- Your computer would probably never slow down or suffer extensive system rot.
- There is no registry.
- You would never have to pay for software (unless you want something extremely high-end).
- All of your software can be obtained and installed almost instantly with a click or two in a package manager.
- You can modify any open source software to your liking.
- You never have to register your software.
- etc.

[Tom]

What software?

Office?
Handicapping - HTR? BRIS PP Generator? DOS programs?

No to any one of them is a deal breaker.

[tupper]

Linux, for the average user, is still a poor mans Windows, both in usability and especially in the variety and functionality of software available.Hardly, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.


It's just not reasonable to suggest Linux its preferable to windows, other than to make a political statement.Well, millions of everyday people worldwide use Linux as their desktop OS, and they do not experience all of the continual security and system rot problems and costs of software, etc. that their Windows counterparts suffer.

[tupper]

What software? Office?Of course, there are several open source counterparts to Microsoft Office.


Handicapping - HTR? BRIS PP Generator?Again, we are talking about a decidedly rare and non-mainstream niche here.


DOS programs?Actually, there are DOS emulators for Linux that run most DOS programs well.

Or, you might try open source FreeDOS (http://www.freedos.org/), which is actively maintained and is widely used. It is also distributed/embedded by many manufacturers, including ASUS, Dell, HP, Intel and Seagate.

[Tom]

Of course, there are several open source counterparts to Microsoft Office.


Again, we are talking about a decidedly rare and non-mainstream niche here.


Actually, there are DOS emulators for Linux that run most DOS programs well.

Or, you might try FreeDOS (http://www.freedos.org/), which is actively maintained and is widely used. It is also distributed/embedded by many manufacturers, including ASUS, Dell, HP, Intel and Seagate.

1-No interest in open source
2-Then Linux is not for me

[tupper]

1-No interest in open source
2-Then Linux is not for meOkay. Don't sweat the updates, pop-ups and security software.

[Tom]

You got stock in Linux?

[MightBeSosa]

Funny, I haven't needed to reinstall windows or suffered any system rot in decades.

There is no system rot , only user rot.

[MightBeSosa]

I've heard this nonsense for years. Some gal that worked in a computer store tells me Linux is going to replace Windows. This was 10 years ago. I told her at the time , ain't happening.

The only reason Linux has any penetration at all among the masses is it's attempt to copy the wsyiwyg Windows environment.

I'd say 90% of the software I use would not be available under Linux, nor would suitable replacements.

You need more than scare tactics (virus and update boogeymen) to make your case.

[tupper]

You got stock in Linux?Certainly, I have much less invested in Linux than almost any Windows user has invested in Windows.

[tupper]

Some gal that worked in a computer store tells me Linux is going to replace Windows. This was 10 years ago. I told her at the time , ain't happening.Not sure how this suddenly became a popularity contest, but Windows certainly ain't replacing Linux.


The only reason Linux has any penetration at all among the masses is it's attempt to copy the wsyiwyg Windows environment.Right. Microsoft invented "the wsyiwyg Windows environment."

In regards to Linux penetration, you probably use it all the time without knowing it. Most of the web sites you go to run on Linux. If you have a phone or tablet or laptop with Android (the most popular mobile OS), you are using Linux.


I'd say 90% of the software I use would not be available under Linux, nor would suitable replacements.It would be interesting to know what that irreplaceable software is.


You need more than scare tactics (virus and update boogeymen) to make your case.Actually, if one follows the chronology of the thread, I am merely defending Linux/open-source with a list of specific facts against mostly vague and subjective scoffs, such as:
"Whenever I looks at what passes for the latest and greatest Linux build (in a VM) I am always amazed at how pitiful it seems next to Windows;"
or
"It's just not reasonable to suggest Linux its preferable to windows, other than to make a political statement;"
or
"If linux was better then Windows I'd know it. I'd feel it , and I'd see it."

[MightBeSosa]

http://youtu.be/Sh-cnaJoGCw

I knew I was right.

[tupper]

http://youtu.be/Sh-cnaJoGCw I knew I was right.Well, if merely linking a single YouTube video proves a point, please go here (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22why+windows+sucks%22&oq=%22why+windows+sucks%22&gs_l=youtube.12...18777.19754.0.21938.2.2.0.0.0.0. 68.132.2.2.0...0.0...1ac.1.q6e-j_6D1-w).

[Dave Schwartz]

Actually, I found the "Linux Sucks" video wonderfully accurate.


Tupper,

You seem to think that people here are saying that WIndows is a good OS. That is not the case. It is, however, a practical OS for most mainstream users.

Is Linux better? Absolutely.

[DJofSD]

Dave, well stated.

Reminds me of BetaMax v. VHS debates.

[tupper]

Actually, I found the "Linux Sucks" video wonderfully accurate.Did you actually watch all 43 minutes of it? Please give some examples of points that you think are particularly accurate.

I watched only the first few minutes, because, when he wasn't being "tongue in cheek," most of his "serious" points were general issues that assumed that all Linux distros should have the same configuration. Also, every one of his points that I watched has already been covered ad nauseum in blogs and forums. Furthermore, most of those issues are actually moot, because there are so many obvious Linux solutions/choices.

For instance, if that guy hates the Unity desktop so much, all he has to do is load up another desktop, or he can simply use another distro that has another default desktop. Or, if he complains of breakage with updates in his rolling release distros, then perhaps he shouldn't use rolling release distros and instead use stable distros designed with LTS (long term support).

Thankfully, there isn't one entity making such choices for all Linux users (as there is for it's proprietary counterparts).

By the way, you mentioned that you used Slackware. Did you happen to notice the joke about Slackware early in the video? One can't judge Linux from a single distro/desktop, especially when that distro is Slackware!


You seem to think that people here are saying that WIndows is a good OS. That is not the case. It is, however, a practical OS for most mainstream users.I know that there are many Linux distros that are just as practical as Windows for most mainstream users.

[tupper]

Dave, well stated. Reminds me of BetaMax v. VHS debates.Probably not a good analogy if one is suggesting that Windows is better than Linux. Everyone knew that BetaMax was actually a superior format to VHS.

[DJofSD]

Perfectly good analogy especially when debates for the most part become religious wars.

[tupper]

Perfectly good analogy especially when debates for the most part become religious wars.
The analogy supposes that Windows is inferior.

[DJofSD]

The analogy supposes that Windows is inferior.
Really?

Show me were I said either was better than the other, for the two OSes or the video tape recording analogy.

[tupper]

Really? Show me were I said either was better than the other, for the two OSes or the video tape recording analogy.In the VHS vs. BetaMax analogy, which format is Windows and which format is Linux?

[Dave Schwartz]

Did you actually watch all 43 minutes of it? Please give some examples of points that you think are particularly accurate.

No, I was amazed though, that I actually listened to about half of it. I found myself intrigued by what was said. I stayed well-past the part where a guy comes in and says they have too many people in the room because of Fire Marshall regs and they have to make like 10-15 people leave. LOL - Hysterical.

This guy is very passionate about Linux. I also think he was spot on. I would say that as much as he loves Linux, he is truly trying to foster a reality-based look at the future of it; trying to get developers to improve their direction.

He did not waste his time telling them what they already know; that Linux is a good OS; that it has issues with drivers; that just about every time a major kernal rebuild goes out, it breaks a lot of stuff.

Those are the things that change the viability for most "non-power" users.

My experience in speaking with guys who have made the jump to Linux successfully is that they will say, "Yeah sure. Stuff breaks and then you fix it. No big deal."

However, for many users it IS a big deal. It usually means calling somebody to fix it for them. To make matters worse, "calling somebody" with Linux expertise that you can trust is often a very expensive ordeal. For example, in my area Linux guys get $175-$250 per hour!

I would really like to dump my Linux because I cannot afford to support it. (I hire out my network support.)

[MightBeSosa]

funny how if someone says "if it breaks in Windows you just fix it", you're an apologist for Bill Gates, but in Linux it's a mark of holy geekness.

Stuff has broken many times in Windows, and I just fix it. That's what you do. And when it's fixed, it's better, more elegant, and easier to use than Linux for nearly everything most people do with it.

I've blue screened Windows many times and never had any data loss or need to reinstall. It's robust as hell.

"For example, in my area Linux guys get $175-$250 per hour!"

This might explain the holy war against Windows, I don't think you'd get ripped off like that for routine MS maintenance.

[Dave Schwartz]

This might explain the holy war against Windows, I don't think you'd get ripped off like that for routine MS maintenance.

Well, I understand this. There are like the four of them and they get all the work they can handle. Every time I have done cheap it has cost me more in the long run.

I have had a project going for 5 years (literally) to switch out our 2 web servers. The first guy charged me $3k, switched the new machines to Ubuntu and ALMOST got them running before leaving. His replacement charged me $2k, but knew nothing of Ubuntu and switched it to Debian. Then he took a hike, just before the project was finished.

The 3rd guy was my original guy from back in the '90s. I paid him $400 3 times to do they entire job. The install will be last week, I mean next week, er, I mean the week after.

Seriously, I am in $9k (including the boxes) and am still running the same old 600MgHz AMDs from 1998. (No joke.)

[MightBeSosa]

I have a feeling its part of the Linux culture to to rob and pillage customers. Seriously. It's been like that for decades.

I'm a programmer, so I know what's involved. The prices they charge are out of line.

I don't mess in the Linux universe, but I assure you, it's not rocket science.