Linux or Windows?

Capt'n Midnight

No, it's important to keep raming it home as microsoft seem be predatory, so many products were bought in. Unfortunatly as with most other companies bought in products tend to suffer after a release or two It also means that products don't link well together and the interfaces can be inconsistent.

If you have $50 Bn to spend on acquisitions then youcan simply buy the source with the company. If you are a small company and you actually win against them in court they can simply buy you out.

On some levels you could think of them as asset strippers looking for cash cows rather than an innovative company. Has any potential competitor gone to bed with microsoft and not been shafted ? One of the things that will pop up in the future especially with governments will be ethical companies.

rasmasyean

croo wrote: »

Yeah well this is typically what is addressed by the ERPs I mention. But MS aren't big there either. Their purchase of the likes of Navision & Great Plains give them some business presence but they are far from being leaders... but these apps are aimed at the SME ... I suspect ASUS (the builders of the EEEPC) would probably be too big for these applications. They are most likely a SAP or Oracle customer.

There’s MS Dynamics too but I guess that’s part of what you’re talking about. But whatever they are using, I wouldn’t doubt that they pirate some of it. It’s just that MS has a big voice so you hear talk about pirating MS products most but in reality, it happens to a lot more companies.

croo wrote: »

I think you should take OpenBravo's advice and read up on what Open Source is.
I'm sure some open source developers on the more obscure projects might be hobbyists... but the vast majority are software professionals paid by some of the biggest outfits in the business. The development process is often no different from that of proprietary software. The only difference is the code is distributed along with the application. For many reasons that are well document elsewhere so I won't repeat here, this is a plus to the original developer as well as those who use the code.

I don’t need to read that 10 year old document from that “founder” to know what open source is about. And it has evolved a bit too anyway. But what I DO know is that open source and Linux is over 10 years old and it did not grow faster than close-source. And if you ask the average person, they don’t know what Open Office is. And most of those would not know what Linux is either nor know how to pronounce ubuntu. How do you pronounce that anyway? And don’t anyone try that “more people use the internet now…” pitch because it doesn’t matter…because 10 years ago all the people capable of participating in open-source back then would have been using the internet anyway.

croo wrote: »

The core difference in the business models is open source changes the software industry from one based on assets, that can be held by a few, into a service that is delivered by many.

:mad: …and that’s what I don’t like about it, but that’s only my opinion.

Macros42 wrote: »

Can I just ask here why the **** you're feeding the troll?

Are you refereing to me? People who read this are lucky I stopped by to offer a different point of view in this “Open Source” forum. You just don’t what to hear it apparently because you just want to blindly believe that Linux is so awesome that it cannot be challenged…ever! Well open your eyes buddy and look how well your great OS did here…
Middle America Rejects Wal-Mart Linux Experiment :eek:

rasmasyean

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Cool
I had thought you had to buy Licenses and CAL's to use virtual servers.

Here's a pic I found with a rough example of how it works.

oscarBravo

rasmasyean wrote: »

My point is that there is a “grey area” in software piracy and they pirate good stuff that open-source can’t match. The cheap manufacturers give us cheap products so we (policy) tolerate it because it’s a mutual benefit. Does the phrase “necessary evil” mean anything to you?

I'm really not at all sure what you're trying to say. At a guess, I suspect you're saying that proprietary software vendors tolerate piracy because it helps lock people into their software, so that they can pounce on them later and demand licence fees.

Charming behaviour.

I’m saying that it should be made by proprietary means.

What you're not saying is why it should be made that way. There are distinct advantages to an open development model, which are promptly lost once software becomes proprietary. What are the advantages (to me, the user of the software) of it converting from open source to proprietary?

So…it happens more than you think. You think it’s better that they don’t? Tell that to them. It’s a grey area.

Who are "they"? It's really hard to discuss things with you when you're so utterly unclear about what you're saying.

What do you mean? “Truth, Honor, and Justice”? Read comic books? GREY area! Does this kill people? There are more important things to get all hung up about and the world economy is a little more complicated.

Are you typing sentences at random, or does this have something to do with anything I said?

oscarBravo

rasmasyean wrote: »

There’s MS Dynamics too but I guess that’s part of what you’re talking about. But whatever they are using, I wouldn’t doubt that they pirate some of it. It’s just that MS has a big voice so you hear talk about pirating MS products most but in reality, it happens to a lot more companies.

You don't pirate SAP or Oracle software - it just doesn't make sense.

Interestingly, I spent the first 13-odd years of my IT career working with ERP software, such as JDE and SAP. A key feature of this type of software is that when you buy it, you get the source code with it. Big companies employ developers in-house to customise the application software they purchase. In fact, for a couple of years leading up to the millennium, we had an in-house team working on finding and fixing Y2K bugs in JDE software - many of which we reported back to JDE with patches. Sound familiar?

I don’t need to read that 10 year old document from that “founder” to know what open source is about. And it has evolved a bit too anyway. But what I DO know is that open source and Linux is over 10 years old and it did not grow faster than close-source.

Open Source is as old as software. Linux is seventeen years old this year.

I'm not sure how you define "growing faster" - if you're talking about market penetration, Linux as a server solution has had pretty phenomenal growth for an OS that started life as a final year project. As for the desktop, growth has been relatively slow, and is accelerating.

And if you ask the average person, they don’t know what Open Office is.

True. Until you tell them what it is, how to get it, and how they can have a full-featured office suite without shelling out big bucks or breaking the law.

And most of those would not know what Linux is either...

Until you tell them.

...nor know how to pronounce ubuntu. How do you pronounce that anyway?

Who cares?

And don’t anyone try that “more people use the internet now…” pitch because it doesn’t matter…because 10 years ago all the people capable of participating in open-source back then would have been using the internet anyway.

Once again, I find myself at a total loss as to what your point is.

:mad: …and that’s what I don’t like about it, but that’s only my opinion.

Correct me if I'm wrong: you have a problem with Open Source because you're a software developer, and you want to make money from your software, right?

You can do that. No-one's forcing you to open source any software you write. The existence of open source software isn't necessarily a threat to proprietary software. Choice is good, right? If the proprietary software is better than the open equivalent, people will buy it.

Or steal it, but that's ok too, right?

Are you refereing to me? People who read this are lucky I stopped by to offer a different point of view in this “Open Source” forum.

Yeah, we're privileged to have you here.

You just don’t what to hear it apparently because you just want to blindly believe that Linux is so awesome that it cannot be challenged…ever! Well open your eyes buddy and look how well your great OS did here…
Middle America Rejects Wal-Mart Linux Experiment :eek:

Who said it can't be challenged? Linux works for me. I can't stand using Windows; it quite literally causes my blood pressure to increase after a few minutes of using it. It's deeply, horribly flawed in ways that Linux isn't - so I use Linux.

Linux doesn't work for you? Don't use it.

Garth

rasmasyean wrote: »

But what I DO know is that open source and Linux is over 10 years old and it did not grow faster than close-source. And if you ask the average person, they don’t know what Open Office is. And most of those would not know what Linux is either nor know how to pronounce ubuntu. How do you pronounce that anyway? :

I'm fairly new to all this. I have used macs and pcs since the early nineties. I honestly always thought that Linux was for real tech-heads. I remember seeing people using command line and running away screaming (figuratively speaking). -- despite having used DOS in the old days!

When I got my new laptop, I had no choice but Windows Vista. I had seen Vista at work and knew I did not want that lurching bulky OS on my shiny new computer. I started looking into Linux then (I did know it existed and I've been using Open Office for years now... they use it in the office at work too.). I decided to install and it worked.

While I had to fiddle with a few things, the information was readily available to anyone with access to google and the forums are fantastically helpful (I have Ubuntu). My laptop still dual boots with Vista because I do play games sometimes, but it's soo much slower on Vista than Ubuntu.

Even my mac-fanatic friends have to admit the GUI on my computer is fabulous. And I haven't spent a penny on software, nor have I had to get "cracked" versions of software. I really love it. I might be techier than the average bear but I'm by no means fluent. Every thing I've done in command line I've found with google and the ubuntu forums.

It's not as hard to do as people would have you think. And it's free. And yeah, I do like that it's not microsoft. :-)

croo

rasmasyean wrote: »

:mad: …and that’s what I don’t like about it, but that’s only my opinion.

Ah I see, so this is the core of your argument. It's not because you think windows is better, open office is not flash enough, or because you cannot find support for OSS applications. The problem is you don't *like* open source!

The question is why do you bother arguing this point in a forum for people who do like to use open source!? Are you just a troll as Marcos42 suggests? Someone with MS shares perhaps? or perhaps you are just another American with childish fears that there are "reds" under his bed? Whatever it is, open source seems to have you really worried. For all your talk of it not being professional enough for you or to succeed in a free marketplace, it seems to have really rattled your cage. Perhaps you believe it really is succeeding... succeeding in freeing ourselves from a monopoly that was proven to have broken the law in order to beat its competition. It obviously couldn't achieve the same results by being innovative or spending more marketing $s.

Now I feel we have gotten to the bottom of this I will move on to more important topics.

Orion

croo wrote: »

For all your talk of it not being professional enough for you or to succeed in a free marketplace, it seems to have really rattled your cage. Perhaps you believe it really is succeeding... succeeding in freeing ourselves from a monopoly that was proven to have broken the law in order to beat its competition.

It must be crap and unprofessional. Otherwise no public sector authorities would use it.

Oh wait ... http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/030108-ossi.html

"The city of Munich, Germany has converted to Open Source Software for their operating system.
...
It is a complete migration, both server-side and desktop side. The server-side is built around Open LDAP and Samba. The desktop, around Debian and KDE.
...
Public sector authorities all over Europe are engaging in partial or complete migrations. To name merely a few: UK - Carmathenshire, Bridgend, Powys, Wrexham, Hertforshire. Germany - Munich, Schwäbisch Hall, Lower Saxony and Goettingen, Vienna; Spain - Extremadura, Andalucia; France - French parliament, French National Assembly, Paris, Arles; Italy - Rome, Cremona."

Yep - must be crap

rasmasyean

croo wrote: »

Ah I see, so this is the core of your argument. It's not because you think windows is better, open office is not flash enough, or because you cannot find support for OSS applications. The problem is you don't *like* open source!

More like all of the above because all of the above is a result of it being non-asset based. The foundation of the modern world is based on ownership. Without it, it does not work. It has been tried and tested in history that the concept of ownership causes competition and provides incentive for progress.

If you busted your a$$ to become a doctor would you want that dude who partied all his life to have access to the same resources? What motive will you then have to become a doctor in the first place?

rasmasyean

Macros42 wrote: »

It must be crap and unprofessional. Otherwise no public sector authorities would use it.

Oh wait ... http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/030108-ossi.html

"The city of Munich, Germany has converted to Open Source Software for their operating system.
...
It is a complete migration, both server-side and desktop side. The server-side is built around Open LDAP and Samba. The desktop, around Debian and KDE.
...
Public sector authorities all over Europe are engaging in partial or complete migrations. To name merely a few: UK - Carmathenshire, Bridgend, Powys, Wrexham, Hertforshire. Germany - Munich, Schwäbisch Hall, Lower Saxony and Goettingen, Vienna; Spain - Extremadura, Andalucia; France - French parliament, French National Assembly, Paris, Arles; Italy - Rome, Cremona."

Yep - must be crap

The original point of this discussion was Linux vs. Windows for a “Home PC”. And maybe we started drifting a bit but that is still a “specialty application”. No one ever said that it doesn’t have its special uses in “IT”, government or otherwise.

rasmasyean

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm really not at all sure what you're trying to say. At a guess, I suspect you're saying that proprietary software vendors tolerate piracy because it helps lock people into their software, so that they can pounce on them later and demand licence fees.

Charming behaviour.

LOL I suppose that ONE way you can look at it, but a better way is that it makes a more skilled workforce everywhere and allows Asia, etc. to manufacture low cost products that they otherwise would not be able to do. As a result, this will in turn open up more software sales with increased usage of more cheap computer components.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What you're not saying is why it should be made that way. There are distinct advantages to an open development model, which are promptly lost once software becomes proprietary.
What are the advantages (to me, the user of the software) of it converting from open source to proprietary?

The foundation of the modern world is based on ownership. Without it, it does not work. It has been tried and tested in history that the concept of ownership causes competition and provides incentive for progress. The user may get free stuff NOW, but in the long run, it’s better that it’s paid for somehow so that the user gets more quality stuff down the line.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who are "they"? It's really hard to discuss things with you when you're so utterly unclear about what you're saying.

In our context…all the people who pirate the software… Especially those Asians who can’t afford it for their life but need it to help boost their economy in order to make stuff that you use every day! Including your computer! You know, I remember when buying a computer was like buying an automobile almost considering its relative life span. Those days are long gone partially because of…pirating. That’s why we might talk about it, but we look the other way.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you typing sentences at random, or does this have something to do with anything I said?

Forget it. Perhaps I thought you implied something else.

rasmasyean

oscarBravo wrote: »

Open Source is as old as software. Linux is seventeen years old this year.

I'm not sure how you define "growing faster" - if you're talking about market penetration, Linux as a server solution has had pretty phenomenal growth for an OS that started life as a final year project. As for the desktop, growth has been relatively slow, and is accelerating.

And maybe if Linus Torvalds was smart he would have proprietarized it and if it was so good…17 years of development (with money!!!) would have brought about a massive revolution that would have beaten Bill Gates to a “has-run”. And we would use RedHat Lindows Vista instead now and there would be 100,000 “commercial” apps within the Lindows family instead of just some servers telling you “System Updating…please check back later.” Linux, by the way looks like it’s slowing down giving rise to MS Server dominance. Unix grew a bit faster too, even.

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS21114208
Top Server Market Findings
• Microsoft Windows servers showed positive growth as revenues grew 6.9% and unit shipments grew 9.8% year over year. Quarterly revenue of $5.7 billion for Microsoft Windows servers set an all-time high for a single quarter and represented the single largest revenue segment in the server market with 36.6% of overall quarterly factory revenue.
• Unix servers experienced 1.5% revenue growth year over year when compared with 4Q06. Worldwide Unix revenues were $5.2 billion for the quarter, representing 33.3% of quarterly server spending and reflecting continued IT investment in this server market segment, with particular strength in the midrange enterprise segment of the Unix market which comprises 53.8% of all Unix spending.
• Linux server revenue reached $2.0 billion for the first time in any single quarter on 11.6% year-over-year growth. Linux servers now represent 12.7% of all server revenue, up more than 1 point over 4Q06.

oscarBravo wrote: »

or breaking the law.

…which they consider so trivial that it’s not even worded as such.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Once again, I find myself at a total loss as to what your point is.

Some claimed that the Open Source movement has gotten a big boost from the rise of the internet. That’s what I’ve read here and there.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong: you have a problem with Open Source because you're a software developer, and you want to make money from your software, right?

You can do that. No-one's forcing you to open source any software you write. The existence of open source software isn't necessarily a threat to proprietary software. Choice is good, right? If the proprietary software is better than the open equivalent, people will buy it.

Or steal it, but that's ok too, right?

I want developers to make money so they can make progress and compete with others who want to make money, yes. And if users can’t afford it or really utilize it, then they should “steal it” for what boils down to “education and training” so that they know how to use it when they work for a company that has to license it. I don’t expect the average person to pay $500 to write a letter once in a while, no. But in writing those letters and doing their taxes, etc. they can learn to use my software. In these cases, software is a service…not a product. You can call it stealing if you want just because it’s the physical data, but I think it’s what you DO with the software that is the value (that you pay for). As a matter of fact, that's what a "license" is, if I'm not mistaken.

croo

rasmasyean wrote: »

The foundation of the modern world is based on ownership.

It's based on what you choose to base it!

rasmasyean wrote: »

If you busted your a$$ to become a doctor would you want that dude who partied all his life to have access to the same resources?

You misunderstand! Nobody is saying people should work for free! The doctor can work and earn a higher income because of his work.

rasmasyean wrote: »

What motive will you then have to become a doctor in the first place?

But personally I believe if a person becomes a doctor just to make money there is something wrong.

The Scottish comedian, Billy Connolly (not sure if you know of him in the US and I assume from you small minded views of the world you are an American in America) proclaims that anybody who who actually wants to be a politician should be banned from ever being one ... I can't help thinking that same should apply to anyone who wants to be a doctor simply to earn lots of money.

Answer me this, is a guy studying medicine paying a person to teach him or paying for the information? I would argue he is paying someone to teach him ... the information itself is freely available.

And, likewise once the code is written the programmer is paid for his work. But once paid he can choose to get paid again for doing nothing or since he was paid for his work share it and allow others to use & improve on it.
How would the world of science have progressed if at every step nobody would reveal the knowledge they gained?

As a good friend of mine likes to say;
“Information Is Free - U have to Know
People Are Not - U have to Pay
Contributors Are Priceless - U have to Be”

Capt'n Midnight

rasmasyean wrote:

…which they consider so trivial that it’s not even worded as such.

a fine of up to €127,000 isn't trivial

I want developers to make money so they can make progress and compete with others who want to make money, yes. And if users can’t afford it or really utilize it, then they should “steal it” for what boils down to “education and training” so that they know how to use it when they work for a company that has to license it. I don’t expect the average person to pay $500 to write a letter once in a while, no. But in writing those letters and doing their taxes, etc. they can learn to use my software. In these cases, software is a service…not a product. You can call it stealing if you want just because it’s the physical data, but I think it’s what you DO with the software that is the value (that you pay for). As a matter of fact, that's what a "license" is, if I'm not mistaken.

You can't really have a windows vs. linux debate if you ignore licensing costs and copyright laws.

What you think a license is, is irrelevant in a court of law.

A license is whatever the software company claims it to be, subject to some laws. Here we have the sale of goods and services act which states that goods should be of merchantable quality and the quality you expect should be in relation to the price paid. Licenses are not covered by this law.

IIRC M$ limit damages to $5 or purchase price / replacing the media within 90 days unless it's illegal to limit it that much.

There are people out there who don't understand how software can be free, they just don't understand that each contributor probably gets a lot more out than they put in. What has suprised some I've talked to is that it just isn't Linux. BSD is available , Solaris , all those web sites like wikipedia , open maps.


Since everything published by US Government employees is public - isn't there a huge libarary of code/software out there to be tapped into ?

oscarBravo

rasmasyean wrote: »

LOL I suppose that ONE way you can look at it, but a better way is that it makes a more skilled workforce everywhere and allows Asia, etc. to manufacture low cost products that they otherwise would not be able to do. As a result, this will in turn open up more software sales with increased usage of more cheap computer components.

You're repeating slogans, not making a case. You're claiming that proprietary software makes for a more skilled workforce: I beg to differ. My company uses almost exclusively open source software, and in the process of learning to use it effectively, my employees are becoming more skilled than they would otherwise be.

The foundation of the modern world is based on ownership. Without it, it does not work.

Ownership is just one pillar of modern society. Community is another pillar, and arguably a more important one.

Open Source emphasises the value of community. Proprietary software emphasises the value of ownership.

Look at it from the end-user's perspective: the principal (in some cases, only) motive of the proprietary commercial software developer is profit maximisation. Sure, this may involve competition and improve quality for the end-user. But if there's an easier way, it will be taken. That road leads to monopoly, and the abuse of monopoly, and the inevitable detriment to the end-user.

The motive of the Open Source developer is to provide the features required by the users. That's it. The only reason to develop the software is to fill a need.

It's interesting to note that much of the competition that can be seen in the software arena these days is between proprietary and open software. Having successfully killed off most commercial competition, Microsoft has yet to find a reliable way to kill off OSS.

It has been tried and tested in history that the concept of ownership causes competition and provides incentive for progress. The user may get free stuff NOW, but in the long run, it’s better that it’s paid for somehow so that the user gets more quality stuff down the line.

You're mixing up free beer with free speech - libre versus gratis. The point of Open Source isn't that it's free of charge - it isn't always - but that it's open. Freedom to change it, improve it, fix it, make a better version.

And there is ownership. Linus Torvalds owns Linux. He just chooses to make it freely available to others. It's called philanthropy - another pillar of society.

oscarBravo

rasmasyean wrote: »

And maybe if Linus Torvalds was smart he would have proprietarized it and if it was so good…17 years of development (with money!!!) would have brought about a massive revolution that would have beaten Bill Gates to a “has-run”.

Why does it have to be about beating someone else into the ground? That's the proprietary way: kill off the competition. Open Source is about choice. Now, we have a choice, and I choose Linux. Not because of evangelical fervour, but because it's better (imo).

Look at what happened: he wrote a small OS as a final year project. Now it's got a substantial percentage of the world server market, and is making inroads on the desktop. That's pretty cool.

As for money, Linus isn't particularly motivated by it. He has an enviable reputation as a hell of a programmer, and can pick and choose where to work. His autobiography (aptly called Just For Fun) is worth a read.

And we would use RedHat Lindows Vista instead now and there would be 100,000 “commercial” apps within the Lindows family...

Again, I'm at a loss as to how that's a good thing for me, the end-user.

...instead of just some servers telling you “System Updating…please check back later.”

Once again, I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

I want developers to make money so they can make progress and compete with others who want to make money, yes.

You can make money working on Open Source software too. And you don't need competition to drive progress.

The clear illustration of this is the fact that Open Source software exists at all. Where's the profit motive? Where's the competition?

I'll cite Wireshark again: can you give me an example of a cross-platform packet capture and analysis tool that can offer me a similar feature set, and explain to me why I should pay for it?

And if users can’t afford it or really utilize it, then they should “steal it” for what boils down to “education and training” so that they know how to use it when they work for a company that has to license it.

I somehow doubt your views on the subject are shared by FAST and the like.

I don’t expect the average person to pay $500 to write a letter once in a while, no. But in writing those letters and doing their taxes, etc. they can learn to use my software.

Your software? Did you write Office?

In these cases, software is a service…not a product. You can call it stealing if you want just because it’s the physical data, but I think it’s what you DO with the software that is the value (that you pay for). As a matter of fact, that's what a "license" is, if I'm not mistaken.

You're mistaken. Have you ever read the "license" of the software you're illegally using?

Orion

rasmasyean wrote: »

The original point of this discussion was Linux vs. Windows for a “Home PC”. And maybe we started drifting a bit but that is still a “specialty application”. No one ever said that it doesn’t have its special uses in “IT”, government or otherwise.

Special uses? Maybe you should cop on as to what it means if an entire organisation changes to something. The entire French parliament have moved to OS. That includes everybody. Not just techies. I'm talking about everyone from IT pros to secretaries. Ordinary people go to work, browse the web in Firefox, type letters in OpenOffice, email using Thunderbird, and do it all in Linux. This is not speciality application. It's standard usage by ordinary people - just like home users.

Anyway - I'm done with responding to you now. Nothing you've said since my allegation has changed my opinion that you are simply a troll. You selectively respond to posts and your arguments are old and tired. It's become boring.

rasmasyean

croo wrote: »

But personally I believe if a person becomes a doctor just to make money there is something wrong.

Most people don’t do things “just to make money”, granted. But if you don’t think money is a very important factor…I would like you to convince some resident friends of mine with 400,000 USD / 600,000 EUR of interest accruing debt.

croo wrote: »

The Scottish comedian, Billy Connolly (not sure if you know of him in the US and I assume from you small minded views of the world you are an American in America) proclaims that anybody who who actually wants to be a politician should be banned from ever being one ... I can't help thinking that same should apply to anyone who wants to be a doctor simply to earn lots of money.

ROFL! Are you listening to yourself? Now you’ve actually stooped to generalizations and practically “racism” in a sense. But no, I don’t know many comedians never mind take their jokes as life philosophies.

croo wrote: »

Answer me this, is a guy studying medicine paying a person to teach him or paying for the information? I would argue he is paying someone to teach him ... the information itself is freely available.

And, likewise once the code is written the programmer is paid for his work. But once paid he can choose to get paid again for doing nothing or since he was paid for his work share it and allow others to use & improve on it.
How would the world of science have progressed if at every step nobody would reveal the knowledge they gained?

As a good friend of mine likes to say;
“Information Is Free - U have to Know
People Are Not - U have to Pay
Contributors Are Priceless - U have to Be”

If your good friend is so wise and knowing, think about what you are doing this very moment. And I want you to tell me where to obtain the “free” information on how take a piece of rock and put 65nm features on it so it can do what you see in front of you.

Science eh? Something I happen to know quite a bit about so let me give you an example. Did you know that you can patent a gene? You might be tempted to say…”Oh but a gene is nature, it’s all around us, it’s within us and has been existing for millions of years (depending on your beliefs). You can’t patent that!” Well, tell that to the guy who spent 100 million USD / 150 million EUR to figure that gene out. And I bet you that guy wants to charge you for using that knowledge to save your life…meanwhile you want it for free and don’t give a crap that he wasted his money.

Some discoveries are free yes…those where rich government of spends tax money because there is no way industry would fork up the large bill to take a risk of no return…even if it means saving your life one day. The biggest of these is in America…the country you hate so much…

rasmasyean

I think I’ve figured out why we don’t seem to be able to meet eyes on this and understand where each-other are coming from. All of this “technology business” etc. can be summarized as having sprung from “America” where the driving force of this was perhaps “ruthless competition” (hard-core capitalism). Throughout the history, firms and people have risen and fallen and been crushed out of existence even, and emerging from the ashes is some superior entity we call the Ultimate Software! …until it happens again. OK so that was metaphorically exaggerated a bit but you get the point. What happened in the wake was that you guys inherited this practically and you took little to no part in this struggle so from your end, I guess I can see how you feel “communal” is great because it was “easy” for you. Now that the base of it all has been established (by the blood and sweat of the Americans), it is much easier to just build upon the foundation because…it’s almost as if it’s just magically sprung in nature anyway. Meanwhile, the “old fashioned narrow minded Americans” must be still clinging to their outdate religion like O-B-1 Kenobi. Such a fossil! Well…I can’t predict the future, but perhaps it has evolved to a different level...perhaps not. For sure our “perceived worlds” are far enough that we can clash forever. What’s best? I guess only time will tell.

oscarBravo

rasmasyean wrote: »

I think I’ve figured out why we don’t seem to be able to meet eyes on this and understand where each-other are coming from.

No, you haven't. You're refusing completely to accept other perspectives than your own, or to engage in meaningful discussion.

This is the Open Source forum. If you want to discuss the philosophy of Open Source, or ask a question about specific Open Source software, this is the place to do it. If you just want to soapbox about how great proprietary software is, you'll find the Windows forum thattaway.

Note that I'm not sending you to the Mac forum. Why? Because MacOSX is built on the Open Source BSD kernel. I wonder why they didn't use the NT/XP/Vista kernel?

Chaz

... wanted to add my 2 cents based on my own requirements and what ive seen.

Firstly, I dislike M$, that should be clear.

Secondly, all my PCs at home are running Windows - let me explain why.

Firstly, in general, it works.

Secondly, while Linux flavours like Ubuntu are a breath of fresh air, they are far from mainstream. Ive tried to install 8.04 on my PC at home. Issues with RAID support etc cause a common problem, well documented on the Ubuntu Support Forums.

I play games ..... more difficult to run (if at all) when using Linux.

I suppose for the wife, I could install Linux and let her figure it out as she goes along.

The net result, despite being fairly technical and having run linux at the odd occasion since Redhat 6.0, I just dont have the time or energy to fiddle with Linux to make it work.

Perhaps its like a 20 year old that likes cars that are lowered and look cool. Sure, looks nice, but the ride is aweful.

As you get older, the nice comfy car will do just fine.

I do support Linux, I really do. I have a lot of respect for Mark Shuttleworth and the Ubuntu dream - its still got a way to go to become mainstream. Once Ubuntu (or anything else) loads on all PCs without a hitch or at least has the success rate of a Windows install, then the tide will start to turn.

Chaz

rasmasyean wrote: »

I think I’ve figured out why we don’t seem to be able to meet eyes on this and understand where each-other are coming from. All of this “technology business” etc. can be summarized as having sprung from “America” where the driving force of this was perhaps “ruthless competition” (hard-core capitalism). Throughout the history, firms and people have risen and fallen and been crushed out of existence even, and emerging from the ashes is some superior entity we call the Ultimate Software! …until it happens again. OK so that was metaphorically exaggerated a bit but you get the point. What happened in the wake was that you guys inherited this practically and you took little to no part in this struggle so from your end, I guess I can see how you feel “communal” is great because it was “easy” for you. Now that the base of it all has been established (by the blood and sweat of the Americans), it is much easier to just build upon the foundation because…it’s almost as if it’s just magically sprung in nature anyway. Meanwhile, the “old fashioned narrow minded Americans” must be still clinging to their outdate religion like O-B-1 Kenobi. Such a fossil! Well…I can’t predict the future, but perhaps it has evolved to a different level...perhaps not. For sure our “perceived worlds” are far enough that we can clash forever. What’s best? I guess only time will tell.

Learn how to use paragraphs? Most wont bother reading that.

rasmasyean

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you just want to soapbox about how great proprietary software is, you'll find the Windows forum thattaway.

OK, I get the hint!

And if you want to see how much of the Open Source philosophy actually means to the “average home user”, search for anything you can think of thattaway.

Don Diego

You're some bluffer. You seem to have some sense of entitlement like you're owed some sort of living. You're a dinosaur. Part of a business model that doesn't know how to adapt so you still try and cling to past ways of doing business. Even though you can make a comfortable living from open source you still begrudge it and its advocates because of the extra money to be squeezed from pure proprietary means. Add the half pence to the pence. You're greedy. No more, no less.

Epic Tissue

grahambo wrote: »

Hey All

I have been using Linux Mint 4.0 now for a few months and I must say its really top notch stuff. I actually want to make a donation!

why on earth are we all paying for windows when Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Fedora and Mint are free.

And I personally feel that in the case of Linux Mint it performs BETTER than windows. AND ITS FREE!

When I first made the transition I thought Linux was going to be difficult to work with ans use. boy was I wrong. Easier to install. all the codec's etc are installed by default, (Ideal for a home PC or Laptop) while the Linux Terminal is far more powerful than CMD could ever be. The whole lot just works out of the box! its fantastic and has really made me want to never use windows again.

Just my 2 cents

I think the reason is that most people don't need a reason to change. Windows works, it came with their PC/Laptop so why would they get rid of it? (Like you said.. they paid for it).

I have never used Mint so I won't comment on that. The last distro I tried was Ubuntu, before the upgrade to it's latest version. It was trouble getting it installed on my laptop and getting sound working. I found it to be much better than Windows to use but there is a reason people (and businesses pay for Microsoft products).

One reason is Microsoft Office. Open office, abiword, etc just do not match up to it in my opinion.

Another reason is, if people want to install software not in the database or whatever they call it, it is actually harder than doing it on Windows. Actually, with their latest update they might have got a click and install.. I'm not sure.

Finally, as mentioned before, it doesn't come preinstalled and awareness of linux still isn't good enough. I think linux shoots itself in the foot with so many distros. It creates confusion.

Chaz

Epic Tissue wrote: »

I think the reason is that most people don't need a reason to change. Windows works, it came with their PC/Laptop so why would they get rid of it? (Like you said.. they paid for it).

I have never used Mint so I won't comment on that. The last distro I tried was Ubuntu, before the upgrade to it's latest version. It was trouble getting it installed on my laptop and getting sound working. I found it to be much better than Windows to use but there is a reason people (and businesses pay for Microsoft products).

One reason is Microsoft Office. Open office, abiword, etc just do not match up to it in my opinion.

Another reason is, if people want to install software not in the database or whatever they call it, it is actually harder than doing it on Windows. Actually, with their latest update they might have got a click and install.. I'm not sure.

Finally, as mentioned before, it doesn't come preinstalled and awareness of linux still isn't good enough. I think linux shoots itself in the foot with so many distros. It creates confusion.

Basically what I had said.

croo

A pre-installed machine with any OS is obviously easier than having to install - and that is the most common scenario Joe User will find. But to say linux is *more* difficult to install you must compare installation of both OS on a blank machine. In this respect, I don't think, windows is any easier to install. In my own experience I am often reduced to installing linux first to find out what the on board components & chipsets are so I can download the correct drivers for windows.

Why bother? Well once you have your windows OS installed you must then go out and buy all the programs to make the machine do whatever it is you want to accomplish... just checking the repositories set up on this ubuntu machine I see there are just over 23,000 available to install! They are probably not all fitting your needs but there must be a couple of hundred good reasons to install it in all that!

Personally, I beginning to think "which desktop OS?" is becoming more and more irrelevant as everyone seems to want web based apps. Especially as business applications. I'm not a fan myself .. the UI feels like a step back but this seems to be the direction we're going. In a way it's a reversion back to the days when one big mainframe ran & controlled everything. Be that one big machine or many small ones acting as one is pretty much irrelevant.

oscarBravo

Epic Tissue wrote: »

I think the reason is that most people don't need a reason to change. Windows works, it came with their PC/Laptop so why would they get rid of it? (Like you said.. they paid for it).

Why indeed? The Lenovo PC I'm currently using came with Vista pre-installed. I promptly resized the NTFS partition to about 10% of the disk and installed Ubuntu; I've booted Vista once since - not because I needed to, but to see if it still works.

The last distro I tried was Ubuntu, before the upgrade to it's latest version. It was trouble getting it installed on my laptop and getting sound working.

Ubuntu 8.04 installed smoothely on this machine in about 15 minutes. It helps that I carefully picked hardware I knew would work well when I was buying the PC.

I don't find hardware support particularly worse on Linux than Windows, apart from bloody-minded manufacturers (Dell is a serious offender) who won't either provide drivers or specs. HP and Intel are good in this regard. That said, when my dad got a new PC he was forced to buy a new printer, because there was no Lexmark driver available for XP. Swings and roundabouts...

One reason is Microsoft Office. Open office, abiword, etc just do not match up to it in my opinion.

Every version of Word I've ever used has been reason enough to want to throw my PC out the window. It's a god-awful piece of software. Excel isn't too bad, but not great.

The biggest problem with OpenOffice is that it has to try to follow the moving target that is Office. People who move from Office to OpenOffice don't get on too well with it; people who use OpenOffice from the get-go have no problems with it.

Another reason is, if people want to install software not in the database or whatever they call it, it is actually harder than doing it on Windows.

With Ubuntu in particular, there's surprisingly little software not in the "database". That said, most binary apps (if they're reasonably well built) run for me without problems, and compiling from source really isn't that hard.

Finally, as mentioned before, it doesn't come preinstalled and awareness of linux still isn't good enough. I think linux shoots itself in the foot with so many distros. It creates confusion.

I don't really agree. Ubuntu is starting to appear as a pre-installed desktop OS. Once a distro is installed, it doesn't matter what other distros are available. If you're the type of person who cares enough to investigate the difference, choice is good. If you're not, just install Ubuntu.

Besides, the different desktop standards are working hard on interoperability. I'm a GNOME fan, but I can run KDE apps with no hassle whatsoever.

Orion

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why indeed? The Lenovo PC I'm currently using came with Vista pre-installed. I promptly resized the NTFS partition to about 10% of the disk and installed Ubuntu; I've booted Vista once since - not because I needed to, but to see if it still works.

My Dell laptop came with Vista on it. I wiped the partition, installed Ubuntu, and then asked for and received my refund from Dell for the unused and unwanted Vista license

oscarBravo wrote: »

The biggest problem with OpenOffice is that it has to try to follow the moving target that is Office. People who move from Office to OpenOffice don't get on too well with it; people who use OpenOffice from the get-go have no problems with it.

Agreed. I find that OO.o can do everything I need it to do. Things may be in slightly different places in the menus is all.

PogMoThoin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why indeed? The Lenovo PC I'm currently using came with Vista pre-installed. I promptly resized the NTFS partition to about 10% of the disk and installed Ubuntu; I've booted Vista once since - not because I needed to, but to see if it still works. Ubuntu 8.04 installed smoothely on this machine in about 15 minutes.

I did nearly the same, wiped Vista for ubuntu but kept the recovery partion. I've since deleted it as I know i'm never goin to use it.

Macros42 wrote: »

My Dell laptop came with Vista on it. I wiped the partition, installed Ubuntu, and then asked for and received my refund from Dell for the unused and unwanted Vista license

Thanks, I never knew this was possible.

My house is full of pc's:

My main gaming desktop is dual boot Vista & Ubuntu, Vista because I'm a gamer and love COD4 and FEAR too much on my 24inch Samsung, Ubuntu because its safe & secure.

The kids pc has dual boot Xp and Ubuntu, Xp because the young fella's another mad gamer, Ubuntu cos he actually asked for it to allow him mess with compiz cube. Great experience for a 9 year old to have both.

The server has Ubuntu server. Its running torrentflux, a web based torrent server (open source of course), very handy, no more leaving my pc on for torrents. It also runs Samba for file sharing to both Linux and Windows pcs on my network.

My laptop runs Ubuntu. I honestly would never consider a M$ OS for a laptop. Quick to boot, no virus scans or malware probs, never slows down, it just works.


My conclusion is that there's always room for both to work side by side to make our lives better. There is no winner to this argument, its an "Apples or Oranges" question. Just my 2c anyways