Oh, the wicked 2007 predictions people make, just because it's the end of the year. The good folks over at IDC released their "Top 10 Predictions for Worldwide System Infrastructure Software, 2007." Overall, it's a good list, although I don't buy No. 9. IDC predicts: "Microsoft's client operating system anti-piracy efforts will backfire. Microsoft's anti-piracy campaign will drive customers toward Linux."
Bwhahahaha. Somebody has been tipping too much holiday eggnog. The anti-piracy campaign is biggest on the desktop--so, what? IDC suggests that Linux is finally going to gain desktop traction because of Windows product activation? Oh the tears, I'm laughing so hard.
More likely, new anti-piracy mechanisms will drive customers to Windows XP. More onerous piracy checks apply to Vista than its predecessor. Microsoft's nightmare situation is that customers stick with Windows XP and consume more Web-based products or services as means of extending operating system capabilities without upgrading.
View: Full Article @ MicrosoftWatch
Bwhahahaha. Somebody has been tipping too much holiday eggnog. The anti-piracy campaign is biggest on the desktop--so, what? IDC suggests that Linux is finally going to gain desktop traction because of Windows product activation? Oh the tears, I'm laughing so hard.
More likely, new anti-piracy mechanisms will drive customers to Windows XP. More onerous piracy checks apply to Vista than its predecessor. Microsoft's nightmare situation is that customers stick with Windows XP and consume more Web-based products or services as means of extending operating system capabilities without upgrading.
View: Full Article @ MicrosoftWatch
If the people who pirate Vista complain about WGA, well they deserve it.
WTF?! Vista retail already has enough restrictions (like 10 unique activations) and you're suggesting the OEM version? I'd tolerate the crap Microsoft puts users through if they actually made it clear on OEM copies / new computers that the copy of Windows is only for that computer and cannot be transfered... it's immoral that they hide EULA terms like that.
NEway, the cost of Vista is a lot. No matter how you try to justify it that won't change without a significant price drop. If Microsoft wishes to cut down on piracy then it has to deliver products at a fair market price and it isn't doing that. Apple puts in more work and, though I'm not saying it's a better OS, they at least demonstrate what a modern OS should cost, especially with their family packs. The fact that a company as large as Microsoft still refuses to offer discounted family packs is ridiculous.
WTF?! Vista retail already has enough restrictions (like 10 unique activations) and you're suggesting the OEM version? I'd tolerate the crap Microsoft puts users through if they actually made it clear on OEM copies / new computers that the copy of Windows is only for that computer and cannot be transfered... it's immoral that they hide EULA terms like that.
NEway, the cost of Vista is a lot. No matter how you try to justify it that won't change without a significant price drop. If Microsoft wishes to cut down on piracy then it has to deliver products at a fair market price and it isn't doing that. Apple puts in more work and, though I'm not saying it's a better OS, they at least demonstrate what a modern OS should cost, especially with their family packs. The fact that a company as large as Microsoft still refuses to offer discounted family packs is ridiculous.
Actually on a lot of OEM PCs [at least the ones at my school] the windows xp professional sticker with the serial key on it has 1-2 CPU written on it. So I don't see where it is hidden?
Also 10 unique activations are quite a lot. It only matters if you change your cpu/hardrive. Now please don't tell me that you will upgrade your CPU and hardrive 10 times in the next 5 years or so. If you change any other part, windows will activate without using one of the 10 unique activations you have.
Exactly. If you've legally purchased your software, you have nothing to worry about. I like Linux as much as the next guy, but I still don't see 2007 as being "the year of Linux." It still needs some refining. Of course, so does WGA, but it's come a long way for the better. I haven't heard of any false positives lately.
Let it not be said that the increase in Linux adoption which has already been underway is due to something as distasteful as wanting to get a product without paying for it and being unable to. Let them not blame us for THINKING about the ethical issues involved in supporting proprietary schemes and more severe lockdowns. Acting out of good conscience should not be treated derogatorily and piracy should not be an excuse to continually ramp up restrictions beyond reason.
Cost is of course going to be an issue for the less fortunate (and that is one of the minor reasons GNU/Linux is important), but for the rest of us, ethical concerns are the deciding factor. Don't let that be turned to it's opposite and used against us.
Or am I the only one who has a conscience?
Last edited by Arcticflare on 15 Dec 2006 - 10:23
Maybe I misinterpreted you but I don't see how protecting an investment is a bad thing.
Maybe I misinterpreted you but I don't see how protecting an investment is a bad thing.
You did misinterpret him and the point he was making. He was trying to counter the view you are pressing, as most publications press. That people only go to Linux because it is "free" or something similar. He is arguing that those people make up a small minority of Linux users and that the majority of Linux users move to Linux because they support a free and open computing platform. They understand and accept proprietary systems where necessary, but for the most part they want to keep the technology arena open. We can't really argue with their mindset and point, because the more and more proprietary systems we have the less innovation we have in the technology ecosystem. Just imagine for a second if every device that connected to a computer used its own port! We would need hundreds of ports for everything from Mice to MP3 players and beyond... Which would, in reality, translate into very very few devices being made to connect to a computer. The same goes for software...
I believe that is the point he was attempting to make and i agree with him.
Whether or not you agree doesn't invalidate what I said about acting in good conscience. You are welcome to your opinion, of course.
In short, I think you missed the point.
Thanks for clearing that up. And yes to a large extent I agree, in particullar with the "innovation" part of your statement
OS X comes to mind..
OS X comes to mind..
My thoughts exactly.
you're smoking some good **** there
People who pirate windows probably pirate a lot of software that only runs on widows too, so do you stop using windows and all the pirated software you have too, or buy windows to continue using your pirated software?
An OS is a platform to run other applications on in the end.
lol dreamweaver
Linux will never have "a year". If it gains on MS it will be over a decade or so. Unless about 100 killer apps come out only for Linux over a 12 month period I cant see a 12 month period signaling the change of tide.
As sure as EA will bring out a Fifa game every holiday season, someone will predict the following year as "The Year of Linux"
I do agree that with the increased pricing and restrictive licensing on Vista, that distros like Ubuntu will certainly have a better standing.
Barney
pointing out one of the many problems with linux. how everyone wants to make their own distory/version, and how the major distors are separating from each other becoming more and more incompatible. something now also affecting the child distros to a bigger degree as well.
If instead of 10 different good package and software install managers, everyone treid to make one standard manager that worked as good as a simple windows install(and yes, I am aware of the flood of users who will run in here and claimathat apt -get or apt based managers wher eyou just select the program and hit install are sooo much better...), also allowing the users some choice (lilke where to put certain things and menu items and such) Then perhaps linux could go somewhere.
But that is the great irony of Linux. Everyone preaches community and how it is all open so everyone can help make "their" stuff better.
at the same time everyone makes their own stuff thinking it's the best.
if they lived what they preached they'd all be pooling together to make one really good version, at least of important core features such as package managers and such.
pointing out one of the many problems with linux. how everyone wants to make their own distory/version, and how the major distors are separating from each other becoming more and more incompatible. something now also affecting the child distros to a bigger degree as well.
If instead of 10 different good package and software install managers, everyone treid to make one standard manager that worked as good as a simple windows install(and yes, I am aware of the flood of users who will run in here and claimathat apt -get or apt based managers wher eyou just select the program and hit install are sooo much better...), also allowing the users some choice (lilke where to put certain things and menu items and such) Then perhaps linux could go somewhere.
But that is the great irony of Linux. Everyone preaches community and how it is all open so everyone can help make "their" stuff better.
at the same time everyone makes their own stuff thinking it's the best.
if they lived what they preached they'd all be pooling together to make one really good version, at least of important core features such as package managers and such.
And therein lies the problem this sort of merger will never happen because everyone has their own opinions and ideas as to what linux should be which divides the community even further. I don't see in the immediate future everyone comming together and pooling their talent for one distro.
Cooperation itself is what makes Linux work with all it's various permutations in a state of constant change.
Variety is crucial. Several different kinds of package management is a good thing. Tons of different ways to do the same thing is one of the strengths of Linux. Sacrificing all that for a little more convenience would be terrible. If that ideal is abandoned, then the spirit of the GPL is dead.
Besides, there's already plenty of "pooling" going on. Just look at the top 5 distros out there. They have enormous collaborative groups behind them
Last edited by Arcticflare on 15 Dec 2006 - 13:39
Like 1.4 pointed out sticking to one distro wont happen either as its against the whole Linux movement anyway and as 1.3 pointed out as everyone has oppinions on what works. For that Reason I think Linux in all honesty will remain a fringe OS that will never disapear (its developer base is huge) but it will never be 'THE' OS.
I think Apple would have a better chance since its a more controlled platform but them being up there with MS in the market is a bit beyond the foreseeable future.
I don't see in the immediate future everyone comming together and pooling their talent for one distro.
I want to run what suits me. People who don't want to make those decisions don't have to make them.
As for diversity being the key to Linux, That may be true as well. but they are ideologically different.
but my point wasn't neither... ish.. my point, or part of it, is that there is too much division on cetral core fucntionality of Linux. such as package/installation managers, if they could just work together on havign 2 semi compatible ones, one fully featured(bloated) version for the regular user and the one who wants it easy, and one bare bones apt version of the "leet geek. and at the same ime stanardaize these acrosslinux distros. THEN linux would be a viable option for busioness and home users to 10 times the degree it is now. As right now this is the ONE thing that most makes Linux undesirable.
But isn't that type of attitude something to be discouraged? That's a serious question.
I like being able to do things quickly and easily. At the same time, I also like a high level of control. The latter requires some knowledge. Ideally, I want both, and I want everyone to have both. Unfortunately, the majority prefers the first option and overemphasis on that can be extremely problematic, as we have seen. Everyone using the same OS with the same software on top of it without much knowledge at all is not healthy or safe, and that has been shown to be statistically valid over the years. Granted, we've only had one test case, Windows, but I think the concept is fairly self-evident.
I don't want Windows to go away, because that would mean one less choice. I want them to ease up and encourage more variety - especially in the areas that they have made integral parts of the system when no justifiable reason existed. This monolithic approach has got to stop.
everyone treid to make one standard manager that worked as good as a simple windows install
You mean that "windows install" where every developer choses whatever installation method he wants (eg. install shield, or just a custom installer), where standards are pretty much absent and install processes range from just extracting the compressed files to copying files all over the HD, replacing system dlls and writing registry strings that never get cleaned, even when the program is uninstalled?
I certainly fail to see anything good or simple there, let alone standard.
If you had one or two (still compatible) ways to handle package management it should be more secure than having 10 different package managers with 10 different ways to do things. as far more effort could be made into making it secure.
I find it strange that linux users not only defends multiple package managers but also defend them with such ferocity. it's what's splintering the very thign they are creatign and defending, it's what's hindering Linux form ever being popular or even be considered as a usefull general desktop OS.
Developers don't want to package their app for 10 different, not only OS' but variaties of ONE OS. it's stupid. it's impractical and it takes unecessary resources. And it's even worse for users.
-User A: Hey did you try this cool little app here, it's incredibly usefull and works great.
-User B: ooh let me see, aww.. for some reason I can't install it... I'll ask some linux pieopel on the internet
-Linux experts on internet: Get off the net noob, RTFM, learn to use the OS like we did, not help from others.
-The one friendly Linux guy on the net: yeah that program won't install on your Distro of linux. You'll need to install another linux distro or compile from source
Havign one common Package management won't affect your precius ability to make unique and different from everyone else linux installs. it'll just help unify and strengthen linux, it'll make linux user friendly.
and no I didn't mean to use the windows way, evenif it in many ways are far preferable from the linux ways. where everythign is just automagically put in places you don't know or get to decide where is. Very usefull when peopel install application sand they don't know where the menu item is, OR it doesn'thave a menu item, and there's no clue to what the command to start it is.
come on people you're being worse than Apple fanatics, it's ok to like and defend linux, but that doesn't mean you have to defend EVERYTHING about it. Not everything in linux is perfect, REALLY, I'm serius. it's not...
You mean that "windows install" where every developer choses whatever installation method he wants (eg. install shield, or just a custom installer), where standards are pretty much absent and install processes range from just extracting the compressed files to copying files all over the HD, replacing system dlls and writing registry strings that never get cleaned, even when the program is uninstalled?
I certainly fail to see anything good or simple there, let alone standard.
The limiting factor there is that they all involve and require the use of pre-compiled binary executables (even in the case of simply extracting a program from a zip file, the program itself is still a pre-compiled binary). Compare that to being able to extract/install and then run a full-fledged application without the use of a binary. There are some benefits there that you're not getting in what is an essentially binary only environment.
Or am I wrong here? At least it is true that other operating systems place emphasis on the ability of the average user to do their own compilation by having the needed tools ready as part of the system. Binary compatibility is not able to present restrictive problems this way. Even OSX has it's own command-line compilation tools (taken among other things from BSD, I think), though they are not present in a default installation.
Hawkman: You should know that right now there's only two major package management systems as far as the average user is concerned. I wish there were a few more popular systems, but that's not the case.
Now on to the important bits:
Even with the same package management system across all distros, you'd still have binary compatibility between them to worry about. To solve that problem, you would need to do some things that would be disastrous due to the amount of uniformity required across all distros. At that point the distinctions between distros A B and C would be drastically reduced and that would be bad.
As for the rest, I disagree and I think it best to leave it there. I will mention two things though: 1.) OF COURSE I am going to agree that not everything in Linux is perfect. That's self-evident. 2.) It's clear to me at least that you are using popular generalizations of Linux users. I don't see much sense in going after the users to undermine what people have to say about the system itself. It would make more sense to go after their statements and test those instead. What in my view amounts to namecalling is not going to get the discussion anywhere useful.
Last edited by Arcticflare on 15 Dec 2006 - 16:08
The limiting factor there is that they all involve and require the use of pre-compiled binary executables (even in the case of simply extracting a program from a zip file, the program itself is still a pre-compiled binary). Compare that to being able to extract/install and then run a full-fledged application without the use of a binary. There are some benefits there that you're not getting in what is an essentially binary only environment.
Or am I wrong here? At least it is true that other operating systems place emphasis on the ability of the average user to do their own compilation by having the needed tools ready as part of the system. Binary compatibility is not able to present restrictive problems this way. Even OSX has it's own command-line compilation tools (taken among other things from BSD, I think), though they are not present in a default installation.
You can also install binay only stuff on linux, but that was not my point. The advantage of linux' package systems is that you're relying on one single app to manage all your software, and that leads to a clean system. Also, along with the distro's software repositories, provides a much better security.
Say you was to install some program on windows that should be available for all users on that system. Even if the software itself was to be run only as user, you're still trusting the installer, which is after all a program running with admin priviledges.
Developers don't want to package their app for 10 different, not only OS' but variaties of ONE OS. it's stupid. it's impractical and it takes unecessary resources. And it's even worse for users
You don't get it: they don't have to. Just look at UT2004, the script provided on the CDs/DVD was enough to install the game on any distro.
It's up to distro maintainers to keep the repositories up to date... or do you think it was Epic (or Atari) who provided the ebuild so I could just "emerge ut2004" on my gentoo?
Last edited by ichi on 15 Dec 2006 - 19:59
Whem you want more you have to start using the terminal, simply because most advanced programs don't have a gui, and that's the big diference to windows, in windows you can always find a program that you click a couple of times and it does what you want, in a GNUlinux it's harder but on the other hand theres alot of help from tutorials and forums.
So it's taking me a while in this transitional fase, getting to know a new sistem but in a couple of weeks spending one or two hours a day, I now have a full system running has a media server, email server, with web browsing ( firefox ) and a couple of other programs running.
On my laptop or my wifes laptop we HAVE to continue using windows, because of the programs we use, I'm a graphic designer, she's an arquitecht, so Adobe suite and autocad comes to mind in software we can do without...
So we will continue using windows xp in both machines since its payed for and it works...
since we have email and browsing centralized from now on a GNULinux system I hope widows also becomes easier to mantain.
When a new version of the programs mentioned before arrives requiring vista, we probably have bought new computers wich will come with vista.
I can say that if adobe or autodesk start releasing software for GNULinux I would stop using windows in a flash, for the money ofcourse but specialy from an ethic and social point of view, and I also think windows is to "user friendly", less and less people know how to manage their systems, we have become drones that type a couple of things and click a few times. When something goes KABUM, we should know how to fix it... but that's justs my humble point of view...
Sorry for the long text and forgive me any typos since english is not my first language.
MediaCenter is aprt of Home premium too. wich certainly is reasonabely priced.
regardless maybe you missed the part about the ethic and social point of view, you know the whole Free Software Movement...
but then I realized that I'm not buying a computer to show off my perspective, I'm buying a computer to get my work done. nowadays I'm in love with my Windows Vista install because windows gets my job done and linux and mac don't, no questions asked.
haha, oh isn't the comment system a great place to post opinions =)
Like the upgrade to XP, Vista have tons of things that needs to be work out.
They're planning a entire new shell, os interaction for the next major release (not server), That'll raise a LARGE compatibility crisis.
By than wine (windows compatibility layer for anything that isn't windows) would develop so that it supports most programs microsoft have dropped, or no longer actively developed.
That's when linux have a slight chance. not now when it's still so young. (compare slackware linux and microsoft windows, 10 years vs 30 years)
Before I prefer ubuntu and fedora because of the looks and the promise that most win32 apps will run like office and internet explore through wine. The biggest factor is that it's legal. Hell good that does. who cares about that? I want to play games.
But in a decade, they'll have win 98-2003 totally backward engineered (they use upgraded libraries of their precessors) and we can use windows apps and games on linux.
That's why all the code changes in vista, to prevent compatibility layers from catching up.
I actually like the graphics on vista, so I use vista. Most people knows nothing about computers, but they know art when they see it, and greed is something everyone feels, the only difference is the level of control they have on theirselves.
I would DEFINATlY use linux when wine is developed enough, so would most other people.
The thing is, most of us is familier with the codes of win 98, and build our games on it, now's on codes of win xp. But vista... there wasn't many games developed for win 2000... so to the pattern, dos games -> win 98 games -> win xp games... the next major platform is the transition between vista and their new completely rewritten new os in a decade.
I also like linux for the resource saving design. it takes 2g to install a nice looking linux that has a tons of functions, even including developer's pack. but in windows, now in vista, 8g to install something that just looks slightly more advanced, but not more functions linux of 500mb would have.
The only thing windows have over linux is ease of use, which is importent for newbies.
But being an early adapter is a pain, I have to rebuild all my open-source programs from source, even the compiler and shell (mingw), which have like... a million errors to sort out. But maybe it's because it's the first time I have to compile open source codes in windows.
And so far, the only thing that's garentee to work properly is microsoft's stuff plus the programs that uses a generic code.
Most game/hack guards for mmorpgs don't work, therefore alot of games don't work.
However the thing is, a lot of people like windows, especially software and hardware distributation corporations. you don't see norton expanding support to linux, or dell. companies like dell actually earn some money from microsoft for each copy of windows a user buys to go along with the pc. Notice all large hardware venders NEVER use linux? they don't get commission if they use linux. Unless it's a trial to see it it's cheaper to ditch windows for linux.
Plus, with each windows upgrade, hardware upgrade is nessesary. So more money for the hardware manufacturers if the user want to keep up to date.
Because windows give commision to hardware venders, hardware venders forces us to use windows. And because windows is a default, game developers will always develope games for windows. Windows will always rule, even if linux outstrips windows in preformance, security, looks... even when there's enough games to match windows.
Oh by the way, does anyone knows of a alternative network stack for windows. the build in one's ridicules even if it's rumored to be from freebsd and 10% faster than before. So many bugs.
So yea, in other words, every major tech spots are working together against free things to make a living.
Last edited by tggkao9999 on 15 Dec 2006 - 13:18
However the thing is, a lot of people like windows, especially software and hardware distributation corporations. you don't see norton expanding support to linux, or dell. companies like dell actually earn some money from microsoft for each copy of windows a user buys to go along with the pc. Notice all large hardware venders NEVER use linux? they don't get commission if they use linux. Unless it's a trial to see it it's cheaper to ditch windows for linux.
Wrong:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global....;l=en&s=biz
http://www.dell.com/content/products/featu...;l=en&s=bsd
Regarding norton, why would they expand to linux, and why exactly would anyone want them to do so?
The majority of home users are using windows on bought machines and should have no problems with activation/authentication.
When i speak to users and even mention Linux they have no idea what it is never mind download, burn and install a distribution.
If you have a little more computer knowledge and want a little more tinkering, Suse 10.2 is nice.. Fast, and with XGL, Vista can keep Aero.. my ATI 64MB card on my laptop runs XGL fine.. With Vista on the same machine, I got a 1.0 rating..
Let see.. A free DVD download or $300 for the OS and another $400 for the office suite; not a hard decision for a family with kids..
Windows is pre-paid for these people, and they think it is almost like it is free because of that. Then they can run OO.o on that, and still stay legal and relatively inexpensive.
Your costs are excessive.
As much as I do love the current Linux distributions like Edgy or SLED, Linux is not what your typical Desktop user would choose. The mac suits them a bit more, but thanks to no games and, sure, software incompatibility, it won't win a lot of new friends as well.
So no matter how ****ty the OS is that Microsoft will come up with (Okay, Vista is not ****ty, it's just WAY not what you'd expect after 5 years of development, it's just 'good enough'. Oh, by the way: Remember that old Longhorn Rockstar video Microsoft released at PDC2k3? 'Good enough isn't good enough anymore?' - Well, it seems to be 'good enough' again), people won't just switch from one day to the other. And they'll buy Vista cause that's what'll be on the PCs you can buy at Walmart, Dell, whatever. Like it or not, but Vista is good enough so that people will not look around and get accustomed to a totally new operating system.
1: Does not support DirectSound 3D Hardware Acceleration which mean no EAX through DirectX so only few mustly newer games already have OpenAL support will work so your SOL with older games that build around EAX.
2: Vista is a major memory hog with Vista Ultimate what I'm seeing 450MB on clean install and that was with out enable MCE, I wonder what Vista Home Basic is going to be like on clean install to bad MS didn't give us CCP user an option to try the diff ver of Vista.
3: Problem with XP and Vista is that MS owns you with the WPA (Windows Product Activation) & WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) with that phones home carp, What you all think going happing when MS turn off validation process for XP which is most likely going happing in a few years which mean you being force to move some other OS.
4: Reinstall XP or Vista on a new assembled system becuases your old system die mean you going re-do the validation process which is not going to match old system hash so now you have CALL MS and think XP bad just wait in tell you get load of Vista, Read this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11..._eula_worries/
5: You all should be worries about MS planning annual rental fee meaning you be force each and every year to paid in order to keep using windows, office and etc.
My opinion about Linux
1: The main problems with linux is way to min distros/version with nobody work at common one standard.
2: There no standrad install and min app have be per-compile so better hope you have all dev stuff install and we know about Windows "DLL hell", well enter Linux "Dependency hell".
1: Does not support DirectSound 3D Hardware Acceleration which mean no EAX through DirectX so only few mustly newer games already have OpenAL support will work so your SOL with older games that build around EAX.
2: Vista is a major memory hog with Vista Ultimate what I'm seeing 450MB on clean install and that was with out enable MCE, I wonder what Vista Home Basic is going to be like on clean install to bad MS didn't give us CCP user an option to try the diff ver of Vista.
3: Problem with XP and Vista is that MS owns you with the WPA (Windows Product Activation) & WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) with that phones home carp, What you all think going happing when MS turn off validation process for XP which is most likely going happing in a few years which mean you being force to move some other OS.
4: Reinstall XP or Vista on a new assembled system becuases your old system die mean you going re-do the validation process which is not going to match old system hash so now you have CALL MS and think XP bad just wait in tell you get load of Vista, Read this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11..._eula_worries/
5: You all should be worries about MS planning annual rental fee meaning you be force each and every year to paid in order to keep using windows, office and etc.
My opinion about Linux
1: The main problems with linux is way to min distros/version with nobody work at common one standard.
2: There no standrad install and min app have be per-compile so better hope you have all dev stuff install and we know about Windows "DLL hell", well enter Linux "Dependency hell".
agree anyway stick with XP its very good already the only reason for vista its directx10 its the way to force gamers to go to vista, but only microsoft games anyways most companies realize that directx9.0c its good enough
There's nothing "wrong" with Linux but how about a dose of reality? Linux people either (1) don't want to pay for software or (2) want to run "open source" or, in some cases (3) Have a pointless hatred for Microsoft.
Do you really think a Microsoft customer is going to go to buy Vista and then go "oh, you know, I heard that you have to be a legit customer to use this and I don't want the hassle of proving once that I paid for this so I will dump my entire computer, learn Linux, switch to it, find compatible drivers and software, and be up and running in 10x the time it would take to get Vista up and running". Please.
There are logical reasons for some people to cosnider Linux. Suffering the few seconds of WGA (which is actually quite painless) is not a valid reason. Besides, a vast majority of home (and business) users don't know what Linux is or don't want to learn it. They stick with what they know.
Linux, you have your share of users. If you want more, you have to give valid reasons for people to switch and WGA is not one of them, sorry.
Seriously, it shouldn't be such a big task! You download the linux program, then read an entire page on how to install it "correctly". What a joke!.. I don't have the patience for that!
Then you have "synaptic", where you select the program you want, then it downloads and install automatically. You think that would make things easy, right?.. Wrong!.. I have a slow DSL line, why if for some reason I need to reinstall the OS?.. Great, now I get to go back on to "shitnaptic" and re-download all the programs again. Again, what a joke!.. I don't have the patience for that!
Then you got 'Apple', and we all know you cant build one. So hell with them!
MS Windows Forever!
Same happens if you download a windows program and delete the installer. If you can't be bothered downloading again then store the packages and install from hd/cd next time.
Same as you save your programs on windows you can save them on linux.
Seriously, it shouldn't be such a big task! You download the linux program, then read an entire page on how to install it "correctly". What a joke!.. I don't have the patience for that!
Then you have "synaptic", where you select the program you want, then it downloads and install automatically. You think that would make things easy, right?.. Wrong!.. I have a slow DSL line, why if for some reason I need to reinstall the OS?.. Great, now I get to go back on to "shitnaptic" and re-download all the programs again. Again, what a joke!.. I don't have the patience for that!
Then you got 'Apple', and we all know you cant build one. So hell with them!
MS Windows Forever!
Do you make backup copies of software you download in windows? I would hope so, and you claim you do. Why should that be any different for any other OS? You seem to imply it is since you are suggesting that you are forced to re-download. Methinks doing such is a problem with the user, rather than the system.
It would seem that your major argument against Linux is due to the fact you have been conditioned by MS that your OS needs reinstallation on a regular basis, and that the simple idea of burning downloaded software doesn't seem to have entered your mind. Either that or you've not taken enough time to learn how to do it.. which again suggests that you *might not* know enough about Linux to make a fair judgement.. but then.. not even thinking about burning software almost suggests being new to computers in general. It is a far rarer occurance during normal usage for a Linux based OS to need a complete overhaul. So.. in summary.. Linux does not need regular "freshening", and regardless of that, any sane user will burn a copy of any software they download regardless of platform, so it is a moot point anyway.
Glad you are happy with windows, but please try to not project it's problems onto Linux.
Last edited by Treefrog on 18 Dec 2006 - 14:54
Last edited by BriFi on 16 Dec 2006 - 00:33
Why would I need to extend WinXP's capabilities? It does everything fine for me already. I'm not a ****ing newb so I don't need all the nanny security features and the "user-friendly" layout of Vista, the GUI is junk, I don't use IE, I don't have a behemoth of a computer so supposedly I won't get the full user experience... but I need a dual core 4000+ with high end vid card to listen to music and browse the internet, right?
Microsoft = monopoly = greed (an inherent problem of humanity) = high prices = piracy = greed + monopoly + lawyers = lawsuits, activation & anti-piracy checks = more piracy = cycle ad nauseum.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.