CIO has posted an article about a man named Keith Curtis, a previous programmer for Microsoft, who has come out with the dramatic statement that free software will be the downfall of the Redmond company. Curtis, who was with Microsoft for 11 years, believes that free and open source software is technically superior to the proprietary alternative because it lets developers collaborate and innovate.Curtis, a so-called Linux guru, apparently never actually tried the free operating system until after he left Microsoft in 2004, but he truly believes that as long as the software giant is dominant, then we will continue to live in, ""the dark ages of computing." Interesting, he also said that, "If Microsoft, 20 years ago, built Windows in an open way, Linux wouldn't exist, and millions of programmers would be improving Windows rather than competing with it."
So, how exactly will free software take down Microsoft? Curtis believes there are two ways this will happen. The first way is the belief that open source software is, as mentioned, technically superior. If everybody can contribute to software, then theoretically it will suit more needs. There are a few examples of this already in motion, apparently; the Firefox web browser, the Linux kernel which runs a wide variety of devices, including cellphones, and the point that Apple also uses a free kernel instead of a proprietary one. Secondly, Curtis thinks that the other potential threat is the fact that it's free. There are many ways that free software can be profitable to the companies that make it, but Microsoft does not rely on that, it relies on people purchasing its products.
It's unclear if, or when, Linux will take over. Curtis says that although software like Open Office does need some work, it is good enough for the vast majority of users. He said, "Even if Microsoft did embrace Linux, not only would it hurt their profit margins, they'd be forced to explain to customers why they should continue to pay for Office." If Microsoft had made Windows more openly about 20 years ago, Curtis thinks that Linux would not exist today, and programmings would be aiming at improving it as opposed to competing with it; he compares the situation to Microsoft "manning a leaky ship", and says that while Windows 7 is an improvement, it is still fundamentally flawed.
He's unclear on what Microsoft could do to stop this potential uprising of open source software. Bill Gates has been quoted to say, "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not." He has an interesting outlook on things, and be sure to write back in the comments with your thoughts, too.
Why is this on the front page?
Why is this on the front page?
Pot, kettle, black.......
Indeed. It helps if commenters actually have an argument.
Plus there is loads of free and open projects being done on Windows every day. MS also has many things that are open for developers to use and so on.
Of course, without Windows being pirated so much, there would be a lot more Linux.
Why is this on the front page?
cuz this is neowin v2, where editorials are fp and the real news is nowhere to be found.
Thanks. That's all I was saying.
Why is this on the front page?
So because he likes the mindset of Linux, he is "self-delusional" and "irrelevant"?
How will Microsoft ever learn anything from the competition with stances like yours?
People who don't want to pay for windows can download it, if they couldn't download windows, they might go for the other free (and legal) alternative.
Truly indeed. I am a Microsoft user, and it can be nice, but I also like Linux. Do I agree with the guy? Hmm, not really. People are not educated enough in technology to know what is right, or even what is better or worse. They go for ease of use, and that is something that Microsoft has dominated for a long time. Linux at first was clearly NOT something you could simply install. Windows was easy enough for computer 'users' to install or upgrade. Am I saying Windows is better or worse? Of course not, but it sure can be easy.
Haha yeah that's what I was thinking.
Why is this on the front page?
So because he likes the mindset of Linux, he is "self-delusional" and "irrelevant"?
How will Microsoft ever learn anything from the competition with stances like yours?
They don't need to learn, because they have a monopoly.
How about the paid versions of Linux? How about Vista? I would not pay for Vista.
I agree with the premise that parts of Windows should be more open however
See this is the whole reason our greedy and fearful civilization is on the brink of extinction all the time. And this is why no one knows how the pyramids were built. When you figure out something you try to hide it and charge an arm and a leg and get rich so you can sit on your lazy ass and do nothing more and just rake in more money. So that is why I think that this article makes perfect sense. If the code is open you keep working on improving it. But if its closed. No one can look in it and actually see how stupid some of the ideas are in there. Also no one can see how many back doors you left open. Open source soon going to over take all these bad operating systems. I used linux before its getting to be a very good operating system and with ubantu having those awesome 3d effects its only time till no one will want to by windows. I think the only thing in the present that keeps windows alive is the gamers and the fact that most games are still %100 supporter only by windows. But once linux starts taking care of that bill can buy a cemetery lot for windows. Or just have it cremated and put it in a jar on top of his table.
And people have no problem with finding bugs and telling MS, so they fix them, and so on. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there also old bugs in *nix here and there that no one cares about fixing so they don't get fixed? Or they get fixed way later? And with all the people theoretically looking at the code how is it we still get loads if not more bugs on linux than with say Vista etc?
All you're talking about is a theory that hasn't been really holding up, the plus side is that things are free, but not really free when you get right down to it. Companies still have to pay for support.
Agreed, but I still believe there is more that could be done to increase interoperability even more
And that is why you'll never understand how a business works.
Microsoft is a Company, it doesn't give a rat's ass about you trying to improve its software. Its primary concern is to earn PROFIT and MAKE SHAREHOLDERS HAPPY.
That and the business need for productivity apps.
Our civilization is constantly on the brink of collapse? I must have missed that.
And no one knows how the pyramids were built because they wanted to keep it secret, presumably to "get rich"? So I take it they just asked all the slaves that worked on them to keep quiet, eh? Maybe built a big fence to stop everyone within a few hundred miles from taking a peek?
You also seem to believe Microsoft has left "back doors" in the code, which strikes me as a little unlikely. Powerful as they may be, I can hardly see them risking everything so they can gain remote access to your enormous pr0n collection.
Also, you can run quite a few windows games on linux using wine. Almost anything opengl based will work fine, and most dx9 games work relatively well now. Unfortunately games are not the only thing keeping Windows alive.
Lurk moar plz.
I agree with the premise that parts of Windows should be more open however
Linux is not harder to use than Windows.
The reason why it doesn't get more popular is gaming. Don't look any further. Each time someone ask me where they can get an illegal copy of Windows and i tell them if they don't want to pay they should just install Linux they tell me "But, will i be able to play [insert a casual gamer game like The Sims here] ?"
Don't live in the past. Linux used to be a pain to install and use. But current distro line Ubuntu are as easy as Windows to install and use. A girl who know **** about computers at my job installed it and use it cause she did not want to pay for Windows and doesn't play game at all.
For me personally, gaming is the only reason I will be getting Windows 7.
That's a rather large assumption there, @roblife. Do you, personally, think you can sift through the codebase for Windows and actually show anyone where something "stupid" is in the codebase? On the flip-side, I can fairly-well say that, based upon the number of Devs, STEs & SDETs in the Core OS division, as well as the peer review and bugbashes that such "stupid" code is either non-existent or has been deeply pruned from the codebase these days.
IMHO, this reply from @roblife is just a post from someone who likes Linux enough to drink deeply from the Kool-aid bow.
BTW - the words are "ubuntu", not "ubantu", and "supported" not "supporter". You also might want to try to add something in your posts that many people call "punctuation" - it really helps people understand what you're trying to convey to the reader. Whenever I see run-on sentences, I shake my head and sigh.
And people have no problem with finding bugs and telling MS, so they fix them, and so on. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there also old bugs in *nix here and there that no one cares about fixing so they don't get fixed? Or they get fixed way later? And with all the people theoretically looking at the code how is it we still get loads if not more bugs on linux than with say Vista etc?
All you're talking about is a theory that hasn't been really holding up, the plus side is that things are free, but not really free when you get right down to it. Companies still have to pay for support.
A very estute reply! In fact, there are a few bugs in UNIX that have been there for over 30 years old that were fixed just recently - specifically, how UNIX handles null pointer exceptions. This was not a major news item because most of the population has heard of Microsoft and Windows but has no idea what Linux is; hence, a news article or report about a problem with Windows has bigger "news legs" than one about UNIX.
Microsoft is a Company, it doesn't give a rat's ass about you trying to improve its software. Its primary concern is to earn PROFIT and MAKE SHAREHOLDERS HAPPY.
Do you live in a cave?! Are you isolated from the rest of the world?! Yes, Microsoft does care about it's profitability and bottom-line costs, but on the other hand it *does* care about input from it's customers and users. I take it that you've never heard about their Useability Studies, where they take random people and show them a new piece of software, examine how they use it, take their suggestions and show these reports to the developers, right? Or the thousands of Beta Testers, TAP testers and other companies that get advanced looks and usage of Microsoft products in order for Microsoft to understand what their users want, like, dislike and suggest changes to their products.
Next time, know a little bit more about what you're posting about before you make outlandish and obviously mis-informed comments - it's makes one look very foolish.
For good or ill...
... what?
I can't tell if that's racist, selfish, stupid or a combination of all three. Actually, nah, I'm going with the last one.
What is it with all this talk about backdoors? Calm down and take the tinfoil hat off.
I'm sorry that I have to reply to one of your comments again, @roblife - but this is even a more ignorant post than then one I just replied to.
The deal for Microsoft software went to the Nigerian GOVERNMENT, not to the citizens. Again, check your facts before you post!
How does "closing the backdoors" keep Nigerian 419 Scams from being sent? Show us!
In case you haven't heard, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donates hundreds of millions of dollars to fight AIDS and Malaria. Get a clue!
Don't get me wrong, software like Firefox is amazing, but I don't see companies switching to applications which businesses have usually paid for just to save a few bucks.
Consumers can't hold Microsoft accountable for Windows not working. Microsoft just sends you to the forums to try to get answers, or they tell you that you need to reinstall the operating system.
@ roblife
The EU suit is bull**** and you know it. Microsoft can't bundle IE with Windows but Apple can put Safari with its OS? Nobody is forcing consumers to use IE, they can install Firefox or Opera or Chrome or whatever browser they want (I use Firefox myself).
Thats exactly what I have been wondering all the time.. Free software companies cannot get as much revenue to aid professional testing of their softwares in office-like environments, etc.. Microsoft or any other profitable software company will always have an upper-hand with the trained personnel and R&D owing to the money they get in return
If technology, ideas were freely shared like you said, the world would be in chaos and there would be no incentive to innovate. Why?
1. You have to recognize that there are many f^ckup people out there with dangerous mind. Letting having access to "technology" could lead to disasters. Example: North-Korea with its nuclear toys. Hey, nuclear technology nowadays is to produce electricity, not bomb. Look... Or another example, spyware, virus, phising scam artists. All those exploit "technology" are shared and contribute, aren't they?
2. if there were no competition in creating new technology, there wouldn't be any new innovation for u to use. Take a look at Linux. How long ago was it built? Today 2009, Linux looks the same. There is nothing change fundamentally that makes computer users scream out loud except for improved GUI in an effort to spread it around the world. Nice effort, but, it is not that impressive. Instead, today, you have many different version of linux competes against each other. Companies try to make money on it through training and support or donation. Give me a break!
If everything can happen easily like you wished, it would be great. But, the fact is just like communism, it doesn't work in reality.
Neither of those point dispute whether he's "open minded" or "from Microsoft".
You just failed reading comprehension 101.
EX contract means he is not currently from Microsoft.
And being an unabashed open source advocate (in his own words!) immediately makes it clear he is no longer open minded about Windows.
Q.E.D.
And being an unabashed open source advocate (in his own words!) immediately makes it clear he is no longer open minded about Windows.
Q.E.D.
Oh, so your premise is that he was an Open Source advocate before he even tried it for the first time?
It all makes sense now....
EX contract means he is not currently from Microsoft.
And being an unabashed open source advocate (in his own words!) immediately makes it clear he is no longer open minded about Windows.
Q.E.D.
He worked for MS for many years. He knows how MS works.
He has an opinion. He, unlike you, knows how opinions work.
Actually, they do dispute his "open minded"-ness or his previous relationship with Microsoft.
Since he has been an Open-Source advocate for quite some time, and not a new "convert" to F/OSS, the article paints the picture of him being a very-recent convert to F/OSS. The rendering of him being an Ex-Microsoft employee is an out-right lie - he was a CONTRACTOR to Microsoft, which does not allow anyone any benefits as a Microsoft employee. "from Microsoft" denotes that one is or was an employee of Microsoft...which he was not.
That is deep. Sometimes I susprise myself!
That is just BS. Microsoft grabs open source software, massage it a bit to use their own underlaying APIs (like Win32), make it proprietary, and then release it as their own. That is why they are never first with anything.
The "article" makes it clear he hasn't worked there for 5 years...
Well done. Not sure what that has to do with my quote, but well done.
All s/w have their own flaws and downsides. Just use what fits your needs. I use windows because i want to get my work done asap and in a better way
Everybody can contribute to software on Windows just not the core OS - to achieve what you want on Windows who really needs to be altering the OS code??? And then using the OS used to run a phone to compare against a desktop: saying "it works on phones - it will work on desktops" is crazy, and then looking at Apple they sell the OS on so that's again a non comparison.
Unless Microsoft cut funding to develop OS market share I do not see it declining anytime soon, Linux needs to massively catch up with Windows (for the everyday consumer) before it will be close to having huge impact.
and the endless fun of incompatibilities
1) All are Open source Free Software => No Money => No Job => No Food => Hungry => Die.
2) All are Paid Software => Have Money => Create Jobs => Have Food => Living => Have wife/husband+kids => Get old => Die
1) All are Open source Free Software => No Money => No Job => No Food => Hungry => Die.
2) All are Paid Software => Have Money => Create Jobs => Have Food => Living => Have wife/husband+kids => Get old => Die
Open source does not = no money.
Open source itself = no sale = no money
What you can earn from open source is desperate money for providing support and perhaps begging for donation. This does not make any sense in economic stand point. In a cash economy, following open source just limit yourself and waste your life while other people is making money. Open source is only good for educational purpose, a play ground to practice and improve your skills.
Or to say the other way, open source is only good for the user because they use it "free" (actually not really free since they spend time to download and pay for the internet fee). Open source is not good for a developer. It is just like communism. Saying is great, but in reality it is not. Open source is like an all-you-can-eat buffet without charge. They just eat, they don't cook or contribute. Eventually, the chef or the owner will do either thing like:
1. Cook the same thing, no creation, reduce quantity & quality
Or
2. Run out of money and close the restaurant
Or
3. Just simply give up. Get a life.
Last edited by superhuman on 27 May 2009 - 07:11
Open Source allows fast development of ad hoc applications (certainly faster than reinventing the wheel all over again), which are paid for.
It works both for companies doing development for third parties, and in house devs.
So Open Source can be good for developers, as they get paid for their job.
That doesn't mean though that Open Source is the be-all and end-all of software development in absolutely every situation.
It works both for companies doing development for third parties, and in house devs.
So Open Source can be good for developers, as they get paid for their job.
That doesn't mean though that Open Source is the be-all and end-all of software development in absolutely every situation.
In this case, companies and developers, who use existing open source code to modify and develop for their own use, are in the "user" category. The original developer of the opensource code mentioned above receive nothing in return. As I have said, OSS is only good for user, not the original developer after all. Then, the cycle move on. The lose of one is the gain of another.
You seem to assume that all FOSS projects begin in someone's basement.
Code worth using can come from someone coding in his free time, or from a paid developer at some corporation like say, IBM (which isn't contributing code for the sake of it, they are getting a return on their investment).
Devs doing in house development could fall in the "user" category, but companies getting contracts for ad hoc projects do not.
I think we'd all like an arrow that doesn't, negligible senescence seems a little ambitious though. Even for an open source project.
So, taking the obvious example:
Firefox. No money? Uh, no. They have revenue.
Firefox. No money? Uh, no. They have revenue.
Like I've said, the only way they get money by begging for donation/contribution or charge money for support. These are just marginal. Like a person living on a cup of water or cocacola, not steak or lobster. The main product itself doesnot bring in revenue.
You must admit, $75 million is quite a lot of cocoa.
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/20...-12-percent.ars
As for the "many ways" a software can be profitable when distributed free, if that was that easy, don't you think a lot more companies would use that model? A lot of developers create free software to get experience and add things on their resume in order to find a job. If the software world was a free world, do you really think all those developers would keep on doing this? There's no magic, you don't make money out of nothing and until we live in a Star Trek world, we'll need things like money to have a life and we'll need companies like Microsoft to create the software most of us use every day.
Last edited by Patchou on 26 May 2009 - 23:53
For someone to even go into the field, they should have an indepth feel for how computers work. When there is a problem, they can work around it, or figure out how someone wrote what they are working with and work within those confines.
When we get a computer, we go for the power machines. We rarely even bother looking at what's on sale at Best Buy.
Because of those two things, A) we're out of touch of what 95% of computer users experience when they use the software we create("Works fine on my machine!"
These are _not_ the people you should trust to predict the future. These are _not_ the people that should and try sell joe user anything. Argh!
Can anyone spot a pattern emerging ? Simple problem with the question posed by the article. If the open source development process is so vastly Superior to the proprietary one if it can turn water into wine as its proponents claim , Why does open source software Always mean inferior software ?
Why is Photoshop so vastly superior to GIMP, Why does Premier smash virtualdub into a million pieces, Why is Office 2010 in a completely different class than Open Office . Why is it that proprietary software dominates virtually every FOSS alternative there is ?
I know the penguin heads are going to rush in and yell firefox as loud as they can and I'll admit that's the exception simply because it's impossible to charge for and hence pay for the development of a superior propriety browser.
FOSS has its place just like freeware but its no threat to proprietary software .
Last edited by bob21 on 27 May 2009 - 00:20
Honestly, proprietry and open source can co-exist just fine.
Cut the money flow to mozila and firefox is going to dry up quick and go nowhere.
in addition, i think the problem with many open source programs is that they try to mimic closed source programs. theres no innovation there... and really, most of the time i attempt to use the open source alternatives, it really comes across to me as sub-par.
firefox... i don't see it as a huge innovation as what people portray it to be. sure it has its extensions... but thats about it. firefox to me was a success due to microsoft's pitfalls with internet explorer. if IE was good from the start, i dont think firefox would have ever existed.
First of all, MySQL is not free at all as in enterprise version you have to pay $599 to $4,999 per server per year to get product support. secondly, MS SQL in account of stability and scalability is not even comparable with MySQL. Everybody knows that MySQL, well free version which is in your mind is just good enough for starters. it doesn't even come with a simple management studio and propper tools. on the other hand Free version of MS SQL which is just for developers has a decent Management studio.
And there you are, confusing Free (FOSS) with free (no cost).
And where exactly is the difference? The whole point of Free (FOSS) is that it "costs" nothing for you to use, and it gets worked on for free.
Yet in many cases, the well known FOSS projects out there do get money in some form from donations and or support from other IT companies. IBM for one, google tosses out some money as well, and so on.
The debate is all about cost and nothing more.
Currently i am moving a project from sqlserver (express) to mysql because the so called "stability" is just a myth. I have around 30 system running with sqlserver (patched) and around 3 or 4 are become corrupt (more that 10%), instead i am not having trouble with mysql.
And the second point is the new "management studio" is annoying, is way inferior and less functional than the old "query analyzer"
Yet in many cases, the well known FOSS projects out there do get money in some form from donations and or support from other IT companies. IBM for one, google tosses out some money as well, and so on.
The debate is all about cost and nothing more.
Free as in FOSS means it is open source and (probably) obtainable at no cost, where as free as in freeware means its closed source and distributed at no cost.
VirtualDub hasn't been active since what, 2004? you're not comparing it to an equivalent 2004 distribution of premier.Sorry was thinking of VirtualDubMod.What version of GIMP is that?
Why're you comparing PowerPoint to Writer?
I know that proprietary software tends to be better, but in my opinion this is because it's normally the developers only job.
At the same time, you'll also find that open software tends to support more formats and newer standards of those formats (outside of static image manipulation anyway).
But next time, please make better comparisons.
No, the point of FOSS is being able to modify and redistribute the code.
When we get contracts to develop custom applications or customize existing apps you can bet it costs them money.
And the second point is the new "management studio" is annoying, is way inferior and less functional than the old "query analyzer"
Run it unpatched then complain. You're not using it as intended, designed, or licensed. I created an entire textile inventory and control system with thousands of users using SQL Server and it worked fine.
As for GIMP, I have switched over to it from Photoshop, theres was nothing I could do in Photoshop I couldn't do on GIMP. Not saying GIMP is better yet but it has everything I needed to get the job done!, it doesn't have to be better.
Linux is only trying to bring computing available to everyone, thats not to say software that runs on the OS MUST be free!
Last edited by Sewje on 27 May 2009 - 17:26
And the second point is the new "management studio" is annoying, is way inferior and less functional than the old "query analyzer"
I am not here to argue comparing MS Sql and mysql. The point is nobody code or support for free. software and DBMS should have price in order to have a decent efficiency as well as support. regular update and support? nop, even query tool is a third party which you will never know about possible security flaws or deficiencies. of course if you pay for better 3rd party management tools such as automated backup features or whatever at your scope, you will have less corrupt. about the management studio, with all respect I completely disagree with you . as a programmer I think its a superior and more functional than any other old tools for MS SQL. may be you comparing its express edition with full version I think and yes full version have more functions than that in express ...
This statement tells me he has no idea what he's on about.
I think it run counter to the trend that to produce high quality products, very deep labor specialization is needed, which is possible to achive only through equity ownership. For instance, companies like MS and Apple spend tons of money on usability studies, creating high-specialized professions that deal with these issues alone. The same can be said about vertical and horizontal integration. You just can't achieve the same depth when you move to the OSS model - since there is no direct monetary or equity compensation, the OSS only attracts a few "superstar" developers, but nothing more. All the "boring" stuff that makes up the other 90% of what makes a product valuable to the customers is simply not there.
Irony is, I'm posting this, from a Dell Studio 1737 laptop, running Ubuntu 9.04...and trying to figure out why it won't wake from suspend...like the oh-so-horrible Vista does easily. Linux is a nice toy, but thinking that Microsoft has anything to worry about, other than in the server arena, is laughable at best. Says a lot when you can't even give away a product for free.
minWIN is not enough for a fix for Windows 7, going onwards. It is a bloated piece of crap, like installing a 50cc engine in an 18 wheeler.
Irony is, I'm posting this, from a Dell Studio 1737 laptop, running Ubuntu 9.04...and trying to figure out why it won't wake from suspend...like the oh-so-horrible Vista does easily.
I have never had an OS that can wake up from suspend. Windows 98, XP. Ubuntu no one can wake up, so I have to pull the power cord.
Irony of THAT is Windows 7 can even run well on netbooks with like 1.3GHz processors and 512MB of ram...oh well, guess theres no pleasing some people.
So you don't know what MinWin (or a meaningful analogy) is, then.
So you don't know what a power button is, then.
in 2004
Ahhhhh, so someone is bitter that he lost his job. No problem but this is really more of an immature and horribly misinformed rant than "news". Microsoft isn't going anywhere, nor should they.
Gee I can't imagine why a person as unprofessional and immature as this would be let go from Microsoft. Hhmmm... let me think.
Look, I have nothing against Linux. In fact I run Ubuntu on one of my PC's and I like it. A lot actually. But naming innovation as one of the key aspects of OSS is a bit...ridiculous really. There is not a lot of innovation to be seen in Linux really. Just look at how many of the applications are basically clones of their Windows counterparts in terms of looks and functionality. One of the few true examples of innovation for me has been the new Gnome Shell that is being worked on. It remains to be seen however when this will show up and how people will react to it.
There's definitely advantages to OSS I will not deny that. In fact I use a lot of OSS apps, also on Windows. There are also disadvantages, but these aren't mentioned or acknowledged here. One is the fact that the OSS community is totally apposed to blending with closed source software, making things that should be very easy for the user harder than it needs to be. Open Source is not the holy grail and closed source software is not evil. Secondly, developers will work on what they want to work on. That way new stuff will be added and compatibility will be broken, leaving year old bugs in the source because noone is interested in fixing them because there's more fun stuff to do as well.
This has been said for years by many, many people. Of the people saying it I wonder how many actually DO contribute. By far the largest part of the bigger software projects is being worked on by paid developers from Novell and the likes. All this "community driven" talk is romanticizing the thing.
so i am guessing firefox isnt a good example of open source software, because open source software in general isnt good?
Fried chicken at 11.
Click the "Report a problem" link just above the article - that gets it straight to the editors
If the same resources had been spent on Linux rather than Windows over the years, Linux would look & act much more like the OSes out of Microsoft & Apple. You can debate whether the core of one is inherently better than another, but it's the development resources & the way they were applied, that resulted in the major OSes we have to choose from today. You can point out that Linux never had tremendous manufacturer support for drivers & such, since that had quite a lot to do with how resources were spent, the direction of development, and the growth rate & numbers of users... at the end of the day though this is more a VHS vs. Betamax sort of affair, pointing out once again that life's often unfair, & decisions made by a relative few can have far reaching consequences. What if the folks making hardware couldn't ignore Linux years ago, not having any alternatives?
You can debate open source vs. closed -- each has it's pluses & minuses -- but you can't argue that Linux & Windows have evolved in different directions for much of their life, & those directions were determined not just by whomever was in charge, but by the consensus of the user community. What if today's typical Windows user never had Windows as a choice? Wouldn't they still demand much of what Windows offers from whatever OS? What if meeting those demands required stepping away from open source ideals? You could even debate whether open source would have happened the same way -- how much of it was/is reaction to the MS way of doing biz. As the underdog upstart, might MS have been the open source champs?
Free software? After that you'll want free hardware. Not going to happen....
In the "interview", what really made me laugh was this comnment from Mr. Curtis:
"...The biggest difference between Windows and Linux is that free software contains thousands of applications, installable with one click, and managed as one set. A Linux operating system includes all the obvious stuff like a spreadsheet, Web browser and instant messaging. But it also includes tools for making pictures and music, server software and development tools.
Since when is a Spreadsheet program part of the Operating System!?! Linux itself (the Linux OS) does not include things like OpenOffice, image editing and music - that's the purvey of the various distributions of Linux. How this person remained as a contractor for 10 years at Microsoft is beyond me.
Do you know that it comes in *many* distrubitions, most of which include Open Office. That's what he is talking about.
And you fail to mention that installing any untested software on any OS can lead to horrible consequences.
If you can't see it, you should take that Vista box out of your pants and start seeing sense.
If I couldn't pirate, I'd be using Linux + Opensource.
And this is coming from someone striving to steer clear of Windows as much as possible.
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.