Vista Anti-Piracy Will Drive People to Linux?

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

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Ask Slashdot: Why Does Everyone Hate Microsoft?

Next Story

World's First Jail Sentence for BitTorrent Piracy

63 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

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.

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?

I don't like how linux installs things, it should be like in windows (click > run > enjoy).

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 "****naptic" 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! :mad:


MS Windows Forever! :P

You just proved you have no clue.

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 "****naptic" and re-download all the programs again. Again, what a joke!.. I don't have the patience for that!

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.

I prove I like windows better, I don't have to be bothered by such a big learning curve. And yes I do save my windows programs that I D/L, that way I can reinstall easily.

Good for you, next time just don't bash something out of ignorance.
Same as you save your programs on windows you can save them on linux.

Quote - BriFi said @ #19
I don't like how linux installs things, it should be like in windows (click > run > enjoy).

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 "****naptic" 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! :mad:


MS Windows Forever! :P

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.

:sleeping: Ho Hum another prediction that won't come true.

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.

My opinion about Vista

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".

Quote - SHS said @ #15
My opinion about Vista

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

Yeah, I feel the same way. I'm quite sure that Apples market share will raise for like 5% or so - cause they've been doing a pretty fine job lately. But most people don't bother about good or bad. They eat what they're served AND the biggest problem is that of software compatibility (as always). Naturally, Software gets developed for Vista first and all the others second. And that will not change with Vista.

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.

If you want to try an easy to use Linux distro for the Absolute beginner, go with Freespire.. CNR is free and if you want a program, search for it, click install and let it do it's thing.. It's installed and ready to go..

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..

Vista on a new Dell system isn't $300. It probably only adds $50-$80 of the price (we are talking the Home version of Vista). And for most of these people, they already have XP.

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.

I can't see more than 1% of user migrating to Linux because of this. The majority of computer users are businesses who probably have 10's-100's applications in use that rely on windows, switching is too costly.
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.

The only thing that would really shove a majority of microsoft users to linux is when microsoft stop supporting older programs.

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.

Quote - tggkao9999 said @ #11

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?

Microsoft drove me to try linux a long time ago. Whats new now that they release an OS that i wont be able to afford for 5 years? Seriously, lay off the microsoft.

well I can only speek for my self, but I changed from windows to ubuntu on my tower at home, because I'm not willing to pay for vista ultimate, but also want to have a media center. I can say that for a simple use of the computer, mail, webrowsing, simple game ( solitaire ) GNULinux systems are ready, I'm going to install it on my mothers computer soon, it takes less maintence than windows, less virus, malware,etc
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.

Why do peopel keep insisting they need ultimate, especially thtat they need ultimate because they want to have mediacenter.

MediaCenter is aprt of Home premium too. wich certainly is reasonabely priced.

Well maybe I explained my self incorrectly, but the tower at home is sharing over a terabyte of media files, so it's actualy a media center and a media server, and the last time I checked home premium doesn't ship with advanced network capabilities, that's why I would prefer ultimate over home premium, also the remote desktop might come in handy...

regardless maybe you missed the part about the ethic and social point of view, you know the whole Free Software Movement...

I used to be part of the whole Free Software Movement, or "ethnic and social" thing too.

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 =)

I think that Linux will always have it's share of users, but MS has a firm grip on the public...... since Windows is almost always pre-loaded on new computers.

I do agree that with the increased pricing and restrictive licensing on Vista, that distros like Ubuntu will certainly have a better standing.

Barney

Quote - Neobond said @ #8.1
Neowin Shift Linux FTW!

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.

Quote - HawkMan said @ #1.2

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.

Quote - Deadpool2k said @ #8.3
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

To be honest I think this is the number one reason Linux wont or will struggle ALOT in the home PC market. It will be very hard to sell a system such as Linux to every day users who many of which have enough trouble with computers running only Windows as it is. Give them a multiple number of Linux distros that all work different and many will be swamped and give up in frustration. I know alot of functionality crosses over but many home users wont want to learn how to be efficient and identify the subtle differencess accross a range of OS's when Windows runs what they need and it only haveing one version (well the different versions are all compatible and work much the same anyway).

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.

Quote - Deadpool2k said @ #8.3
...
I don't see in the immediate future everyone comming together and pooling their talent for one distro.
I wouldn't want to be forced to run only the flavor of Linux that was the "one standard". And be forced to use the Desktop Environment that was the "chosen one". And only the applications (text editor, mail app, etc.) that was "universally selected".

I want to run what suits me. People who don't want to make those decisions don't have to make them.

There may be cooperation goign on, sure... but hardly enough on not on the right things.
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.

Smigit: I agree in that it's always going to be an issue to have a userbase full of people who can't or won't take the time to learn the ropes. Users who just want to get on, do some tasks without much thought required, and get off.

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.

HawkMan: There are different package management systems simply because there exist different philosophies on the best way to approach it. Package management is sort of a security risk if it's not handled right. Because of that, I'd rather have several different ways to do it... having a single approach would be increasing risk, methinks.

Quote - HawkMan said @ #8.2

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.

Quote - Arcticflare said @ #8.9
HawkMan: There are different package management systems simply because there exist different philosophies on the best way to approach it. Package management is sort of a security risk if it's not handled right. Because of that, I'd rather have several different ways to do it... having a single approach would be increasing risk, methinks.

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...

Quote - ichi said @ #8.10

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.

Quote - Arcticflare said @ #8.12

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.

Quote - HawkMan

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?

Isn't it this time every year that some Linux publication says "this will be the year Linux steps up because..." and they list some mundane reason such as MS using anti piracy measures. Really I've seen the same articles for the past two years or so years and they never come true.

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.

I was thinking the very same thing.
As sure as EA will bring out a Fifa game every holiday season, someone will predict the following year as "The Year of Linux"

Seriously that's all Vista has going for them far as i am concerned. Being a gaming and with DX10 games around the corner Vista is the only solution thus i am stuck with it. However i have Gentoo for everything else.

'Chicken and egg' comes to mind.

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.

Quote - MiG- said @ #4
if they are real pirates, they would switch to something a lot better than linux.

OS X comes to mind..

My thoughts exactly.

So you expect the peoepl who doesn't want to pay for their OS. not instead of switching to a free OS, rather spend thousand of dollars on a new computer withOSX. Then pay 150 or so dollars every year for th yearly service packs...


you're smoking some good **** there

I'm upset about this "prediction" and I definately have something to say about it.

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?

Let them not blame us for THINKING about the ethical issues involved in supporting proprietary schemes and more severe lockdowns.
I dont see how it's unethical to want to protect an investment and to get paid for ones work but? I'm sure theres many people that would be up in arms in other industries if the competition was free to take the work they spent 100's of hours to do and resell it for nothing. Take an architect. Imagine if the competing company started using and selling your designs. Would that be acceptable?

Maybe I misinterpreted you but I don't see how protecting an investment is a bad thing.

Quote - Smigit said @ #3.1
I dont see how it's unethical to want to protect an investment and to get paid for ones work but? I'm sure theres many people that would be up in arms in other industries if the competition was free to take the work they spent 100's of hours to do and resell it for nothing. Take an architect. Imagine if the competing company started using and selling your designs. Would that be acceptable?

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.

Edit: This comment is directed at Smigit

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.

I believe that is the point he was attempting to make and i agree with him.

Thanks for clearing that up. And yes to a large extent I agree, in particullar with the "innovation" part of your statement

Whether or not you agree doesn't invalidate what I said about acting in good conscience. You are welcome to your opinion, of course.
Cheers I wasnt trying to invalidate it, merely get my head around what you wrote as after reading it twice I still wasnt following the arguement fully.

Microsoft is probably thinking "customers we don't need anyway" It's all well and good to have 85% of the market, but when only 60% have paid for Windows then Microsoft has lost 25% and a potential to drop the price with newer releases.

I've been using Vista Ultimate for around 3-4 weeks now, and the anti-piracy causes no problem from me. Once activated, WGA hasn't bothered me one bit. People should seriously stop complaining and use Vista first than just believing what they read.

If the people who pirate Vista complain about WGA, well they deserve it.

On that note it's not as if Windows cost alot OEM. It's just because people want the Ultimate or premium editions when in most cases they wouldn't need it anyway...that and they are greedy.

Quote - Smigit said @ #1.2
On that note it's not as if Windows cost alot OEM. It's just because people want the Ultimate or premium editions when in most cases they wouldn't need it anyway...that and they are greedy.

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.

Quote - theyarecomingforyou said @ #1.3

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.

GZT said,
Same. Legit is best. I don't see what the problem is.

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.