Check out the comments.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jdixon Jun 05, 2009 1:16 PM EDT |
If ever there was an article demonstrated perfectly by the comments which followed, this is it. Good work, TC. |
| tuxchick Jun 05, 2009 1:21 PM EDT |
It is amazing, jdixon. I could get bamillions of guarateed pageviews just by poking the fanboi and 'turfer anthills :) |
| caitlyn Jun 05, 2009 1:56 PM EDT |
Oh my! I wonder how many of the commenters who you describe so well in the article realize they are proving your point rather than convincing anyone that Windows is somehow better. Absolutely amazing. |
| phsolide Jun 05, 2009 2:43 PM EDT |
My gosh, those are some strange comments. This is one of the first times I've seen someone claim to know (2!) a paid astroturfer personally. Mostly it's just friend-of-a-friend stories, and conspiracy mongering. And I've noticed an up-tick in the "I use linux, have for years, but I can't reccommend it to others" comments too. But on to the obvious shills: they seemed strangely disconnected. They seemed to have responded to a slightly different blog post than the one I read. I read a post about shill commentor's latest script/talking points, not a pro-linux article per se. I've sometimes seen bad grammar/EASL in this form of shill comments and I've written it off as an english-as-a-foreign language speaker. Maybe I should consider these to be auto-shill posts. Maybe some program writes a not-quite-right comment based on some combination of key words. I seem to recall that someone at MSFT Research made a "flame detector" using the "Word" english-parts-of-speech parser and some other add-ons (can't find a reference right now). How hard would it be to rework a "flame detector" to a "positive linux mention" detector, and have a spammer-style text generator to auto-post a comment? |
| techiem2 Jun 05, 2009 2:43 PM EDT |
Probably none of them since they all probably actually believe what they post (unless they are paid shills). |
| tuxchick Jun 05, 2009 3:12 PM EDT |
They are strange and disconnected. It's normal for a few comments to miss the point, but this wholesale reinforcing-the-premise of the blog post is pretty funny. auto-shill... yeah... :) |
| bigg Jun 05, 2009 3:39 PM EDT |
I've often wondered why folks don't have better things to do than what essentially amounts to trolling. Especially for Microsoft, which is a company. At least FOSS trolls believe there is a higher purpose driving their efforts. |
| claus Jun 05, 2009 3:47 PM EDT |
Or maybe Carla Schroder and others just suffer from a serious case of confirmation bias [1], bundled with some astroturf paranoia. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias |
| techiem2 Jun 05, 2009 4:20 PM EDT |
LOL...yeah....TC....confirmation bias.....I'll assume there were invisible joke tags around that comment.... |
| azerthoth Jun 05, 2009 5:21 PM EDT |
Has to be joke tags, anyone who knows TC knows that. |
| tracyanne Jun 05, 2009 6:36 PM EDT |
I've just added another comment to the blog. I'll share it with you here, as it seems to take several days for my comments to get through the censors.Quoting: It's interesting some of the claims made as to why Linux suchs/isn't ready, for example the one about Photoshop not running on Linux. |
| jdixon Jun 05, 2009 6:38 PM EDT |
> ...bundled with some astroturf paranoia. Remember, it's not paranoia if they actually are out to get you. :) |
| tuxchick Jun 05, 2009 6:58 PM EDT |
"Don't get me wrong" and "Yes, but" are two reliable red flags. And the Stepford-user tone. All those independent users with absolutely no connection to each other just coincidentally sound alike. :P As several people have noted here and there, there is an identifiable FUD cycle. I never noticed it before, so now it is on my giant master Uber Paranoid Master Conspeeracy Chart and Grocery List. Oh, and the James Plamondon and other source documents posted on Boycott Novell. Roy has his faults, but he is the only one actually reading and publicly posting all those juicy MS anti-trust court documents that were released recently, describing the astroturf coaching and tactics. "Real" journalists are too busy cranking out "Linux is Dead!" "Is not!" "Is too!" garbage. I should be posting those docs too. |
| tracyanne Jun 05, 2009 7:15 PM EDT |
Please do so Carla, I don't bother reading anything Roy posts anymore. |
| tuxchick Jun 05, 2009 8:47 PM EDT |
OK TA, I will. I think I can even figure out a way to perma-link them. |
| hkwint Jun 05, 2009 10:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:I never noticed it before You did look into the sun while told not to, didn't you?I (If you don't get that remark, you should watch Pi or Knowing, of which the first one is preferred) Quoting:Roy has his faults, but he is the only one actually reading and publicly posting all those juicy MS anti-trust court documents that were released recently, describing the astroturf coaching and tactics. So do I; found them on the site of Ken Starks; and they are freakin' educational. "Run away until you won the battle" is an interesting adagio you might not have known (unless you are into Chinese history) if you didn't read those docs. "Don't fight, attack their assumptions". Also, the notes about setting up and stacking panels, rewarding Windows-devs / evangelists by inviting them for developer-pre-releases of new platforms, how platforms are more important that Windows or MS Office, "let the ISV's work for you" (this is only what I remember by heart); all that stuff should be basic knowledge when dealing with those astroturfers. Reading those docs (evangelism is war)- even if they are from mid 90'ss - makes you understand pretty much about the behaviour of MS even nowadays. |
| claus Jun 05, 2009 11:01 PM EDT |
The interesting thing about confirmation bias is that everybody has it. More clearly, each side of a debate has it. So, let me ask: How many of you read a popular Windows and Mac blog or journal each day? Which is it? Can you name any stuff that Windows or Mac users find cool currently? What is it? I bet, most of you wouldn't be able to name just one in a real talk. On the Internet, of course, everybody can claim stuff. Sure, one can use Linux as a desktop if all you need is Email, Internet and some Office and Audio/Video playback. But that's it, mostly. And for this kind of things, Windows and Mac works, too. Can anyone of you name one thing that Linux enables an illiterate computer user to do that is not possible with Windows or Mac? Something that matters to the illiterate user? I bet you can't. So why waste time learning Linux? Seriously? Carla's blog post just confirmed any existing pre-justice of Mac or Windows users against Linux and Open Source: If you have problems, criticism or concerns, you're ridiculed, made fun of, called an astroturfer and ignored. That's the response you get. The comment by slacker164 on the original post sums it up quite nicely. The message is clear: The Open Source community won't solve any perceived problems. So why bother with Linux? From an economic point of view, software is mostly an experience good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_good): You can judge its value only if you already invested time using it. So, before you invest time and efforts to learn it, you need to have trust -- trust that a software provides the benefit it claims to provide. People who are ridiculed and called astroturfers will hardly trust Linux and the Open Source community to care about their problems. And they will not recommend it to their less experienced friends and relatives -- people who could use Linux successfully right now, but won't do so, because they don't care much about computers and need recommendations what to use. Carla and all the other Linux cheerleaders just provided Windows and Mac users with more reasons not to trust Open Source and Linux. Well done, really! That's something we should celebrate. |
| jdixon Jun 05, 2009 11:29 PM EDT |
> How many of you read a popular Windows and Mac blog or journal each day? Claus, my day job is supporting Windows machines. I don't need to read a blog or journal to learn about it's benefits and faults. I get more than enough exposure to both every day. > Can you name any stuff that Windows or Mac users find cool currently? So the basis of evaluating an OS is now what other people find cool, huh? OK, if you say so. > Sure, one can use Linux as a desktop if all you need is Email, Internet and some Office and Audio/Video playback. That's funny, I thought Audio/Video playback was one of Linux's weaknesses. Having problems keeping your talking points straight today? As for that list, that sounds like exactly what 90% of home uses need. Now, why exactly can't they use Linux again? > If you have problems, criticism or concerns, you're ridiculed, made fun of, called an astroturfer and ignored. No, if you're a troll or astroturfer, you're made fun of, called an astroturfer, and ignored. Legitimate questions are usually directed to an appropriate help forum. But then perhaps you missed the fact that Linux Today (like LXer) isn't a Linux help site, but rather a Linux news and commentary site. A site which a Linux newbie with a problem would be unlikely to find, much less have any reason to post to. > ...trust that a software provides the benefit it claims to provide. In which case you'd never use Windows, as the EULA absolves Microsoft of any responsibility if it doesn't. > People who are ridiculed and called astroturfers will hardly trust Linux and the Open Source community to care about their problems. The people who are being called astroturfers are those who claim to already have years of experience using Linux and obviously know enough to find a Linux oriented web site and comment on it. Either they're lying or they're not the newbies you seem to think they are. In either case, trusting Linux and the Open Source community isn't an issue. > Carla and all the other Linux cheerleaders just provided Windows and Mac users with more reasons not to trust Open Source and Linux. The people we're discussing don't need any additional reasons to dislike Open Source/Linux. They've already made their decision, as they're more than willing to tell everyone concerned. |
| gus3 Jun 05, 2009 11:38 PM EDT |
Quoting:Carla and all the other Linux cheerleaders just provided Windows and Mac users with more reasons not to trust Open Source and Linux.I'll trust Windows when Microsoft: --Opens up their Windows code for scrutiny. --Adopts a real system of user and administrative privileges, and stops coding through undocumented back doors. --Begins an absolute policy of asking users before installing anything. --Develops an OS that doesn't need anti-malware system before it even gets to the vendor. Until they do all these things, don't lecture us about "trust". Just because you pay big bucks for something (over and over...) doesn't make it trustworthy. The history of the automobile is proof of that. Besides, isn't it better to try out something (a WIMP environment) before shelling out the cash investment? Only a fool would think otherwise. And only a fool would think that your comment has any real logic to it. |
| tuxchick Jun 05, 2009 11:55 PM EDT |
Give it a rest, claus, until you have something to say beyond attacking the messenger. I've been administering mixed networks since the Windows 3.1/DOS days, teaching, and writing Linux and Windows howtos mainly for system and network administrators. I know what I'm talking about, as do most of the regulars here. Given the volumes of documentation on Microsoft's dirty and illegal tactics, and the experience and knowledge represented here, you're wasting your time trotting out the same tired old FUD. Though I give you points for 'confirmation bias'; that is a useful and interesting concept. Completely misapplied here, but good to know all the same. |
| tuxchick Jun 06, 2009 12:05 AM EDT |
I think it's worth noting that legitimate, honest criticisms and requests for help are well-received on LXer and many other sites. Turfing and FUD get the welcomes they deserve. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 06, 2009 12:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:the GIMP provides us with all of our image editing needs, it even reads and edits any Photoshop files we get sent. I've never tried working on a PSD in the GIMP, but I'm gonna try it soon. (minutes later) Yep, that works. |
| tracyanne Jun 06, 2009 12:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:Claus: > How many of you read a popular Windows and Mac blog or journal each day? @ Claus: In my day job I'm a Windows Programmer (C# ASP.NET Visual Studio tools. MS SQL Server, MS Sever 2003, WinXP and Vista). I've been a Programmer for over 30 years, and a Windows programmer for half that time, I've been a NT Server admin, and currently support Server 2003 as back up admin. I think I have a pretty good handle on Windows. Yes I do read blogs about Windows, mostly on ZDNet, where I get a mail feed from. I think I have a pretty good handle on Windows. I've use Linux as a system since 2000. I've been upgrading Windows users to Linux for the last 3, nearly 4 years. In almost every case the people who've chosen the Windows to Linux upgrade path are 1) Ordinary computer users, not technical users. 2) have never missed a single program they used on Windows, once they discovered the Free Software replacement. 3) are considerably happier, less frustrated, because they don't have the problems that require they spend money every 6 months or so to get fixed, have stopped worrying about if their Anti Virus is up to date 4) require very little input from me, and less as they become more experienced. The one exception was a bloke who didn't like the way DigiKam required he select photos for download to his computer, I told he should go back to Windows if he really needed to be able to select the photos in a particular way so badly, and or was that unwilling to learn a new way of doing things. I personally use Windows 5 days a week. Using Windows is the single most frustrating experience of my working life, things i can do easily in Linux are either impossible or require multiple Monitors to achieve something similar to that functionality. I experience unplanned reboots on average about half a dozen times a Month (then there are the "planned" reboots, when there's an update or security fix, I don't have many reboots because of program installs as I don't need to do many now - I have the software I need). this week alone it took me several days to do a data import from a MySQL backup file (in case you aren't aware it's a text file containing the SQL queries needed to recreate the Schema and the Data as SQL input Queries). Although it's not as simple as just running the queries, MySQL and MS SQL use different Data Types, remapping the data types was the easy part. The hard part was keeping Windows running while running the software needed to actually build the schema in MS SQL and import the actual Data.... Windows kept on crashing with Out of memory errors, even though when I monitored the resource usage it never seemed to actually be using that much system resources. The message is Windows sucks, it's over priced for the functionality you get, and it costs extra money to get something close to the functionality that is built into Linux. Windows is insecure, by default, and by design, it requires expensive, in terms of time and money, software to create an illusion of security. Windows is unstable, it can be brought to it's knees, and caused to reboot, just by having too many applications running (I can run that many applications on my Linux box and it just keeps on running). I've got a copy of Windows 7 pre release Beta, i've been using it in test, as at some point or another I will be required to work on it. It's singularly unimpressive, in spite of the hype that surrounds it currently, many of the pretty bits are copied from other systems like KDE4 and Mac OSX. Turn those pretty bits off and you have something similar to the WinXP machine I use most at work, It's running in performance mode (doesn't actually improve performance all that much). It has all the same security issues as any othe Windows OS, and requires the same Third party add on security to"fix" that problem. basically it's an improvement on Vista, only because they've gone back to a more WinXP like kernel, I'd score it 10 out of 10 as a Windows OS, 6 to 7 out of 10 as compared to good well designed Operating systems, like Linux/Unix. |
| caitlyn Jun 06, 2009 1:14 AM EDT |
The first version of Windows I played with (and a customer actually wanted to try) was Windows 1.04 in 1985. I mainly support Linux/UNIX nowadays but if a customer needs Windows help I most certainly provide. I also do make certain that Linux/Windows interoperability works. You forget all the wonderful things that Windows provides that Linux simply can't provide: virii, trojans, worms, spyware, and all sorts of malware is a unique Windows feature. Paying extra for a personal firewall instead of having it integrated into the OS is something that Windows users get to experience while Linux users are just deprived of that pleasure. As a netbook owner I've compared my Linux installations with Windows installs on identical or similar equipment. Windows users get all the extra time to contemplate life while their incredibly slow netbooks do things slowly that Linux systems do quickly. Yep, there are lots of unique advantages to Windows. Why don't you tout those? |
| darksyde Jun 06, 2009 5:23 AM EDT |
I have used Windows since 3.1 and just went along with the flow. My experience hit a peak with XP on my first laptop (Toshiba Satellite with 512) and DSL, even though I had more crashes than on an E-Tower with Windows ME. Four years ago I ran SUSE live from a disk included with a "Linux For Dummies" book on my old E-Tower and found it to be interesting, but it wasn't my cup of tea. Now, after trying out at least 10 distro's, I'm in love with Linux Mint and will never go back to M$. BTW, though I now dislike SUSE for the corporate prostitution behind it, upon reflection it was primarily the desktop I didn't like (GNOME rocks!) and the software upgrades were a pain for a newb. Linux provides so much for so many, and it has been trial-and-error for sure, but the advantages are great. There are a few apps I can't run yet, but many work under WINE or VirtualBox, and best of all, there's no cost. We have access to thousands of apps for free, and these apps are designed by people who share a common goal which isn't financial greed or corporate advancement. They want to produce a good product. Bottom line--those who bring up "market share" in the debate are missing the point...if profit meant quality then 87 percent of the top 500 super servers wouldn't be using Linux and 1 percent (that means 5 servers) using Windows. Obviously Microsoft is more interested in profit than in stability and security. |
| bigg Jun 06, 2009 8:56 AM EDT |
@claus: Confirmation bias runs in two directions. Also, don't you have anything better to do with your time? Exactly the point I made above, a Windows troll going around bothering people. Have you ever heard the phrase "get a life"? When I read garbage like "How many of you read a popular Windows and Mac blog or journal each day? Which is it? Can you name any stuff that Windows or Mac users find cool currently? What is it?" it's obvious you're a troll. The thing is, you know full well that the vast majority of us interact with Windows all the time. |
| hkwint Jun 06, 2009 8:59 AM EDT |
Quoting:Can anyone of you name one thing that Linux enables an illiterate computer user to do that is not possible with Windows or Mac? Made me think for 20 sec, then I came up with what's the most important, at least to me: Install software that was checked not to contain malware and without cost (and without residing to Astalavista.box.sk). Yeah, freeriding. Windows won't let you; it seems like you can freeride in a non-legal fashion, but you pay by receiving adds placed there by worms and other malware. Quoting:Can you name any stuff that Windows or Mac users find cool currently? I browse the comment section of a general hard/software newssite a lot, and there are a lot of Win/Mac users. What they find cool about Vista currently: I honestly don't know. There's not a particular point they're touting. What they find cool about '7' is that it improved some of the reasons why someone would not use Vista, like softer UAC and such. What Mac-users find cool is mainly their desktop and simplicity of their GUI, and because they use Apple it gives them the ability to ridicule both the Linux- and Windows user. An ability some of them use a lot. BTW I'd like to migrate to Win7, but it doesn't contain a C++-IDE which I can run on the console; and I'm not going to use an OS without that ability. Until users can run 'vim' in the Windows 7 console I'm sure it will stop a lot of people from using Windows 7. I mean, c'mon, who needs Photoshop and AutoCAD? |
| claus Jun 06, 2009 9:40 AM EDT |
It's always interesting to see the effects of confirmation bias in a discussion. Nearly everybody pointed to the apparent disadvantages of Windows and the apparent advantages of Linux. Nobody was able to to name just a few advantages of Windows and only one named a disadvantage of Linux. Isn't this proof that you -- no, scratch that -- we all have a serious confirmation bias? We're just looking at the positive side of what we like, and the negative side of what we don't like. Any negative side of what we like, we ignore and rationalize away. And beware if we could learn about the positive side of what we don't like! I'll try to answer some replies in detail: @ jdixon: > Claus, my day job is supporting Windows machines. That's obviously a *very* representative sample of Windows machines. Nothing skewed, there. What was it they say about doctors? Oh, yes, according to their experience, everybody is ill. > So the basis of evaluating an OS is now what other people find cool, huh? That's straw man argument. However, even so: Yes, that's one reason why they spend money or time for something. But the point was: Can you figure out what Windows users like about their OS? Seems you can't, probably because of you profession. > As for that list, that sounds like exactly what 90% of home uses need. Now, why exactly can't they use Linux again I agree that Linux would work perfect for quite a large portion of home users. Never said anything else. Assuming I did otherwise just shows you're already starting to protect your opinion: You will probably call me a Microsoft employee, next. > The people who are being called astroturfers are those who claim to already have years of experience using Linux and obviously know enough to find a Linux oriented web site and comment on it. Either they're lying or they're not the newbies you seem to think they are. Pardon? You mean one is an astroturfer if one claims years of Linux experience and uses a Linux orientated web side? Come on, you're either joking or I misunderstood you! Otherwise, nearly everybody here in this discussion is an astroturfer. Btw, not just an Windows astroturfer but a Linux "astroturfer" as well. And what makes you think I believe them to be newbies? In fact, I believe them to be experienced Linux and Windows users who think Linux lacks something important to them. @ gus3 > And only a fool would think that your comment has any real logic to it. Ah, thanks. There's always an idiot who can't resist the temptation of starting an Ad hominem attack. @ tuxchick: > Though I give you points for 'confirmation bias'; that is a useful and interesting concept. Completely misapplied here, but good to know all the same. I'm glad you found it useful. Although, I should have expected your reaction: When only applied to the others, it's another perfect instrument to protect one's small world of opinions, isn't it? BTW, did you know that over 50% of the people think their intelligence is above-average? Ah, sorry I must have missed that: You are obviously infallible. > I think it's worth noting that legitimate, honest criticisms and requests for help are well-received on LXer and many other sites. Looks like a No-True-Scotsman argument for me: Just perfect to protect one's own opinions, however skewed they are. So, how do you distinguish between "legitimate, honest criticisms" and illegitimate ones? @ tracyanne: Yes, you know about Windows, with that CV. However, the point of my initial question was: What do you know about Windows users? Note the difference? @ caitlyn: > Yep, there are lots of unique advantages to Windows. Why don't you tout those? Why should I? @ darksyde > Now, after trying out at least 10 distro's, I'm in love with Linux Mint and will never go back to M$. BTW, though I now dislike SUSE for the corporate prostitution behind it, upon reflection it was primarily the desktop I didn't like (GNOME rocks!) and the software upgrades were a pain for a newb. Hey, you should be careful! Admitting that software upgrades were a pain for a newbie makes you look like an astroturfer. And admitting that you wasted your time testing 9 distros before you found one that works for you even more so! You're probably paid by Microsoft. Writing M$ is not sufficient to cover your tracks, didn't they tell you? Just joking. ;-) > Obviously Microsoft is more interested in profit than in stability and security. Have you ever considered that it would hurd Microsoft's profit if Microsoft consumers were only interested in stability and security? Now since we all agree that Windows is neither very secure nor stable, doesn't it mean that Microsoft consumers don't care that much about stability and security? So, what is it they care about? If even Linux journalists write off all comments as astroturfing, we'll never know. That's my point. @ bigg: You're a little bit late; I was expecting the obligatory troll reproach much earlier. You're one of the lazy ones, aren't you? @ hkwint: Thanks. At least one who just tried instead of just defending his own opinion. |
| tuxchick Jun 06, 2009 9:46 AM EDT |
Troll. Bye. |
| bigg Jun 06, 2009 10:11 AM EDT |
> I was expecting the obligatory troll reproach much earlier. You hear that a lot, don't you? There's a reason. > You're one of the lazy ones, aren't you? Actually I didn't respond until now because others were wasting effort responding to you. I wanted to point out that there is actually nothing of value in anything that you wrote. There's nothing intellectual about what you wrote. It's 100% troll. |
| hkwint Jun 06, 2009 10:30 AM EDT |
What I find sad these days, and for longer, is that it can be a problem to vent criticism about Linux. Some of us risk 'being quoted' by people writing how 'Linux is not ready for the desktop' if we write about the problems we and our family / relatives have using Linux. I always thought that was the difference between open source and free software and proprietary: With 'open source' all problems are out in the open; so everyone can use those problems to show how 'open source software' sucks, just browse the bugzilla. Mostly, in proprietary shops those problems are kept secret. However, some people don't like to emphasize on the technical problems that free software and Linux are facing, with the argument if we ourselves write / talk about the problems with Linux and free software, it can only serve as ammo for the ones claiming 'Linux is not good' and such. I have to admit it makes me think twice before writing about 'failed attempts with certain Linux-distro's'. Before you know, people who don't know you will think you are a MS shill touting how Linux is not ready and such. It almost feels like being censored; though it is self-censorship. That's why it was a good move from Microsoft & co to let fake-Linux-experts tout the problems with Linux: The real experts are afraid to tell about the problems not wanting to help Microsoft & co; and criticism will be less in the open; making the open source development cycle more like the proprietary one. For example, people like Mr. Tuomov wrote excellent pieces about the failure of free / open software and some of the tools it uses; and Linux distro- and package management in general. For example, read: http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/b/archives/2007/06/01/T19_09_43/ However, it seems people don't want to solve the problems Mr. Tuomov observes, it takes far less effort to claim he's a troll. Same for the Lunduke guy. http://lunduke.com/?p=429 He raises some valid points that are a hindrance to Linux-adoption, and instead of thinking of a way to solve the issues, most people go on telling 'gstreamer shouldn't be the choice' ; Linux and FOSS is all about choice and choosing one 'platform' (such as gstreamer) and then everybody use that is against 'the free philosophy' etc. and no progress is made apart from wasted electrons proving how they're right. Problem is, they are right. What Bryan Lunduke claims is counter free philosophy. But the free philosophy doesn't bring Linux and free software to a bigger audience. However, until now I didn't find anyone here at LXer agreeing with my view I'm afraid. Note to myself: Quit using the ^*%# semicolon that much! |
| jdixon Jun 06, 2009 10:37 AM EDT |
> Nobody was able to to name just a few advantages of Windows and only one named a disadvantage of Linux. No one chose to. It's a far stretch from choice to ability. This is a Linux site. We're Linux users. We don't think any Windows "advantages" are worth the trouble. But you want one Windows advantage? Fine. I can connect to my work VPN network using Windows. I can't using Linux. Good enough? Now, the reason I can connect using Windows and not Linux is very simple. The company I work for chose to implement a Windows only VPN network. It's not that there aren't Linux compatible VPN solutions out there, some of them FOSS. It's that they deliberately chose one which isn't and for which they pay a per user fee. The fact is, practically every advantage touted for Windows comes down to this one simple fact. Someone, somewhere, chose to use a proprietary Windows only piece of software or system, and thinks they can't possibly live without it. There are always alternatives, but either the user or the software provider chooses not to take advantage of them. Adobe could release a version of Photoshop for Linux. They choose not to do so. Autodesk could release a version of Autocad for Linux. They choose not to do so. 90% of Photoshop users could use the GIMP instead with no problems. They choose not to do so. You can buy printers which are fully Linux compatible, but a take single printer which someone purchased 5 years ago for their Windows system which the vendor has chosen not provide Linux support for, and all at once Linux sucks. Cheerfully ignore all those perfectly functioning printers which suddenly no longer worked under Vista, it's only Linux which sucks. > That's obviously a *very* representative sample of Windows machines. Actually, yes it is. I've been doing this for a long time. I've supported everything from DOS to Windows XP at work and Vista for home users, from at least a dozen manufacters and various no name and home built computers. My personal computer experience goes back to the Tandy model 1. What was that you were saying about confirmation bias again? > That's straw man argument. Quoting your own words and point out that they irrelevant to the discussion at hand is now a straw man argument? Obviously the definition must have changed in the last few months. I'll have to buy a new dictionary. > Never said anything else. Taking only the literal meaning of your words, that's absolutely true. However, "Sure, one can use Linux as a desktop if all you need is Email, Internet and some Office and Audio/Video playback. But that's it, mostly" sure sounds pretty dismissive to me. As does 90% of the remainder of your comment, when taken in context. But then obviously, I'm biased, aren't I. > You will probably call me a Microsoft employee, next. Of course not. Microsoft can afford better. > Pardon? No, I don't think I will. You've done nothing to deserve it. > You mean one is an astroturfer if one claims years of Linux experience and uses a Linux orientated web side? I see ignoring context and using exact quotes is a favorite tactic of yours. I could quote the entire discussion to make my point, but everyone involved has already read it, so that's rather pointless. Suffice it to point out that someone who makes those claims and then can't change a monitor on a Linux box certainly is. > And what makes you think I believe them to be newbies? The minor fact that you conflate "illiterate user" and "astroturfer" throughout your comment. Again, your own words. Yes, I know that they don't have to be the same, but if you do, you're conflating them to make a point. There are several words which could be used to describe such an activity. Disingenuous is on of the more polite ones. > Ad hominem attack. Since he said nothing about you in the quote, it's not, But an interesting try. > BTW, did you know that over 50% of the people think their intelligence is above-average? Ah, sorry I must have missed that: You are obviously infallible. And yet another wonderful attempt at a put down. It a same the comment has no logical consistency whatever, isn't it. What other people think of their own intelligence has nothing to do with TC's, and she's never claimed to be infallible. > Looks like a No-True-Scotsman argument for me: You really like pretending that you know the logical fallacies, don't you? It's a shame not a single one of the ones you've claimed have been true. Unfortunately for you, most of us here know them better than you do. > Just joking. ;-) Sure you are. > If even Linux journalists write off all comments as astroturfing, we'll never know. That's my point. You don't have a point. No Linux journalist has done that. TC herself said "Thanks to everyone who made thoughtful, pertinent comments". > I was expecting the obligatory troll reproach much earlier. Justifiably so, it seems. Well, I'm done feeding the troll for now. I have things which need to be done. Have fun playing you all. I'll check back in this evening to see what's left after the flamefest. |
| caitlyn Jun 06, 2009 10:52 AM EDT |
> Nearly everybody pointed to the apparent disadvantages of Windows and the apparent
> advantages of Linux. Nobody was able to to name just a few advantages of Windows Perhaps there are no advantages of Windows worth mentioning. The only reasons Windows retains its domination of the desktop market come down to familiarity, inertia and fear of something different. > and only one named a disadvantage of Linux. Perhaps there aren't many worth naming. > Isn't this proof that you -- no, scratch that -- we all have a serious confirmation bias? No, it proves absolutely nothing. |
| gus3 Jun 06, 2009 11:27 AM EDT |
Claus, I find it (mildly) amusing that you answered not a single point I raised. There is no answer that will support your case. Windows and Microsoft are completely untrustworthy at any price, even zero; FOSS has the provable upper hand on trust. |
| caitlyn Jun 06, 2009 11:55 AM EDT |
I also like the way Claus tried to stretch Carla's use of the term "astroturfing" to include all supporters of Windows who responded to the original article. Carla clearly defined astroturfing as those who claim to have years of Linux experience, who claim love for Linux, and then repeat all the usual Microsoft talking points including statements about Linux that just aren't true and which anyone who really uses Linux knows are not true. Of course, Linux users are not their target audience. Their goal is to scare off people from trying Linux in the first place. The artificial nature of astroturf compares directly to the artificial nature of the claimed experience. Claus, did you miss that point? I also love how a pro-Windows person comes into a Linux forum where he knows the majority use and like Linux and yet he accuses us of "confirmational bias" if we don't agree with him. Anyone who doesn't see things his way is "biased". An amazing case of the pot calling the kettle black here. There is no limit to the chutzpah of Microsoft fanboys and shills. |
| azerthoth Jun 06, 2009 12:17 PM EDT |
Oh man I need that chuckle, comment on not seeing the negative side of things, and then blow off the massive market that has built up around having to have people and third party software to 'fix' windows. That truly may make me redefine my personal definition of 'false positive'. One of the things the folks here are good at is debunking FUD, and because a stated position is inconvenient to your argument, does necessarily make them incorrect. Your using inconvenient logic, which is, 'That fact is uncomfortable or damaging to my position. That is inconvenient, and allowing things to inconvenience you is not logical. Therefor that fact/position is illogical. Illogical things must not be true, thereby that fact must not be true'. There is another term for that kind of logic, but it is a political statement thats gets a few people around here all twisted up. |
| claus Jun 06, 2009 2:30 PM EDT |
@ hkwint: > Before you know, people who don't know you will think you are a MS shill touting how Linux is not ready and such. It almost feels like being censored; though it is self-censorship. Absolutely. As soon as you summarize problems you've had, you're trolling and/or you're a MS shill. > That's why it was a good move from Microsoft & co to let fake-Linux-experts tout the problems with Linux: Indeed, wasn't it? From an outsider point of view, the tactic is genius. Unfortunately, I must add. Thanks for the links. @ jdixon: > The fact is, practically every advantage touted for Windows comes down to this one simple fact. Someone, somewhere, chose to use a proprietary Windows only piece of software or system, and thinks they can't possibly live without it. Quite possible. The interesting part, however, is the question: Who are we to think the rest of world is suppose to change their minds, just because we say so? If, for example, I prefer to use Photoshop instead of the GIMP, who are you to tell me I have to change my mind? Let's look into one of your examples: > Adobe could release a version of Photoshop for Linux. They choose not to do so. Indeed, but did you ever wondered why? Selling Photoshop with the current Linux distribution landscape is quite hard. Slightly different build tools, different API and sometimes ABI versions, no commonly used installer. These are real problems for Adobe. Add the lack of market share, and one should understood my the majority of ISVs don't support Linux. In fact, it's quite easy as soon as one looks at Linux from their point of view. The problem is, Linux cheerleaders usually don't. It's easier to assume some conspiracy. > Taking only the literal meaning of your words, that's absolutely true. However, "Sure, one can use Linux as a desktop if all you need is Email, Internet and some Office and Audio/Video playback. But that's it, mostly" sure sounds pretty dismissive to me. I see. So, instead of using the literal meaning, you prefer to use what you assume to be true. Never mind any possible misunderstanding due to my incomplete grasp of the English language. Don't you think, that could be a problem? You're not arguing with me, but with some distorted version of me that only lives in your imagination. That's also the reason, I guess, you're using straw men arguments quite a lot. @ gus3: > Claus, I find it (mildly) amusing that you answered not a single point I raised. Well, if you'd like me to do: Why should I care under what circumstances you will trust Microsoft? It's besides the point. You are probably not representative for all consumers. My point was not about Microsoft; it was about trusting the Linux ecosystem. hkwint asked: "c'mon, who needs Photoshop and AutoCAD?" Maybe just 0,5% of all computer users need Photoshop. The next 0,5% may need AutoCAD. The next 0,5% may need something else not available for Linux. Imaging this with 200 others applications available for Windows, and you'll find 100% of all computer users need just one application that may not be available for Linux. This is easy so see -- well, not for Carla, obviously. Can a consumer trust the Linux community to do everything it takes to fix this problem? Well, they seem to prefer to use the easy road and assume that some conspiracy is going on. @ caitlyn: > Carla clearly defined astroturfing as those who claim to have years of Linux experience, who claim love for Linux, and then repeat all the usual Microsoft talking points including statements about Linux that just aren't true and which anyone who really uses Linux knows are not true. [...] Claus, did you miss that point? I can't address every point. But if you'd like me to: The claim "statements that aren't true" is a matter of perspective. Both sides usually argue with personal experience. That's hardly a good sample, wouldn't you agree? And given the variety of Linux flavors, who can really assert that a statement like "My printer didn't work with Linux" is not true? The response: "Can't be true since it worked for me" is no valid refutation. For example, here's Dave Neary's experience: http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2009/05/26/trial-by-fire-distro... Gosh, he must be a Astroturfer, too. These people are really everywhere! Just a tip: Google his name before you call him one. Sure, it's a fallacy to generalize one case to a general conclusion like "Linux is not ready for (any) desktop usage." That's obviously false. But the original article did not address this issue. It just argued with general statements and paranoia scenarios. |
| gus3 Jun 06, 2009 2:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:Why should I care under what circumstances you will trust Microsoft? It's besides the point. You are probably not representative for all consumers. My point was not about Microsoft; it was about trusting the Linux ecosystem.That still doesn't address why one should trust the parasitic Microsoft "ecosystem" more than the meritocratic Linux "ecosystem." The above points still stand: Linux, by its open nature, is far more trustworthy than Windows, and will remain so until Microsoft opens its code and actions to public scrutiny. With Linux, I and millions (billions?) of people can examine the code, and trust the code, independently of the people behind it. All Microsoft offers is the assertion of their trustworthiness, which is exposed as a lie as soon as the McAfee/Norton Anti-Virus icon appears in the systray. The people who form the Microsoft "ecosystem" are complicit in that lie, whether knowingly or ignorantly. Quoting:Can a consumer trust the Linux community to do everything it takes to fix this problem? Well, they seem to prefer to use the easy road and assume that some conspiracy is going on.Two words: Halloween Documents Read them, then tell me there's no conspiracy. Or, how about reading the federal CONVICTION of Microsoft, then tell me there's no conspiracy. Care to try again? Or will you just re-hash the same-o same-o M$ FUD talking points? |
| chalbersma Jun 06, 2009 5:02 PM EDT |
The people who use AutoCad on Windows know that it runs (up to 2004) on wine flawlessly. And even for those who need newer cad programs there's always Qcad by Ribbensoft. http://www.qcad.org/ It can read and write in AutoCad's latest formats and even has a free version that's no slouch. And best of all it's supported on Windows, Mac OSX, Linux (2.4 and 2.6 kernels) and most other Unixes (FreeBSD, Solaris etc...). I know that I learned most of my CAD experience on AutoCad but Qcad is still easy as pie to use for me. So much for the AutoCad argument. |
| tracyanne Jun 06, 2009 6:39 PM EDT |
@Claus, I know quite a bit about Windows users as it happens... I am one, I was one before I discovered Linux, and am still one (although reluctantly these days0. So is every person I work with. So are many of the people I support (and all of them once were), ordinary non technical Windows users at that, although less and less so, as they keep on becoming Linux users. Obviously I didn't make that point clearly enough. By and large the people I work with, have never used Linux, so they just accept the things that I find frustrating as "The way things are when you use computers", and they ought to know, after all they are techies you know, who have spent their entire working life learning that that's how it is. By and large the ordinary Windows users, who just want to use their computer to do face book and send receive emails and chat on skype and process their photos and print their recipes and play time wasting games (not gamers), almost always reckon there should be a better way, which is my cue..... so I show them Linux Ok so I never made it clear in this thread (I just checked back through the responses) that I know a lot of Windows users, and more importantly ex Windows users, users who are ordinary non technical users. But obviously you Claus have never read any of my other comments elsewhere on LXer, that would lead to that understanding, so I can safely assume that you've come into this thread hot under the collar, or maybe as a paid marketer, for one purpose, to protect the perception of Windows in the public, so it's probably safe to assume that your primary purpose is to spread FUD, probably because you have an income that depends on the faults in Windows. |
| tracyanne Jun 06, 2009 7:49 PM EDT |
What I can say about ordinary Windows users is that by and large, those that I've dealt with tend to be very open to the idea of using a better OS than Windows, that by and large they just don't want to have to deal with the faults in Windows, and just want to do things, primarily those things are surfing the web, getting involved in communities, sending and receiving email, chatting with friends and family on skype, downloading and uploading their photos, occasionally (once they've discovered the possibilities) editing those photos in an image editor, family history, the odd time waster type game, in other words for the majority of people I've come accross the computer is another communications device. They want to be able to use it when they want, and not have to worry about malicious software affecting their experience. the majority of those people who will turn to Linux when offered a chance to escape the malware crash reboot cycle of Windows are women (in my experience). A small minority are men. I find that men mostly won't, a small minority do, when I offer them Linux, and I believe that it is mostly an ego thing. In most cases men will spend more time looking for work a rounds to the Windows faults, and the idea that they may have to start again at the bottom, after having won their [limited] knowledge so dearly is, for them too high a price to pay, and off course there is the gender factor. I clearly know more than they have been able to glean at so much personal expense. I am pretty certain it is a gender factor, because of the way they react, usually by trotting out what they consider to be esoteric knowledge of the Windows system. |
| tracyanne Jun 06, 2009 7:52 PM EDT |
An interesting side note, well I think it is, When we had our Feral Penguin Computer stand at the recent Computer and Technology fair in the Bay I was told I am a idiot because I refuse to take advantage of the faults in Windows that are how the speaker is guaranteed his income, by "fixing" said faults. |
| jdixon Jun 06, 2009 7:58 PM EDT |
> Quite possible. The interesting part, however, is the question: Who are we to think the rest of world is suppose to change their minds, just because we say so? I don't. I frankly don't care if you or anyone else use Windows or not. I do care if you or anyone else is spreading lies about Linux. If, for example, I prefer to use Photoshop instead of the GIMP, who are you to tell me I have to change my mind? Absolutely nobody. But don't claim that's a reason you can't use Linux. You can claim it's a reason you won't use Linux if you want. > Indeed, but did you ever wondered why? No. I have more important things to worry about than why certain corporations do the things they do. You can do so if you wish > ...you're using straw men arguments quite a lot. Hint, that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. |
| claus Jun 06, 2009 9:09 PM EDT |
@gus3: > That still doesn't address why one should trust the parasitic Microsoft "ecosystem" more than the meritocratic Linux "ecosystem." Whether they "should" is not my concern. Your usage of the word "parasitic" indicates, you have a political point of view on the matter. I just guess many do, for some reasons. First, because of the old adage "You get what you pay for". They wonder why anybody will be motivated to provide the products they need. Second, because Windows is still the largest platform. They assume that they'll get what they need. PC magazines, visits to a local computer store, and general news confirm this view. The new, cool stuff they hear about is often for Windows, only. Third, because they may hear horror stories from friends, relatives or colleagues every now and then. Stories such as the one of Dave Neary. There are certainly millions of people who could Linux right now but do not yet. But they don't care whether they can inspect the source code. They care whether Linux has sufficient momentum to reach a critical mass of desktop users. And that's not the case yet. This I call lack of trust in the ecosystem. @tracyanne: > But obviously you Claus have never read any of my other comments elsewhere on LXer, that would lead to that understanding. Indeed, I didn't. There seems to be no way to check your previous comments. And I'm not usually not following the discussions here. > What I can say about ordinary Windows users is that by and large, those that I've dealt with tend to be very open to the idea of using a better OS than Windows [...] [T]he majority of those people who will turn to Linux [...] are women (in my experience). A small minority are men. Sounds like a demographic that can use Linux successfully right now: I assume they do not buy a lot of new hardware or much software. They probably don't read a PC magazine on a regular basis or visit technical blogs or journals. And most important: You were there to help if any problem would occur. My assumption is probably not completely accurate. However, imaging is would be for a moment: How could someone I just described know about Linux if you wouldn't have been there to tell? This is why we need "power users" to "sell" Linux. But Windows power users are more likely to run into problem when using Linux. It doesn't help if one ridicules their stories as astroturfing and spreads paranoia. They will just tell their friends, relatives and colleagues that Linux is not fit for desktop usage. And from their point of view, it probably truly isn't. I really wonder if Microsoft still employs astroturfers. For the Linux community is absolutely able to piss off everybody else without any outside help. The discussion today just showed it. But what do I know? I just organized the GNOME Journal releases and wrote for a European Linux journal. I'm clearly clueless, a troll and an astroturfer. |
| caitlyn Jun 06, 2009 9:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:The claim "statements that aren't true" is a matter of perspective. Not so. There are often statements made that can easily be proven false. I saw a claim recently that there is no personal finance software for Linux. That may have been true 10 years ago but now we can choose from GNUCash, Homebank, Kapital (a proprietary application), and others. I've read claims about a lack of business accounting software. One of my clients is an ASP who hosts accounting applications and also resells accounting software. Linux has everything from Quickbooks at the low end to J.D. Edwards at the high end. Yes, these are proprietary solutions, which also debunks your claim that ISVs don't support Linux. Many, many do. Why? Their customers demand it. Quoting:Maybe just 0,5% of all computer users need Photoshop. The next 0,5% may need AutoCAD. The next 0,5% may need something else not available for Linux. Imaging this with 200 others applications available for Windows, and you'll find 100% of all computer users need just one application that may not be available for Linux. Having done a large number of professional and personal migrations from Windows to Linux this is a wonderful example of something easily proven false. 100% of users need a Windows app. That's absolutely everybody. All I need to do is find one person who doesn't and your argument goes out the window. There is more than one such person responding to you. Quoting:Slightly different build tools, different API and sometimes ABI versions, no commonly used installer. These are real problems for Adobe. Apparantly not since Adobe does port a number of their products to Linux. It just happens that Photoshop isn't one of them. With GIMP well known and freely available in the Linux marketplace they have probably concluded that sales would be insufficient to support porting Photoshop. With GIMP included in all the major Linux distributions I must say that I agree with that conclusion. It's not about any imagined difficulty porting to Linux. It's about economics, supply and demand. Quoting:The interesting part, however, is the question: Who are we to think the rest of world is suppose to change their minds, just because we say so? We didn't go to a Windows forum or website and demand that people change their minds. YOU came to a Linux website and seem to be demanding that we change ours. You also claim that if we don't we must be biased. This is a completely hypocritical argument. You also ignored most of the points I made in my last post. I have to assume that you don't have any good answers for them. |
| tracyanne Jun 06, 2009 9:39 PM EDT |
Quoting:You were there to help if any problem would occur. @Claus. Indeed, I just wish they would call on me as often as they did before I put them onto Linux... but then I knew that before I put them onto Linux, from my own experience. We are also talking about a demographic that is close to half the Windows users. This is probably why Microsoft want so desperately to stop Linux gaining traction in the consumer market. EDIT: Claus not Clause. Thanks caitlyn just write it off to old timers disease. |
| caitlyn Jun 06, 2009 9:45 PM EDT |
ta: His name is Claus rather than Clause. Just remember: There is no Sanity Clause. |
| gus3 Jun 07, 2009 12:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:Your usage of the word "parasitic" indicates, you have a political point of view on the matter.Nonsense. Biologically, viruses (all of them) and worms (most of them) are parasites; in their digital counterparts, Microsoft systems provide the easiest hosts. Not due to popularity, but due to inherent system insecurity. As I said, the constant need for anti-virus programs puts the lie to Microsoft "trustworthiness." Chalking that up to politics is BS. Quoting:They wonder why anybody will be motivated to provide the products they need."Products"? How many Linux products are already available? Not just eye-candy, but the entire Linux software stack, from the kernel clear up to OpenOffice.org? These products all came about because somebody wanted, or needed, them. Why on earth would that obvious trend suddenly cease? Still too easily refuted. |
| tracyanne Jun 07, 2009 12:59 AM EDT |
Quoting:This is why we need "power users" to "sell" Linux. But Windows power users are more likely to run into problem when using Linux. It doesn't help if one ridicules their stories as astroturfing and spreads paranoia. But Claus, I AM a Windows Power user, was before I started using Linux, still am. I've hacked the Registry, I know just how messy it can be, from experience, I would rather deal with Linux Config files, it's easier. The thing is I've rarely had to to deal with Linux Config files. So yes I would call their stories astroturfing. I've also been called an idiot for not taking advantage of the faults in Windows, and "fixing" them for a fee, on a regular basis. Quoting:For the Linux community is absolutely able to piss off everybody else without any outside help. The discussion today just showed it. It showed actually something quite to the contrary. That it's entirely possible to piss off any number of Linux users, by making ridiculous assertions. |
| krisum Jun 07, 2009 3:09 AM EDT |
Quoting: Sure, one can use Linux as a desktop if all you need is Email, Internet and some Office and Audio/Video playback. But that's it, mostly. And for this kind of things, Windows and Mac works, too. Can anyone of you name one thing that Linux enables an illiterate computer user to do that is not possible with Windows or Mac? Something that matters to the illiterate user? I bet you can't.Seriously, what has this got to do with the contents of the original article? A sure trait of an "astroturfer", as pointed by many others, is to ignore the contents of an article and go on a tangent about the same talking points mentioned in the article. Claus, you are in the wrong forum so just beat it and don't come back till you have any sincere points to make. Even so I want to vent off my frustrations with the Windows platform when there is a misfortune of having to work on it. So about once a month or more, I have to boot WinXP in a kvm virtual machine for customer issues in the C++/CLI based client we provide for our product. It starts with the usual huge gap (2-3mins) in the login that uses AD where Windows apparently is updating the roaming profile. No problem, since I can continue with the work on the linux box in that duration. Finally after having logged in, there are some security updates waiting. After applying the updates, it starts bugging me to reboot. Giving up to the bugging I have to close whatever I had started to do, reboot the VM and repeat the whole thing. Then more often than not, I am presented with *more* security updates and then applying those requires another reboot. Hopefully, after two iterations this ordeal ends. Then starts the other ordeal of having to download and apply security updates to all the (third-party) software one by one by hand starting with norton anti-virus, adobe's products, cygwin, java, firefox/tbird etc. All in all this whole procedure takes a few hours. Contrast this with the experience of booting up my little Eee 1000 running ubuntu 8.04 which can also happen after a long gap of month or so. Upon logging in, there is a notification waiting to update *all* software on the machine. Apply it and done. I can continue to work without interruption (except for restarting firefox if that has been updated for example). Only once in so many times have I needed to reboot the machine due to kernel upgrade. Coming back to the WinXP experience, finally after 2-3 hrs of wasting my time to just get the VM updated and having got no work done, I start to work in Visual Studio. That is another painful experience for me which is completely lacking basic navigation facilities of eclipse like "Ctrl-Shift-R", "Ctrl-Shift-T", "Ctrl-O" and other such shortcuts. So I have to navigate my way around for each and every class (there are > 200 of those in our project) to open them, manually go around to find basic stuff like type hierarchy, call hierarchy and so on but this is probably a topic for a full article. Oh Claus, since you mentioned API/ABI and stuff it just reminds me of the nightmares of WinAPI (which, btw, are not a rare phenomenon but have been experienced by all windows developers I have seen who had the misfortune of developing something in VC++). |
| montezuma Jun 07, 2009 9:28 AM EDT |
Claus, What is your goal in this thread? To wind up linux advocates? Why? I really wonder at the amount of effort you have put in here. Bashing your head against a brick wall is never productive. Linux advocates will not be won over with this kind of thread crapping. In addition anyone thinking of using linux will not be here but on places like the Ubuntu forum. So again I ask, Why? |
| claus Jun 07, 2009 10:31 AM EDT |
@tracyanne > We are also talking about a demographic that is close to half the Windows users. Yes, I absolutely agree. Of course, we may argue whether it's really 50% but since we have no data, it seems a good assumption. So, what are the other 50%? I called them "Power users" but the name doesn't matter. What matters is that the power users read PC magazines, Digg, Reddit, you name it. They are likely to be up-to-date concerning new software, new hardware and they are most likely to download a Linux CD image, burn it and test it. And they are the most likely to run into problems. Unfortunately many of them are quite opinionated, just as many of us are. And not all of them have the patience to figure out a solution for their problems. > But Claus, I AM a Windows Power user, was before I started using Linux, still am. Yes, that's my point. You were just patient enough to dig through any problems. Don't tell me you have never run into any. > It showed actually something quite to the contrary. That it's entirely possible to piss off any number of Linux users, by making ridiculous assertions. Yes, it did that. too. But that's not news, isn't it? ;-) In fact, that's what I am talking about. Some Linux users seem to have developed a sort of bite reflex: Whenever someone says something that's just remotely critical to Linux, they start to bite. @caitlyn: > I saw a claim recently that there is no personal finance software for Linux. That may have been true 10 years ago but now we can choose from GNUCash, Homebank, Kapital (a proprietary application), and others. And I never heard of them, except of GNUCash. Why is that? Just search for "personal finance for Linux" and even the article that's the first hit doesn't mention Kapital or Homebank. And you call this well-known applications? But I remember the announcement of GNUCash 2.0 -- the long expected port to GTK2. It took them 4 years IIRC. I jumped to their homepage, just found a tarball to compile and decided, I'm not going to spend time to set up the build chain for this, just to be able to test it. I believe, part of the problem of such myths as "There's no personal finance software for Linux" is simply lack of advertising of the projects and the lack of an LSB-compliant DEB/PRM package on their homepage. In other words: Yes, these statements are false, strictly speaking. But we do nothing to change the common perception, but just accuse people of astroturfing when they got it wrong. > 100% of users need a Windows app. That's absolutely everybody. All I need to do is find one person who doesn't and your argument goes out the window. Yes, indeed. That is: If the argument was intended to show that. But it was just a demonstration, how a large share of the market could be just one application away from using Linux. And why we hear the Photoshop and AutoCAD examples over and over, again. The numbers don't matter. The names of the applications don't matter. The core problem matters: Linux distributions and developers create artificial barriers for ISV to enter the Linux ecosystem. Without them, however, we do not get Windows power users to use Linux, and therefore we do not get the other "Non-power Windows users" to use Linux. And then, some of us need a conspiracy theory to explain why Linux still has just 1% market share, although it's soooo much better. And some of us start to bite people whenever they get something remotely wrong. > Apparantly not since Adobe does port a number of their products to Linux. Yes they do. But it wasn't easy. Check to blog about Adobe's efforts to get the Flash player to run, for example: http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2006/09/whats_so_difficul... > YOU came to a Linux website and seem to be demanding that we change ours. You also claim that if we don't we must be biased. This is a completely hypocritical argument. Well, in fact, I used to read LXer daily. And I'm not demanding anything. But yes, I'm suggesting that some of your views are biased. I admit, some of my views may be biased, too. You're free to show me how. @montezuma: Because I think, posts such as the one linked above -- as well as the attitude displayed in the first comments here -- is not Linux advocacy but just the opposite. In fact, I believe it counters the efforts of Linux advocates. I also try to respond to those who address me directly, within limits. |
| hkwint Jun 07, 2009 10:40 AM EDT |
AutoCAD is not a showstopper, it runs on Wine indeed and there's QCad, but AutoCAD is no longer relevant, because it's mainly 2D, and 2D is only used nowadays for architectural purposes. The problem is both the lack of an open drawing format besides STEP (and STEP is an overkill for much purposes), and the lack for a cheap 3D-enginieering program. Not many people need 3D engineering, so the problem is small. |
| darksyde Jun 07, 2009 10:57 AM EDT |
Claus, A bit of clarification on my post may be in order here. "Hey, you should be careful! Admitting that software upgrades were a pain for a newbie makes you look like an astroturfer." *The reason they were a pain was because I downloaded every possible package for SUSE on a 2001 e-Tower with 127 (yes, you read that right) megs of RAM, plus a full drive as I set it up to dual-boot ME and SUSE. I did later find, however, that several light-weight distro's worked quite well on the machine, specifically DSL and Fedora (with no extras). "And admitting that you wasted your time testing 9 distros before you found one that works for you even more so!" *Nope, it wasn't a waste of time at all. I had plenty of time (how long does it take to run a live distro? A few minutes.) and very little money invested (an average of about $4.00 per distro as I was buying them at that time), so there was no waste at all, merely a matter of checking out several of the hundreds of flavors available and seeing which I liked best. Incidently, each and every one had something I liked and something I didn't, and the things I didn't like were picky little things like default wallpaper and icons. And FYI, I had been using XP on my first laptop and liked it, though there was the occasional BSoD, so I bought a fresh copy of XP ($199.00) to replace Vista on the Dell Vostro which was on special, but with no "downgrade" available. XP didn't recognize my hd so along came Linux Mint, and XP went in Virtual Box for the apps that require it. So you see, not everyone who loves Linux hates Windows, but most people who hate Linux have never given it a chance. "Why bother?" No reason to, if one is happy with what they are using, but some people like to work outside of the box and Linux provides a great environment for that. |
| tuxchick Jun 07, 2009 1:13 PM EDT |
LOL, still keeping it going claus. You remind me of old Tom, this nice old gent that hangs out in the park in nice weather. He's a bit off from old injuries; got knocked off one too many horses I guess. He's a nice man and full of great stories from the old days because he's a fourth-generation homesteader, his family goes back to the gold-rush days. He seems perfectly normal until you accidentally hit a topic that triggers his rant button, usually something to do with government or politics. For example I made the mistake of saying something about Forest Service policy regarding fencing streams on public lands, and he launched into this long, colorful tirade about blood-sucking bankers, the United Nations, expletive deleted commie socialist environmentalists, parasitical blood-sucking lawyers, and on and on. It was wonderful in its own way; he never repeated himself and it took a good ten minutes to wind down. But none of it had anything to do with Forest Service policy. You're not ranty, but you're equally dodgy about staying on topic, and adept at dragging in every irrelevancy you can think of as "proof" of ...well, it's never clear, and it's not meant to be clear. Classic turfer. Or muddled thinking. Or maybe this is an assignment for your debating class, where you have to try to rile up people on purpose. |
| TxtEdMacs Jun 07, 2009 2:10 PM EDT |
I second tuxchick's motion that we ignore everything dropped here by the subordinate claus(e) and move on to pertinent, constructive discussions. YBT |
| azerthoth Jun 07, 2009 2:41 PM EDT |
I second, Mr von Bulow here needs to be left to rest. |
| chalbersma Jun 07, 2009 3:28 PM EDT |
Never death to Santa! |
| tracyanne Jun 07, 2009 5:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:So, what are the other 50%? I called them "Power users" but the name doesn't matter. A good, although still small percentage of them, it seems, become Linux users, like I did. by virtue of the fact that they are willing to try something new, and persist at it. Most of them seem to be the new Ubuntu users. Quoting:Unfortunately many of them are quite opinionated, just as many of us are. And not all of them have the patience to figure out a solution for their problems. They are indeed, and they become very opinionated Linux users. Quoting:Yes, that's my point. You were just patient enough to dig through any problems. Don't tell me you have never run into any. Of course I did, they were the same problem every other Windows Power user has... perception. Trying to make Linux be like Windows, trying to do things the same way you do them on Windows. Expecting the same faults and the same work arounds to be the solution to the problem. Incidentally it's the same problem I currently have with Macs (I don't use them all that often), I have to stop and think about what I'm doing, as my reflex is to do it the Windows or the Linux way, and trying to do it other than the Mac way makes the Mac a very difficult system to work with. Quoting:Yes, it did that. too. But that's not news, isn't it? ;-) In fact, that's what I am talking about. Some Linux users seem to have developed a sort of bite reflex: Whenever someone says something that's just remotely critical to Linux, they start to bite. Yep this is the typical response of an Astroturfer. I've come across exactly this sort of response in other forums where i used to argue with a particular demographic. When their adhoc arguments didn't work they changed to a new adhoc argument. First this thread was a demonstration of how Linux users piss off lots of people, now that you been called on it, your current ad hoc argument is that Linux users are thin skinned, what next? Astroturfer. |
| TxtEdMacs Jun 07, 2009 9:25 PM EDT |
TA, Please don't encourage the landscaper, we already have a call to kill Santa Clause. Just think what might happen to this guy. It will just end up ruining our reputation. The headlines will shout that we are bad shots, because we only mortally wounded him after expending more than thirty rounds. That means we will sink as low as the NYPD undercover squads, where after a failed bust the EPA has to be called in to reduce the lead content of the neighborhood to acceptable levels. Think of the children [I thought I would throw that in for good measure, makes no sense, but astroturfing is contagious.] YBT |
| jdixon Jun 07, 2009 10:28 PM EDT |
> Claus, you are in the wrong forum so just beat it and don't come back till you have any sincere points to make. No. First, this is a publicly accessible forum, and claus has as much right to post here as any of us. Only Scott and company can decide he's out of line, and as long as he abides by the TOS, they're unlikely to do so. Besides, he's making TC's point perfectly. And in any case, if we can't counter his lame (to date) arguments, what good are we as advocates. There are real problems with Linux to be addressed and either fixed or explained to newbies (The inability of most distros to play DVD's and MP3's out of the box is one. A certain distro's penchant for breaking X on a regular basis for certain chipsets might be another). We need effective ways to do so, and to date those efforts have been lacking. > Whenever someone says something that's just remotely critical to Linux, they start to bite. When 90% of the critical comments about anything are bogus, it's supporters tend to get a bit testy. This is true for all things, not just for Linux. You seem to think that every argument made against Linux is absolutely true and above board, while insisting that we think every argument against it made by a astroturfer or Microsoft employee. While neither is true, it's approaching the point where the latter is far closer to the truth than the former. > And I never heard of them, except of GNUCash. Why is that? Because you didn't look? A Google search for the terms "linux person finance" returns the following as the top four links: http://www.linux.com/feature/49400 http://moneydance.com/ http://www.gnucash.org/ http://www.linuxlinks.com/Software/Financial/Personal_Financ... The first lists three options in addition to GnuCash. The comments mention several others. > Just search for "personal finance for Linux" and even the article that's the first hit doesn't mention Kapital or Homebank. And you call this well-known applications? The fourth link mentions both. Perhaps your time might be better employed learning how to use Google than trolling here? > And then, some of us need a conspiracy theory to explain why Linux still has just 1% market share. First, that's desktop market share, not market share. Second, we both know that figure cannot be verified in any way, and is probably completely wrong. But then, you have to use what few "facts" you do have in your favor, don't you? > But yes, I'm suggesting that some of your views are biased. Well, duh. Of course our views are biased. The difference is that we admit it. That doesn't change the factual arguments, of which yours are few and far between. > I admit, some of my views may be biased, too. Everyone's views are biased. If you only think that yours "may be" then you have a lot to learn. > Because I think, posts such as the one linked above -- as well as the attitude displayed in the first comments here -- is not Linux advocacy but just the opposite. The post linked to above notes that there has been a trend recently of people posting on Linux forums who a) claim to be long time Linux users, b) also claim that Linux is not ready for widespread use, and c) always give the same or very similar reasons/arguments, almost all of which are either not true or are greatly exaggerated. I (and most of the others here, apparently) fail to see how noting that fact (which can be easily verified) harms Linux advocacy. Your arguments that it does have been unpersuasive. In fact, most of your comments have consisted of simply repeating the above mentioned arguments. Amazing coincidence, isn't it? |
| hkwint Jun 07, 2009 11:17 PM EDT |
Claus: I'm happy you're here. Troll, astroturfer or not; it doesn't matter to me. It would be good to have someone over in our forums who has another view and brings a new perspective. And it keeps some of the regular readers awake as well; including me. I'm sure if your arguments are lame, people will point that out. That's my personal opinion BTW; I might be the only one. For the ones not willing to read profane language and becoming sick by being remembered of a disease they thought they were cured from: Skip the following paragraph please. ---Profanity starts Concerning your quest of Linux for the "power users" and the problems they run into; consider this. Before they became a Windows-power user, they had to look up stuff. Do nasty registry tweaks, screw registry, reinstall Windows, screw the system again, screw partitioning (Windows 98 is best; it even screws partitions it doesn't install to) install LavaSoft Addaware, Firewall, virusscanner, SpyBotSD and then finding out that's no solution to BDO-daemons. Searching for regkeys & generators all over the net, and reading obscure .nfo files to make them work. After that, remove malware from astalavista.box.sk, crackerz.net and the like. And if the regkeys don't work, browse the forums as to how these programs should be cracked. After that, they probably used the shell as well. They had to _write down_ BSOD messages to look for them on the internet (AFAIK Win doesn't make a dump from which you can copy if you bypass BSOD using live-media). Maybe they used the shell to make some .bat or so; I dunno. To circumvent the 'security-measures' the company took (if cmd.exe is blocked, use command.com and that stuff). After they failed to find an easily installable scripting environment for Windows (.NET is _NOT_), they went with something like AutoIt or so; or I'm the only one who enjoyed that privilege, I dunno. They fought for hours making nVidia's TwinView work because the GUI is - as you might now - one of the lamest to be encountered in human history. If you're going to update software in Windows, you have to start all programs consecutively and browse through all 100 popups to 'install the newest version'. Nobody complains because of that, do they? And did I mention that the distributor of Windows btw. doesn't ship live-media to bypass any BSODs at all? If the harddrive fails and the BSOD doesn't tell why you need Linux my dear friend to prove Windows is the problem and not the hardware. ---Profanity ends here--- So there you have it, your average Windows pówurrr user. You're not going to tell me those people will not use Linux because they encounter problems from time to time and not everything is polished. All Windows power users know how to use a search engine, edit .ini-files (the Win-equivalent to /etc) using notepad (nano with a GUI for those who don't know notepad), look up things at dmoz, dig in company websites for solutions, ask friends, browse forums, find out new ways to install (such as MSI, NSIS etc.) use the CLI (though it's called bash and not DOS and you can actually automate your work, something that a computer was meant to do in first place), they can look for drivers, complain if the company stopped offering those drivers because it decided the hardware is 'too old' and I could go on. Yes, they will have to learn. Yes, they will fail from time to time. Yes, from time to time they will doubt if it's all worth it. Yes, they will be longing for Windows for a while. So did I when it took me a whole day to change my background in BlackBox / OpenBSD and after a week of configuration efforts my printer still didn't work. However, after that, they will realize all the profanity I mentioned above is no longer an issue to them. Then they're glad they invested the time in something non-Windows that they did. Then, they may start complaining what they don't like about Linux; and I'm sure they will. Or better: They might think about a way to solve these issues. You can say what you want about the biggest Linux-critics I ever came across (Tuomo Vaikonen and Bryan Lunduke are expamples), but at least they have an idea of how the world _should_ be. That's what people want to hear, how to fix issues. Only observing problems and shouting about your observations without thinking about solutions is something only popular politicians do (or just my country?) @jd Quoting:c) always give the same or very similar reasons/arguments, almost all of which are either not true or are greatly exaggerated. The newest FUD-round I recently encountered was claiming Linux was not ready because of gaming needs of 'families' and .NET platform stuff in which companies / business 'heavily invested' not being available for Linux; and because 90% uses Windows for gaming or .NET business, 90% cannot use Linux. How funny is that? |
| gus3 Jun 08, 2009 1:04 AM EDT |
Hans, I'm shocked! Such filthy language! You should be perma-banned! And to think I respected you at some vague point in time previously! /////////////////// |
| hkwint Jun 08, 2009 9:29 AM EDT |
gus3: Decided to ignore my warning, did you? |
| gus3 Jun 08, 2009 11:46 AM EDT |
You warned us of the profanity, but... that would make a sailor blush. |
| claus Jun 08, 2009 12:13 PM EDT |
@hkwint: > Concerning your quest of Linux for the "power users" and the problems they run into; consider this. Before they became a Windows-power user, they had to [...] Indeed, some of them had to do some of this, maybe even all things you mentioned. > You're not going to tell me those people will not use Linux because they encounter problems from time to time and not everything is polished. Consider it from their point of view: Microsoft told them, everything will be easy. They tried and found it to be untrue. They dealt with it, becasue everybody else did. Now the Linux fanboys and -girls tell them, "Linux is ready for the desktop" -- not just recently, but for years, btw. They tried and still try and they've run into problems and still do. Now what's the most likely conclusion they make? Maybe: "Beware, the Linux fanboys and -girls are lying, just like Microsoft. It's still not ready." If that's accurate, why should they switch? After all, they know how to deal with the old problems. The time they spend is already lost. Why should they invest even more time to learn another OS that appears to be -- again, from their point of view -- about as bad as the old one? > Then they're glad they invested the time in something non-Windows that they did. That's the promise Linux advocates make. Others made similar promises that turned out to be untrue. Consider: Do they have reasons to trust the promise of Linux advocates? People who may be essentially astroturfers as well and profit directly or indirectly by promoting Linux? > Then, they may start complaining what they don't like about Linux; and I'm sure they will. Yes, probably. In fact, this may be the reason why -- to quote jdixon -- "there has been a trend recently of people posting on Linux forums who a) claim to be long time Linux users, b) also claim that Linux is not ready for widespread use, and c) always give the same or very similar reasons/arguments, almost all of which are either not true or are greatly exaggerated." Let's assume there is indeed a trend, although noone here made any effort to proof that or just show two or three examples. Maybe, this so-called "trend" is simply due to the recent hype about Ubuntu? It motivated people to try Linux, again, just to get disappointed once more. In fact, I believe that those who complain about Linux' problems on public forums are those who want to use it. They just struggle with the "disadvantages" (From their point of view). I guess, some Windows power users also use Linux as a server already. Explains the bit about years of experience. The distinction "fine as a server, sucks for the desktop" seems to be rather common. Or maybe they just got feed up waiting for the Linux developer community to finally fix the problems. > You can say what you want about the biggest Linux-critics I ever came across (Tuomo Vaikonen and Bryan Lunduke are expamples), but at least they have an idea of how the world _should_ be. That's what people want to hear, how to fix issues. I checked Bryan's presentation yesterday. Thanks, again, btw. The only solutions he presented are known for years. The problems are known for years -- at least, by those who didn't drink the Kool-Aid. That's also reason to believe, there's no conspiracy going on. It's just that people run into the same problems for years -- and also correctly pinpoint the problems to a few areas like Bryan did: Lack of driver and ISV support, due to variety of desktop APIs, package formats, etc. One can trace back some of these complains to the last century. Only a little has changed, and many of the positive changes are due to Ubuntu. > That's what people want to hear, how to fix issues. You mean Linux users? Yes, many of them pretend that. But, in fact, many don't want to really hear it -- especially the old-timers. Because fixing these problems often means to change the way Linux currently works. This is why a simple solution like offered by Bryan: Quoting:"Gstreamer. There. Done." is, at best, ignored but, in most cases, flamed down. Or check the discussions around Autopackage, for example. The negative feedback was sufficient to make its lead developer, Mike Hearn, give up. Or try to make a case for Closed Source applications because "developers need to eat". Or consider Ken Stark's comment on Bryan's presentation: Quoting:"On that venue, in the summer of 2005, I wrote an article that pissed thousands of people off. To date, that article posted the third-most comments we've ever received. Many of them were not positive. I lost friends over it. I made publicly some fairly controversial statements. I said that the current model of the GNU/Linux desktop system would flounder in obscurity until a permanent level of standardization was reached." Sheesh, just imaging that: Lost friends because of controversial statements about an OS! Puts the reactions I got here in perspective. However, Ubuntu's success also seems to have changed that. It's almost like a new kind of Linux users seems to grow, one that likes to have these issues fixed, even if it means to slightly change the way Linux currently works. In general, the reaction on Bryan's presentation seems to have been positive, at least on his blog and on Digg. Maybe, there's hope that the zealots in the Linux community will soon be a minority. In a few years, maybe they'll whine about the "good old days" where one could post a biased article without any reference whatsoever and still be supported by others, due to group think mentality. @all: Judging by the amount of your reactions, you had fun. Me, too. I've found it quite interesting. So, thanks for the discussion! |
| jdixon Jun 08, 2009 12:30 PM EDT |
> I believe that those who complain about Linux' problems on public forums are those who want to use it. Partially true. But you see, those people post on the relevant forums for the distribution of choice, not LXer and Linux Today. The posters complaining about Linux's problems on LXer and Linux Today have a slightly different agenda. |
| hkwint Jun 08, 2009 7:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:Why should they invest even more time to learn another OS that appears to be -- again, from their point of view -- about as bad as the old one? That's simple: Microsoft wants to control them and receive as much money from them as possible. Microsoft doesn't want to provide a working and safe operating system which saves the user time. Investing in a product in which the manufacturer _doesn't_ invest seems like a stupid thing to do. With Linux and other free software, the reasons why people develop it are more varied. Some help with development because it's their job, some help to make the product usable for their own needs, some help with development because it's their hobby, some help because it's their ideology, some help because they're bored, plenty of reasons. Some of those reasons lead to developing software which is better for a large public, some of those reasons hinder developing such software. Those who develop software to suite their own needs, if they are a minority, will hinder the development of software for a broader public. But (almost) no one helps with the development with the aim of screwing their customers to such a degree where only paying more money will help them to overcome their problems. My sister is not willing to start to use Linux, for many of the reasons you mentioned. Nonetheless, she perfectly understands why she should and why it's a bad idea to stay with Windows. Quoting:Lack of drivers... Well, that one is certainly changing. Drivers for Linux are added at an incredible pace, and I think slowly hardware vendors are starting to see the benefit of having Linux drivers in the mainline kernel. For example if the Linux-kernel changes, the ones making that changes can update the 3d party drivers in the mainline as well. For Windows, that's certainly not the case and they're on their own. Quoting:Consider: Do they have reasons to trust the promise of Linux advocates? They don't have to. I never came across somebody who regretted the amount of time they put in Linux or BSD; and neither will they. |
| gus3 Jun 08, 2009 7:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:Consider: Do they have reasons to trust the promise of Linux advocates?I already answered that above, but you don't seem to care. TC was right, you're a troll. |
| caitlyn Jun 08, 2009 7:52 PM EDT |
You know... astroturf isn't even popular at baseball stadiums nowadays. |
| gus3 Jun 08, 2009 8:01 PM EDT |
Is this the longest thread ever without Bob_Robertson and Libveris? |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 08, 2009 8:31 PM EDT |
I gagged them and tied them to a lamp post when this thread appeared ;-) |
| jdixon Jun 08, 2009 8:40 PM EDT |
> Is this the longest thread ever without Bob_Robertson and Libveris? It's a difficult task filling in for two such prolific contributors, but I've done my humble best. :) |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 09, 2009 9:32 AM EDT |
JD, thanks for the vote of confidence. It's just that I have nothing to add. I know, I know, that's a generally held opinion about ALL the subjects on which I post, but this time I agree. Oh! Wait! I do have something to add! Who'd'a' thunk it??? This thread I got involved with is yet another perfect example of the current Microsoft astroturf play-book: http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28047.0 |
| claus Jun 09, 2009 2:34 PM EDT |
@hkwint:Quoting:That's simple: Microsoft wants to control them and receive as much money from them as possible. [...] With Linux and other free software, the reasons why people develop it are more varied. Well, these are your top priorities. But look at the issue from a Power Users' point of view, not yours. The additional costs for a computer pre-installed with Windows is, what, $US60? Let's it be US$100 every three years. Still not much in a Western Country. Noone forces them to invest more money. There's a whole DVD with Open Source applications for Windows: http://www.opensource-dvd.de/ Cool stuff is often released first for Windows or Mac: Google Earth, Google Chrome, etc. Additionally, they can invest more if they want to: There's lots of additional software from ISVs. Microsoft, in fact, cared very much about ISVs. They actively sold their platform to ISVs (see the Plamondon File: Evangelism is WAR!, for example) and up until Vista, they also cared very much that OS updates don't break old third-party apps (see http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html). In contrast, Linux has one large "Not-Invented-Here" syndrome: They throw the ball to the ISVs: "Hey, they should port their stuff to Linux. And they should Open Source it, so we can package their stuff for all the various distributions. And of course they should give up their license income by doing so." Many ISVs, on the other hand, throw the ball back to the Linux community: "There's no sustainable business model for desktop software. Consumers buy no support contracts and often can't afford custom development. We don't want to rely on Linux distributions to sell and distribute our stuff. Besides, we make money when developing for Windows and Mac." And they are right: The ball's in our field. Some Linux users need ISVs, but they don't need the Linux users. It's the responsibility of the Linux community to fix the issues, first. But there's no agreement on anything. The Linux community acts like a bunch of cats. So, the various reasons of Linux and Open Source providers is very much the problem for Power Users. Sure, they want a secure and stable OS. But that's not all they want. They also want special applications and they often want to be among the first to try new software. I can't explain this in detail here, but check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_function for the theory. Short version: Stability, Security, and Vendor Independence may be low priorities for Power Users. Meanwhile, Microsoft tries to improve Windows: It became more stable with XP's usage of the NT kernel and more secure with 2000's MSI and Vista's UAC. Still worse than Linux but they have the first mover advantage. For many Power Users, the choice is still easy: It's mostly Windows and sometimes Mac. Only a small minority turns to Linux. Quoting:They don't have to. I never came across somebody who regretted the amount of time they put in Linux or BSD; and neither will they. That's besides the point. As I wrote above: Power Users remotely interested in Linux probably have tried it already. They probably ran into problems and decided its not worth their time (yet). They do not need to ask anyone else. They may even have had not just one negative experience, but two and more. We told them "Linux is ready" for years and, from their point of view, we failed to deliver. They must think, we're exaggerating. From their point of view, it's probably also reasonable to warn others about such "exaggerated" claims whenever the topic comes up. Yeah, they're probably exaggerating, too, when they try to make their case. Maybe, that's the simple explanation why they sound alike, not because of some astroturfing conspiracy. @gus3: Quoting:I already answered that above, but you don't seem to care. First, I presented two different hypotheses: "There's lack of trust in the Linux ecosystem", and "There's lack of trust in the promises of Linux advocates." You didn't address the latter hypothesis in any way. Second, of 3 reasons I mentioned for the former hypothesis, you addressed only 1! What about the other two? So much for your "answers". Concerning your response: "These products all came about because somebody wanted, or needed, them. Why on earth would that obvious trend suddenly cease?" Indeed, why? Lack of wants and needs, maybe? The more special a desktop application, the less developers want or need it. Wasn't that hard to figure out, wasn't it? What's next? Lack of other motivation, maybe? Such as "getting paid for it"? Then, you probably respond with something like: "Lots of Linux developers are paid!" To what I'd answer: "Yeah, for server stuff, not for desktop stuff. That's what we're talking about. Even if some are paid to make desktop applications, their number is tiny compared to the number of paid developers in the Windows ecosystem." If you'd like quotes, the rationale was already delivered before software even existed: Quoting:"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." -- Adam Smith I'm not a troll, I just can't answer every ignorant and dumb response I got. |
| jdixon Jun 09, 2009 4:01 PM EDT |
> I'm not a troll... That's debatable. |
| caitlyn Jun 09, 2009 4:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:I just can't answer every ignorant and dumb response I got. I went through this thread again and funny, I don't see any. There are plenty of Linux ISVs. I can type out a very, very long list. Just because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist. Oracle, the world's most successful relational database software, is developed on Linux. Quoting:That's besides the point. As I wrote above: Power Users remotely interested in Linux probably have tried it already. They probably ran into problems and decided its not worth their time (yet). B.S. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so. Just like the "Windows is stable" tripe. Nobody here believes you. |
| Borax_Man Jun 10, 2009 4:00 AM EDT |
I think claus has made some very pertinent points here. No, I'm not a troll, or astroturfer or MS shill. My mum decided last year to get a computer for the first time, for herself. And I found myself in a position where I didn't really care if she wasn't using Linux and using Windows. Perhaps I would have preferred XP over Vista but not wrestling her away from the MS 'beast' was not an issue. Back in 2001, 2002 I would have pushed strongly. Yes, I'm one of those long time Linux users (since 2000) who can't recommend it anymore. I don't really expect the Linux community to understand why. They dont want to know. I could give 100 reasons and back them up and each will be dismissed as if it was either A) A lie, B), not important anyway or C) a stupid expectation. It's a shame, because I really do think there is great potential in Linux. But I just want to draw attention to ONE thing. There is very little to virtually no documentation as to what a user should expect from the Linux platform, except superficial "comparison points". There are no user requirement manifestos. There are no guidelines written as to what guarantees the OS should provide the user. Lots is written on freeing source code. Lots on how to get grandma or Aunt Mavis to use it. Lots about the Cathedral, the Bazaar, about the merits of open source. Little about user requirements and expectations. Someone made the point earlier that the EULA with MS software gives no more warranty than Free Software. That might be true, from a LEGAL point of view, but not from a user point of view. For a user, an update breaking hardware compatibility is unacceptable. For a user, constantly changing the interface, changing sub-systems, etc is not acceptable. Debian seems to consider stability important, but thats just one distro, and it comes at a cost. The attitutude towards the user is "like what we do or get stuffed". And it shows. Clearly. Microsoft may be a reprehensible company, but they offer at least some unwritten guarantee that when you choose their OS, the software you bought or downloaded will work, even after upgrades, even after 10 years. Thats important to people. More important than not having to reboot once a week. (I use XP at work (have to) and it just doesn't crash all that often. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 10, 2009 4:44 AM EDT |
Quoting:For a user, an update breaking hardware compatibility is unacceptable. Vista broke compatibility with a *ton* of hardware. Every new release does. I know companies that still keep Win95 and '98 boxes around just for some specific piece of hardware. And it's not just new Windows releases. Even service packs tend to break hardware and applications. Just google around for Vista SP1 for example. Quoting:For a user, constantly changing the interface, changing sub-systems, etc is not acceptable. Most Linux distributions don't do that. Such things only occur between different versions. E.g, going from Ubuntu 8.10 to 9.04. Just stay on the same release. A friend of mine is still running Ubuntu 7.10 and is perfectly happy with it. No need to upgrade. Besides, if you upgrade from XP to Vista or from Vista to Windows 7 then you get changing interfaces and subsystems as well. And going from XP to Vista is a lot more painful then going from Ubuntu 8.10 to 9.04 for example. |
| krisum Jun 10, 2009 5:04 AM EDT |
@jdixon
Quoting: No. First, this is a publicly accessible forum, and claus has as much right to post here as any of us. Only Scott and company can decide he's out of line, and as long as he abides by the TOS, they're unlikely to do so. The context was: "Seriously, what has this got to do with the contents of the original article?" i.e. it will help him to come back to discussing the article. @Borax Man You seem to be making two points: Quoting: There is very little to virtually no documentation as to what a user should expect from the Linux platform, except superficial "comparison points".This point has some merit, but one that is also applicable to Windows. Documentation in general may be weak in some places in most linux distributions, and a user has to usually resort to forums and is expected to know about those. The second regarding warranty etc. makes no sense. Quoting: Someone made the point earlier that the EULA with MS software gives no more warranty than Free Software. That might be true, from a LEGAL point of view, but not from a user point of view. For a user, an update breaking hardware compatibility is unacceptable. For a user, constantly changing the interface, changing sub-systems, etc is not acceptable.Funny that you should mention this, when the biggest example that comes to mind is Windows Vista. It broke things left, right and center more than any upgrade to any major linux distribution ever did. Even XP SP2 broke more than any linux upgrade I remember. |
| tuxchick Jun 10, 2009 9:05 AM EDT |
Oh lordy, the trolls and turfers have more persistence than Amway droids. Sorry Hans, I do not welcome them. They do not present a different viewpoint; they are dishonest and clog up forums with their tainted nonsense. Though it is amusing that they persist even after their blatant "Yes but" and "Don't get me wrong" tactics have been outed. No wait it isn't, it's just a big waste of space. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 10, 2009 9:31 AM EDT |
Two elements I find particularly interesting:Quoting:For a user, constantly changing the interface, changing sub-systems, etc is not acceptable. Debian seems to consider stability important, but thats just one distro, and it comes at a cost. Just like the cost of continuing to run Win95, because it supports your hardware and has a familiar interface? The specific reason why BoraxMan comes across as a Microsoft shill is that every objection to Linux is EXACTLY the same objection to Windows, and each objection is actually far more applicable to Windows. Backward compatibility, familiar interface, breakage of "subsystems", all happen between "versions" of Windows and even just Windows service packs, far more than when upgrading Linux. The cost to keep Windows "stable"? Don't upgrade. Exactly the same "cost" as keeping Linux completely stable. It's the same issue with the same answer. Here's something you can't do with Windows: Mirror the ENTIRE Debian archive for {insert release name here} and point your company's systems to that, and then grab and compile from tarball any outside applications you really need that doesn't still work with that release. All maintained in one place. You cannot recompile the latest Internet Explorer or Media Player, or Photoshop, or MS Office, etc etc etc, to work on Win95. Period. So there goes every aspect of your "stability" argument. Quoting:Microsoft may be a reprehensible company, but they offer at least some unwritten guarantee that when you choose their OS, the software you bought or downloaded will work, even after upgrades, even after 10 years. Your ignorance is astounding. Obviously you were asleep while XP-SP2 caused nightmares of incompatibility. Obviously you were asleep as Microsoft has deliberately changed underlying code for the specific reason of breaking particular 3rd party programs in order to drive people to Microsoft's pet offerings. Lastly, the "answer" to problems for both Linux and Windows is, again, exactly the same: the vast user communities. When Microsoft breaks things, the users find fixes and help each other, until Microsoft breaks something else. With Linux, users post bug reports and help each other to cope until the problems are FIXED. |
| tuxchick Jun 10, 2009 9:47 AM EDT |
Quoting: The specific reason why BoraxMan comes across as a Microsoft shill is that every objection to Linux is EXACTLY the same objection to Windows, and each objection is actually far more applicable to Windows. Backward compatibility, familiar interface, breakage of "subsystems", all happen between "versions" of Windows and even just Windows service packs, far more than when upgrading Linux Related to that is the comically desperate scraping for flaws in Linux as "proof" that it's no good for anyone, an insane quest for the tiniest justification to point and say "See, I told you so, Linux is no good for anyone but elite geeks!" It ate my data! It killed my NIC! I had to reboot six times just to get it started! I had to decompile from sorcerers! It doesn't do Photoshop! Oh, and a new one just getting started: Firefox on Linux is terrible, the Windows Firefox is much better, which again means Linux Is Not Ready. Don't-get-me-wrong-yes-but. |
| tracyanne Jun 10, 2009 10:00 AM EDT |
You know it's funny, actually pathetic and sad, claus and Borax man keep talking about not wanting to recommend Linux to the likes of their Mum or power users, and yet the people I set up with Linux rarely call on my help, don't have hardware problems, don't have software problems, don't have stability problems, don't have usage problems, and YET THEY DID WHEN THEY WERE USING WINDOWS, that's why they are now using Linux. |
| claus Jun 10, 2009 10:04 AM EDT |
@caitlyn I'll answer your points in opposide direction: Quoting:Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so. The same holds true for what you say. Funny enought, in the thread Bob_Robertson linked to I can easily spot at least one of the disappointed power users I talked about. No, not the thread starter. Quoting:There are plenty of Linux ISVs. Did I ever claim that this is not true? No, I didn't. Quoting:I can type out a very, very long list. Compared to the list, you'd have to write for Windows, your list is still relatively short. Additonally, the discussion you quoted from is about the Linux Desktop. And you mention Oracle's database! Gosh, I can really imaging that: You're trying to convinced your grandma to use Linux as a desktop and the first objection she raises -- in her crancky high voice --, is: "But will I get my Oracle database?" Sure, that's completely realistic. I got asked about Oracle all the time when I mention Linux as a desktop. Sheesh, do you even comprehend what I'm talking about? Just because there's a few hundred Linux ISVs doesn't mean desktop users feel save to trust Linux as a desktop ecosystem. Most of these ISVs are unknown to them, since most of them do not even offer a desktop product. Quoting:I went through this thread again and funny, I don't see any. Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they're not there. Hm, does that sound familiar? So, let's look at your response: Two of your arguments hold for your own statements. Shows how pointless they are. Two were at least interesting, but one adressed something I never stated and the other failed to refute the point I made. In other words: Your answer falls in the category of ignorant and dumb responses, too. Which thereby confirms my statement that such responses exist. |
| jacog Jun 10, 2009 10:13 AM EDT |
Man, that latest Terminator movie was awful. |
| tracyanne Jun 10, 2009 10:17 AM EDT |
I'm a Windows Power user, I'm far from dissatisfied with Linux. I love Linux, because I don't need to be a power user to get stuff done. I would suggest that the Windows "power users" who try Linux and give up, do so because they are really looking for a free Windows clone, and discover to their surprise they aren't really all that good with computers, and Linux is quite different from what they are looking for. Mostly they are losers, who don't have the ability to change their mindset. They are actually the same people I had no respect for before I started using Linux, only now I can see I was right. It's nice to have ones oppinions confirmed from time to time. |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2009 10:17 AM EDT |
> No, I'm not a troll, or astroturfer or MS shill... Again, debatable. Let's see, shall we... > My mum decided last year to get a computer for the first time, for herself. And I found myself in a position where I didn't really care if she wasn't using Linux and using Windows. You don't care if your mom gets viruses on her machine or not. OK. Glad you're not my kid. > I'm one of those long time Linux users (since 2000) who can't recommend it anymore. First, newbie. Second, yep, fits the previously noted pattern perfectly. > There is very little to virtually no documentation as to what a user should expect from the Linux platform, except superficial "comparison points". The last PC we got here at work didn't have any Windows documentation, merely a hardware manual. > ...the EULA ... an update breaking hardware compatibility is unacceptable... And what, pray tell, does a EULA have to do with updates breaking hardware compatibility? > The attitutude towards the user is "like what we do or get stuffed". That sounds a lot more like Microsoft's attitude than most Linux distributions. For every example you can give of a Linux distributor acting that way, I can probably give two for Microsoft. > ...but they offer at least some unwritten guarantee that when you choose their OS, the software you bought or downloaded will work, even after upgrades, even after 10 years. An unwritten guarantee is worth the paper it's written on. And in this case it can be demonstrated that absolutely no such guarantee exists or ever existed. Microsoft breaks hardware and software compatibility all the time, and has always done so. Yep, "long time Linux user". Yep, "can't recommend it". Yep, bogus reasons. So, does any one know why do people who follow the script so exactly get upset when that fact is noted? There are valid reasons someone might not be able to use Linux (required Windows only software , unwilling to give up incompatible games, and incompatible ISP's; to name the primary ones I've encountered), but they never use any of them. |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2009 10:19 AM EDT |
> The context was: "Seriously, what has this got to do with the contents of the original article?" i.e. it will help him to come back to discussing the article. Oh, he was illustrating the point of the original article perfectly. :) |
| jdixon Jun 10, 2009 10:40 AM EDT |
> Sheesh, do you even comprehend what I'm talking about? Oh, we all comprehend what you're talking about. Probably better than you do. But since you keep insisting, let me state the fact as it actually exists: Linux isn't perfect. It has flaws and problems, as does every other OS. Some of those flaws/problems will prevent some people from using it. Now, allow me to add the details you're deliberately leaving out: Those flaws/problems can be worked around most of the time, they only affect a minority of computer users (no more, and probably less, than the equivalent problem do in Windows), and the information on how to work around those flaws/problems is readily available to anyone who is willing to take the time and effort to do so. No, Linux isn't for everyone, but the vast majority of existing computer users could switch to Linux far more easily than they can switch from XP to Vista, and with far fewer problems. Now, if a user if perfectly happy with their Windows machine, and it does everything they need, there is absolutely no reason they need to or even should switch to Linux. But there's also no reason they can't or shouldn't. It's entirely their choice. |
| tuxchick Jun 10, 2009 11:00 AM EDT |
Quoting: Man, that latest Terminator movie was awful. I'm waiting for the DVD. Christian Bale is such as stick of wood-- stare, emit manly incomprehensible whisper, bug eyes out some more. Terminators 1 and 2 are hard acts to follow, they are awesomely good. I treat myself to an Arnie day about once a year and veg out on my favorites: Terminators 1 and 2, Predator, and The Running Man. Ever notice how Ahnuld movies always have a tuff chick who gets to kick butt? |
| hkwint Jun 10, 2009 1:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:We told them "Linux is ready" for years and, from their point of view, we failed to deliver. In my opinion Borax_man makes a valid point that there's no explanation or requirement to what 'ready' entails. It might help if we stress 'there are some problems which you can work around' as jdixon says. Also, I agree with TA that it's a free Windows-clone the 'power users' want; when looking into Linux, not much of their assumed 'power' skills are usable; so probably they never were experienced computer users in the first place, just experienced Windows users. Yeah, some people here made good points. Especially that Terminator was awful; don't wast a DVD on that TC. It's a waste of time and space - even more than this thread. The other points claus made lately - well, they're lame in my opinion. They were better in the start of the thread. |
| krisum Jun 10, 2009 11:06 PM EDT |
Quoting: Oh, he was illustrating the point of the original article perfectly. :)Precisely why he better stop wasting his and others' time. As everyone will understand (if not already) that such people are incorrigible and will keep repeating the same things even if shown to be incorrect. |
| Borax_Man Jun 11, 2009 7:15 PM EDT |
@ Sander_MarechalQuoting: Vista broke compatibility with a *ton* of hardware. Every new release does. I know companies that still keep Win95 and '98 boxes around just for some specific piece of hardware. And it's not just new Windows releases. Even service packs tend to break hardware and applications. Just google around for Vista SP1 for example. One non mandatory upgrade in half a decade being problematic for some, is not equivalent to regular updates (ie, more than once a year) which can disrupt hardware functionality each time. Quoting: Most Linux distributions don't do that. Such things only occur between different versions. E.g, going from Ubuntu 8.10 to 9.04. Just stay on the same release. A friend of mine is still running Ubuntu 7.10 and is perfectly happy with it. No need to upgrade. There is if you rely on the repositories for software, which is what most Linux users recommend, and if you want to install software from people who are using bleeding edge libraries. Releases date quickly. You don’t HAVE to upgrade, but you miss out on running the latest software if you don't. I wanted to run the latest version of OpenSSH on Fedora 7. No go, my distro is too old, not supported! It’s only two years old! No more new software for you! Quoting: Besides, if you upgrade from XP to Vista or from Vista to Windows 7 then you get changing interfaces and subsystems as well. And going from XP to Vista is a lot more painful then going from Ubuntu 8.10 to 9.04 for example. Apps still work. When you upgrade Ubuntu, you are upgrading virtually EVERY application, aren't you? Because if you just updated the core OS, apps would break left, right and center. |
| Borax_Man Jun 11, 2009 7:16 PM EDT |
@ krisumQuoting: This point has some merit, but one that is also applicable to Windows. Documentation in general may be weak in some places in most linux distributions, and a user has to usually resort to forums and is expected to know about those. I didn't say Windows was perfect, and yes upgrades are problematic there too. However we are dealing with an upgrade every few years, and many people didn't even bother with Vista, or went back. That is to say, there are users running WinXP and Win2000 who are still able to install the latest software. Show me acknowledgement from the Linux development community that people who adopt Linux and make that platform their own, and having set up software, hardware, downloaded it, learned how to use it, bought books etc are guaranteed to keep their computing environment as they have it, even after updates? A company or individual should be able to switch to a product, and expect that their time and effort put into that product will be treated with respect. That the software they bought, they have a right to keep running. That the knowledge they have acquired, the expectations as to how the OS works and is operated remain the same or change only gradually in a managed and controlled fashion. There is no documentation or anything written by the Linux community to say something to the effect of "we endeavour to provide a platform which will support your user requirements". In all that Linus, RMS and the rest of the community have written, this hardly gets touched on, yet is fundamental to a platforms success. There is nothing to give independent developers and users a sense that there is a commitment to respecting the requirement for the stability and compatibility they have come to rely on. |
| Borax_Man Jun 11, 2009 7:17 PM EDT |
@ Bob_RobertsonQuoting: Just like the cost of continuing to run Win95, because it supports your hardware and has a familiar interface? Funny how I've seen XP and Vista look similar to Win95, have a GUI that operates in the same way. One easy change of the desktop appearance setting and you're back to the classic desktop. Quoting: The cost to keep Windows "stable"? Don't upgrade. Exactly the same "cost" as keeping Linux completely stable. It's the same issue with the same answer. The cost is not the same if the amount of time before a Windows version and Linux version become obsolete and wont run the latest software aren't the same. Now, Fedora 7 is only 2 years old, yet you can no longer get packages for it. Therefore not upgrading is not an option with Linux, as it is with Windows Here's something you can't do with Windows: Mirror the ENTIRE Debian archive for {insert release name here} and point your company's systems to that, and then grab and compile from tarball any outside applications you really need that doesn't still work with that release. All maintained in one place. Why would I do that at home? Quoting: You cannot recompile the latest Internet Explorer or Media Player, or Photoshop, or MS Office, etc etc etc, to work on Win95. Period. By using the lack of an ability for a 14 year OS to do something desktop users don’t need to do and wouldn't even if they could? My argument is hardly shattered. I'm not here to defend Windows, only to point out that users believe it offers a stable platform. I believe that opinion is justified, despite a few exceptions to the contrary. Try installing the latest version of K3B, Amarok, KDE, GNOME, Koffice, Anjuta etc on a Linux distro pre 2007. I bet it’s very much hit and miss and more miss than hit. The free software I know which is most likely to install, is, ironically, the software available for Windows too, Open Offfice, aMSN, Firefox, Thunderbird, Google Earth. Quoting: Your ignorance is astounding. Obviously you were asleep while XP-SP2 caused nightmares of incompatibility. Obviously you were asleep as Microsoft has deliberately changed underlying code for the specific reason of breaking particular 3rd party programs in order to drive people to Microsoft's pet offerings. Again, how often is there new Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSe, etc release? You have to go back in time how many years to find an example? Why are you assuming I’m here to ‘defend’ MS? I’m only trying to point out to you a strategy which has been successful for them, which Linux could adopt, but for some reason hasn’t. Quoting: Lastly, the "answer" to problems for both Linux and Windows is, again, exactly the same: the vast user communities. When Microsoft breaks things, the users find fixes and help each other, until Microsoft breaks something else. An OS can work PERFECTLY and still not be suitable as a platform. There are many aspects to the relationship between the platform and the user, which judge its usefulness. This is why Linux isn’t going as far as it deserves to. You are thinking too much in terms of bugs/fixes and technical aspects, and don’t realize that even things which work PERFECTLY can be completely unsuitable and rejected. I can build a hybrid car which never breaks down and gets 1,000Km to the gallon, and it still won’t sell if it doesn't provide what people want and need from a car. What Linux needs most, is not better hardware support or more bug fixes, but more of a directed effort in providing a solid base of a platform that people can build foundations on. That is, meeting user requirements, and a greater understanding of those requirements and expectations. I've tried to elucidate one here but it seems no one cares about what users want. After all, isn't that what the KDE developers said, "We don’t need users?” Technically, Linux IS ready for the desktop. It’s immaturity comes not from the lack of hardware support, or technical issues, but from the perception that developers and users have of the OS, and that the OS is a moving target, which provides no guarantees or firm basis for creating a computing environment. When Linux distributors agree to lay out some form of solid commitment to guarantee stability, forwards and backwards compatibility, and can prove that you can install it, and develop it, and that all the resources you put into it will be carried through over time, THEN, it will be mature. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 7:23 PM EDT |
By your defition, borax_man, Red Hat/Centos, Ubuntu LTS, SUSE Enterprise, and Debian are indeed mature. Even Slackware, which provides years and years of support and compatability, qualifies. |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2009 9:08 PM EDT |
> ...there are users running WinXP and Win2000 who are still able to install the latest software. XP, yes. Not Windows 2000. Only a small percentage of companies still support Windows 2000. > Show me acknowledgement from the Linux development community that people who adopt Linux and make that platform their own, and having set up software, hardware, downloaded it, learned how to use it, bought books etc are guaranteed to keep their computing environment as they have it, even after updates? Show me where there's any such guarantee with Windows. However, if you insist, let's start with the most commonly used application on any desktop computing platform, text editing: vi and emacs. > That the software they bought, they have a right to keep running. Except that with the Linux distro's you're discussing, they didn't "buy" any software. > That the knowledge they have acquired, the expectations as to how the OS works and is operated remain the same or change only gradually in a managed and controlled fashion. That's not true for Windows, and there's no reason it should be true for Linux. > There is no documentation or anything written by the Linux community to say something to the effect of "we endeavour to provide a platform which will support your user requirements". Again, there's no such documentation in Windows either. Because they don't and don't pretend to. > By using the lack of an ability for a 14 year OS to do something desktop users don’t need to do and wouldn't even if they could? It's the same argument you're using. > I'm not here to defend Windows, only to point out that users believe it offers a stable platform. I believe that opinion is justified, despite a few exceptions to the contrary. Your believing it doesn't make it true, though it may make you delusional. In my experience neither users nor developers expect that. They expect to have to upgrade apps every few years. They expect interfaces to change. They may not like it, but they expect it. > Try installing the latest version of K3B, Amarok, KDE, GNOME, Koffice, Anjuta etc on a Linux distro pre 2007... Yet you're arguing the exact opposite, that users should be able to use their old apps on current systems. As I've noted before, you folks seem to have trouble keeping your talking points straight. > Why are you assuming I’m here to ‘defend’ MS? We don't. We decide, based on your comments, that you're attacking Linux. > That is, meeting user requirements, and a greater understanding of those requirements and expectations. I've tried to elucidate one here but it seems no one cares about what users want. Except that the examples you've used aren't valid. Your point may be valid, but you appear to be incapable of supporting it. > When Linux distributors agree to lay out some form of solid commitment to guarantee stability, forwards and backwards compatibility, and can prove that you can install it, and develop it, and that all the resources you put into it will be carried through over time, THEN, it will be mature. It IS all those things: For open source applications. No, it's not all of those things for closed source applications; but neither is Windows. However, It never seems to occur to you that Linux wasn't designed for closed source applications. Since to you that seems to be the be all and end all of an operating system, of course it's not suitable. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 11, 2009 9:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:Funny how I've seen XP and Vista look similar to Win95, have a GUI that operates in the same way. One easy change of the desktop appearance setting and you're back to the classic desktop. Funny how Debian still packages OLWM, the desktop I learned in 1992 when I first used UNIX, SunOS 4 on a SPARC-2. One easy change to the window manager setting and you're back to the classic desktop. Or to any of a dozen other window managers. All installed at the same time, switch between them without even rebooting, or even have more than one running at the same time on different sessions. Anyone who wasn't a Microsoft shill would know that. Quoting:Why would I do that at home? You're the one complaining about losing software you're comfortable with, not me. If you don't feel like solving the problems you present, why are you presenting them? Unless, that is, you're just a Microsoft shill. Quoting:By using the lack of an ability for a 14 year OS to do something desktop users don’t need to do and wouldn't even if they could? You're the one whining and complaining about wanting to remain with a stable and familiar version of an OS. If you're not going to accept an answer to your problem, then why are you presenting it as a problem? Unless, that is, you're just a Microsoft shill. Quoting:I'm not here to defend Windows, only to point out that users believe it offers a stable platform. Yet your entire action is to defend Windows against every demonstration that Windows is ANYTHING BUT stable. An action which directly supports the idea that you're just a Microsoft shill. Quoting:Why are you assuming I’m here to ‘defend’ MS? Because that is what you are doing. Quoting:You are thinking too much in terms of bugs/fixes and technical aspects, and don’t realize that even things which work PERFECTLY can be completely unsuitable and rejected. So since your initial thrust of focusing on technical aspects has failed, you're trying to change the subject. Not a surprise, if you're a Microsoft shill. Quoting:but more of a directed effort in providing a solid base of a platform that people can build foundations on. Like providing the source code to the underlying system, so that programmers can produce applications that work with the system instead of working around the bugs? Like providing source code of every stable kernel all the way back to 1.0, so that people who built their code to use that kernel can still make bug and security fixes for it? Like providing open and well documented development processes and APIs, from the kernel through to every application and programming layer, allowing the production of code that can step in at any level suited to the application rather than having to do everything the way Microsoft wants? Quoting:That is, meeting user requirements, and a greater understanding of those requirements and expectations. Exactly. Something that Microsoft simply cannot provide, because their source code is closed. Deliberately closed. Quoting:After all, isn't that what the KDE developers said, "We don’t need users?” Then don't use KDE. Another option Microsoft simply does not provide. They don't make a "Windows" without a GUI. Another trap, another failure of Windows to provide what users and programmers need. Quoting:the OS is a moving target, which provides no guarantees or firm basis for creating a computing environment. More lies. Microsoft drops support for an "obsolete" version of Windows, and those that depend upon it are SOL. Period. Linux kernels back to 1.0 are still being maintained. If your product was designed to work best on a particular kernel version, or library version, or whatever, they're all there, in source code, to be included with the application at will. And if an application producer finds it useful, they can take all the source they need, at any version level or release, and give it away with their product. They can fix any problems they find over time, in effect maintaining the code themselves, and be dependent upon no outside software provider what so ever. No moving target at all. Quoting:When Linux distributors agree to lay out some form of solid commitment to guarantee stability, forwards and backwards compatibility, and can prove that you can install it, and develop it, and that all the resources you put into it will be carried through over time, THEN, it will be mature. Microsoft makes is painfully clear, in the EULA you are required to AGREE TO before you may use their product, that they provide NOTHING in that entire list of requirements you give for Linux to be considered mature. NOTHING. No Solid Commitment To Anything What So Ever. Only a Microsoft shill would not know that. |
| gus3 Jun 11, 2009 10:13 PM EDT |
Bob, if you're ever in town, I'll buy you a beer. Heck, however many beers you want. Even if I'll still disagree with you on other threads. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 10:16 PM EDT |
I already offered to meet Bob for coffee. He is local to me IIRC. Didn't take me up on it. Should I have offered beer? That was a great post, Bob. I also didn't know that the 1.x kernels were still being maintained. Learn something new every day. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 11, 2009 10:38 PM EDT |
Well, two kids (one still in diapers) keeps me close to home, sorry. > Should I have offered beer? Oh no, something about beer makes my nose itch. However, I heard about a company making mead up in the hills....did I save the link? http://foxhillmead.com/index.php > I also didn't know that the 1.x kernels were still being maintained. Ok, off to another Google search. They were being maintained all the way back to 1.0 when I last read about it, in the 2.4 days. Hmmm... Well, LinuxHQ has the sources all the way back, but I can't find a list of maintainers. The article I found with a maintainer list was 2002 on Linux.com, but it says "this has been archived". Still looking... Oh Well, Crap. I'll go back and change "actively maintained" to "available" since I cannot find the source. Thanks, folks, fact checking is an important part of life. Yes, I must say writing that did feel good, but it took a while and I had to put the girl to bed in the middle of it, and the wife is pi...annoyed that I'm still up, etc, so I'd better just go to bed now. Gus, Caitlyn, I'm going to ruin this by saying this is one of the benefits of voluntary interaction. We can revel in our agreements and ignore the disagreements when it really matters. :^) |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2009 11:01 PM EDT |
> ...a Microsoft shill ... a Microsoft shill ... a Microsoft shill ... a Microsoft shill ... a Microsoft shill ... a Microsoft shill Bob, such language. You're going to run afoul of LXer's profanity TOS if you keep that up. :) I think you made your point with the first three iterations. Not that I blame you. AFAIK, the 2.2 kernels are still being maintained, but I can't speak for farther back than that. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 11, 2009 11:12 PM EDT |
> I think you made your point with the first three iterations. I tend to write in a straight line. I didn't even realize it was repeated that many times. I'm not a programmer, nor writer. Never claimed to be. I have my 9th grade English grades to prove it. Thank Linus that my spelling checker doesn't keep a log. |
| gus3 Jun 11, 2009 11:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:and the wife is piOMG you're actually MARRIED to an irrational number? I have a new-found respect for you. |
| Borax_Man Jun 12, 2009 12:16 AM EDT |
Quoting: Funny how Debian still packages OLWM, the desktop I learned in 1992 when I first used UNIX, SunOS 4 on a SPARC-2.My distro doesn’t have that. Yeah, only a Microsoft shill wouldn’t know that OLWM was packaged with Debian. That makes sense. Quoting: You're the one complaining about losing software you're comfortable with, not me. If you don't feel like solving the problems you present, why are you presenting them?You give a solution to a problem that people who haven’t migrated to Linux have never had, a solution which is unwieldy and impractical and completely avoids the point. But then, only a shill would say that. Quoting: You're the one whining and complaining about wanting to remain with a stable and familiar version of an OS. If you're not going to accept an answer to your problem, then why are you presenting it as a problem?The answer was silly, that’s why. But only an MS shill would think mirroring an entire OS archive isn't a suitable response. Quoting: Yet your entire action is to defend Windows against every demonstration that Windows is ANYTHING BUT stable.Which technical issues did I bring up? Or are you not capable of differentiating between policy issues and technical issues? My comment in stability isn't that Windows doesn't hard lock, its that MS give the platform stability which allows people outside of Windows to independatly operate. Quoting: Because that is what you are doing.That’s your opinion. I personally find accusing a Linux user of being an MS shill for stating his beliefs as to how Linux could be taken more seriously as an OS amusing, but hey, I'm wierd like that. Quoting: So since your initial thrust of focusing on technical aspects has failed, you're trying to change the subject.Blah blah, you’re a shill, blah blah. Seriously man, that argument is so old. Come up with something new, its dated and BORING and childish. I made the comment that distrubutors and developers of Linux make no mention of anything which represents to some sense of plan or concerted effort at maintaining a computing environment. Pointing out source is available and other DIY kind of answers is NOT adequate. Maybe for you it is, maybe people who like to rebuild cars wont mind buying a car from a manufacturer that could abandon the model completely in 6 months time, but for everyone else its not. People want a bit more certainty. It’s been brought up and the response was essentially “we don’t care” and “go do it yourself”. Then you wonder why people don’t take the platform seriously. Thats fine, but the problem is then you have no right to complain about people continuing to use Windows. MS at least gives some facade of caring for the user, at least make themselves out to plan obsolescence, to plan and manage change and respect and foster compatibility. People need that as they become reliant on an OS. They need some kind of assurance, even if it is just reconginition that they can carry out certain practices using your OS environment and you will endeavor to allow those to continue. If I am contracted to write a specialised software system, I would want the platform I am writing for to be reliable and stable enough to ensure that my customer can continue to use my software. You haven't done that, can't provide documentation of any such sentiment. You act in a way which just shows that anyone wanting to migrate to Linux is going to move towards an OS where the developers just dont care about them, their needs and will just leave them flounder and work out their own solutions. That's not satisfactory for most people. You might disagree, but then don't whinge that companies stick with Microsoft, if you're not willing to at least give them the appearance you take the OS seriously and you take the development of the platform professionally. |
| Borax_Man Jun 12, 2009 12:29 AM EDT |
@hkwint
Quoting:In my opinion Borax_man makes a valid point that there's no explanation or requirement to what 'ready' entails. It might help if we stress 'there are some problems which you can work around' as jdixon says. Thank you. I don’t think the problems that I have I mind, are the ones that you or jdixon have in mind. I’m not considering technical problems, I think Linux has very few of those and while there is still scope for improvement in terms of hardware compatibility, I don’t believe a focus on technical aspects will fix the problem of users rejecting it. What I’m saying, is the focus on technical aspects IS the problem! ‘Ready’ means more than ‘works’. ‘Working’ does not necessarily mean ‘fit for use’. The focus has been too much on whether a user can get Linux up and running on their computer, that the whole argument of whether a user can adopt the platform has been confused with whether they can get it installed and working. These requirements are not one and the same. Compatibility, support, a sense of warranty or guarantee (not explicit, just a recognition of it), a clear recognition that this platform is a stable base and provides a common computing environment that allows easy distribution of software, that’s what matters. When someone hears from developers “we don’t need users”, well, I argue any sane human being would not migrate themselves to this computing environment. Would you move to a country where the government says “we don’t need citizens?” It tells me I could make the effort to move to Linux the developers believe there is NO OBLIGATION to guarantee me anything, or at least recognize the need to make a concerted effort. The mere mention of this has been treated not with evidence to the contrary, but hostility and name calling. Like it or not, when you develop an OS, you have to develop around user habits. They learn a specific way, and you have to accommodate that. They buy software, develop software and rely on it working and being usable to as many people as possible for as long as possible. They rely on being able to buy a computer, install an OS and using it to its full potential for quite some time. They may not be able to upgrade every 6 months so rely on that installation being useable for a decent period of time and being able to run new software and updated programs. They can even revolutionize the way they people use their computers without your input or steering, and YOU have to adapt to that and accommodate that. MS kind of caters for this; though how well they do it certainly is debatable. My point isn’t that they do this really well, it’s just they do it. It’s like the dog that played checkers. The debate as to whether the dog plays the game well or not is irrelevant, it’s the fact he plays at all. I say MS does it badly, and Linux could do so much better if it sent the message to non-developers that they can RELY on us with their investment in time, software and hardware, training and practices, to ensure that they can continue to use their investment as the platform is developed and evolves. That reliance can only come about if they see concrete evidence that it’s been considered, that the history of the OS demonstrates we act in this manner, that we plan accordingly and that we recognize the function of the OS as being to accommodate their needs above the wants to develop. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 12, 2009 3:22 AM EDT |
Quoting:One non mandatory upgrade in half a decade being problematic for some, is not equivalent to regular updates (ie, more than once a year) which can disrupt hardware functionality each time. Excuse me? You're saying Windows updates aren't mandatory while Linux updates are? It's the other way around. On several occasions Microsoft has installed Windows updates without notification or consent from the user. On Linux you always have the option of saying "no". And Linux updates normally do not cause hardware breakage (although I do remember one buggy patch to X.org on Ubuntu a few years ago). The binary blob video driver issue in the face in changing kernels has been solves at least a year ago. Quoting:You don’t HAVE to upgrade, but you miss out on running the latest software if you don't. No you don't. Many distros provide backports repositories specifically for this reason. Also, many application developers offer statically compiled packages that you can simply install and run on any Linux, regardless of kernel and library versions. Quoting:Apps still work. HAHAHAHAHA! Upgrading Windows from one version to the next means re-installing *everything*. So you apps don't keep working. And every new version of Windows breaks a ton of software. Ask anyone who upgraded from XP to Vista. This answer proves you're nothing more than a troll. Bob is wrong. You're no Microsoft shill. You're just a troll who gets a kick out of starting discussions like this. I bet you're also on some Windows forum somewhere copy/pasting our answers here as your own and riling up the Windows folk. I'm done with this thread. Get a life. |
| jacog Jun 12, 2009 4:27 AM EDT |
Well, arguing that Linux is not ready for people to adopt to a group people who have adopted Linux kinda moots the point. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 12, 2009 8:10 AM EDT |
> MS at least gives some facade of caring for the user, at least make themselves out to plan obsolescence, to plan and manage change and respect and foster compatibility. That's all lies. Microsoft does nothing of the sort. Microsoft MARKETING DEPARTMENT puts out statements to that effect, but the product itself makes a mockery of those marketing materials. I'm sorry that your distribution doesn't come with OLWM. I'm not aware of what packages Microsoft Linux has, so I can't comment on that. But if you did actually use Linux, you would know that the window manager is just another application, and can be changed at will or, surprise, kept because you like it. Unless, of course,.... |
| caitlyn Jun 12, 2009 8:24 AM EDT |
Quoting:Compatibility, support, a sense of warranty or guarantee (not explicit, just a recognition of it), a clear recognition that this platform is a stable base and provides a common computing environment that allows easy distribution of software, that’s what matters. Linux has all of the above, Windows does not. |
| jdixon Jun 12, 2009 9:57 AM EDT |
> My distro doesn’t have that... Your carefully unspecified distro, I note. > Yeah, only a Microsoft shill wouldn’t know that OLWM was packaged with Debian. A "long time Linux user" probably would. > You give a solution to a problem that people who haven’t migrated to Linux have never had... Tell that to Encarta and Money users. And you know, I don't believe my copy of Quicken 5, purchased by in the 90's is still supported. > ...but hey, I'm wierd like that. That's one way of saying it, yes. > Come up with something new, its dated and BORING and childish. You first. Or do you think this is the first time we've heard this BS? > .I made the comment that distrubutors and developers of Linux make no mention of anything which represents to some sense of plan or concerted effort at maintaining a computing environment. And, parsing your sentence in to explicable English first, we pointed out that no one else does either. > Maybe for you it is, maybe people who like to rebuild cars wont mind buying a car from a manufacturer that could abandon the model completely in 6 months time, but for everyone else its not. Like Chrysler and GM? That depends entirely on the cost, now doesn't it? Oh, have we pointed out yet that Linux is free? > Then you wonder why people don’t take the platform seriously. Yeah, right. > MS at least gives some facade of caring for the user, at least make themselves out to plan obsolescence, to plan and manage change and respect and foster compatibility. Facade, yes, exactly. One which had thoroughly worn through a long time ago. Most Linux distros also plan for obsolescence, but then that's one of the things you complained about above. Respecting and fostering compatibility? Tell that to DRDOS, Lotus, and the almost innumerable companies Microsoft has deliberately broken compatibility with over the years. Tell that to Netscape, if you can find them. > I don’t think the problems that I have I mind, are the ones that you or jdixon have in mind. The "problems" you been yammering about don't exist. > Compatibility, support, a sense of warranty or guarantee (not explicit, just a recognition of it), a clear recognition that this platform is a stable base and provides a common computing environment that allows easy distribution of software, that’s what matters. And we're noting that Linux provides far more of that than Microsoft ever has. > The mere mention of this has been treated not with evidence to the contrary, but hostility and name calling. More BS. Numerous examples have been given. > They learn a specific way, Everyone learns differently. > They buy software, Most users of Linux never need to buy software. But you keep ignoring that point, don't you? > They rely on being able to buy a computer, install an OS and using it to its full potential for quite some time. Most users buy the computer with the OS already installed and expect to have to upgrade every 3-5 years. And Windows "full potential" tends to last a year or so before your system becomes so slow you need to reinstall from scratch. > They may not be able to upgrade every 6 months. They don't have to. But, since it's free, they can easily do so. It's their choice. |
| tuxchick Jun 12, 2009 10:25 AM EDT |
heh, just think if all that energy poured into justifying, with increasing desperation and clutching at straws. "Linux sucks and nobody uses it" were directed into something useful. A classic case of "Straining at gnats and swallowing camels." |
| jacog Jun 12, 2009 11:19 AM EDT |
I thought camels spat, not swallowed... oh wait no, I am thinking of Llamas. Ok anyway kthanksbye... let's let this thread die now. This is worse than the Mono debates from a yonks ago. |
| tuxchick Jun 12, 2009 11:32 AM EDT |
"Straining at gnats and swallowing camels", for those who care, means making great big deals of out trivialities, and hand-waving large issues. Literally, it's straining to poop out a gnat but swallowing a camel with no problem. Which is a perfect summary of the FUD quality lately. |
| caitlyn Jun 12, 2009 12:55 PM EDT |
You know, in the other thread, where I referred to Claus and nicsmr as Microsoft shills, astroturfers and FUDmeisters and said I didn't mean borax_man. I've changed my mind. borax_man, you qualify in spades. No matter how much "bleach, borax, and brighteners" are used Windows remains dingy. |
| krisum Jun 14, 2009 4:28 AM EDT |
@borax_man
Quoting: I didn't say Windows was perfect, and yes upgrades are problematic there too. However we are dealing with an upgrade every few years, and many people didn't even bother with Vista, or went back.Oh yeah, you have no basis to claim that Windows is "perfect" when by most metrics Linux is far ahead of Windows. XP SP2 was a necessary upgrade and it broke more things than I can remember. Vista would have been a necessary upgrade more than an year back, had it not been for the netbooks and the widespread dissatisfaction with the overall quality of Vista that forced MS to extend the support for XP. Most updated software *does not* work for anything less than XP SP2. Then this: Quoting: That is to say, there are users running WinXP and Win2000 who are still able to install the latest software.is incorrect. MS does not support updates to most of its basic software for Win2K or XP < SP2 like IE7/8 or Windows Media player 11. Win2K is in extended support meaning only major security fixes (btw, on which MS has a shameful record to say the least). Same holds for most third-party software including anti-virus, etc which are considered basic for Windows, as also for MacOS where most updated software requires some version of OSX. Then again one should take note of the painful (and continuous) experience that updating all third party software is on Windows. First one needs to continuously keep track of all the third-party software that should be kept updated (or at least those which may have security or other serious vulnerabilities), then update them one by one and pray that everything works. In most cases following this drill leads to something or other breaking down completely. Most users don't bother with all of this (partly) leading to security and other nightmare that is WinOS. Leave aside updates, even a full distribution upgrade for a debian box, including third-party software, from *one version to another* can be done while still working on it (yeah, there may be some rare cases where there is third-party software that is not in repos so needs manual updating but those are few that one can easily keep track of). If there is a dire need of some updated software not in repos and one does not want to do a full distribution upgrade, then mostly backports or ubuntu ppas or openSuSE build service, for example does it. Otherwise one can choose a distribution that has a rolling update policy. So there is full flexibility and one can make an informed decision as per requirements (hint, think lock-in etc for the other OS). In any case, the point of not providing the latest and greatest in an old distribution is precisely that the software be well tested and work with *that* version of OS, unlike in Windows where things merrily break in a way that user has to reinstall the whole OS in many cases. So by all standards most linux distributions are far better engineered than Windows. In fact, the engineering of Windows is crude and primitive at best and shows no signs of improvement. Regarding this: Quoting: Show me acknowledgement from the Linux development community that people who adopt Linux and make that platform their own, and having set up software, hardware, downloaded it, learned how to use it, bought books etc are guaranteed to keep their computing environment as they have it, even after updates?the point is that there is no such legal guarantee in any OS platform whatsoever (MacOS->MacOSX, Windows 2000->XP->SP2->Vista etc), free or non-free. On the other hand an impartial analysis will show that from sysadmin point of view Linux and other UNIX flavours in general have been much more consistent than other platforms and most UNIX concepts of the 70s and 80s are still applicable. From API point of view there *is* some level of commitment that linux will stick to POSIX API which may undergo revisions in future but will provide backward compatibility to as much extent as possible. From both points of view there is absolutely no guarantee on either Windows or MacOS (latter may have some going forward having switched to BSDish API with OSX). Case in point that there is *absolutely no* standardization of the WinAPI (apart from consumer pressure on MS to keep the API consistent which was completely ignored in the Vista transition), not to mention the horrendous nightmare that is WinAPI. So apart from vague assertions your points do not hold any water. If your claims are limited to desktop appearance etc, then sure there has been continuous progress in linux which is actually its strength. It is true that the desktop experience has undergone a sea change in past years on linux which is in keeping with the continuous progress that the platform has been seeing. In other words unless your assertions that linux computing experience changes dramatically are demonstrated with concrete examples, it is nothing more than hot air. Again this: Quoting: There is no documentation or anything written by the Linux community to say something to the effect of "we endeavour to provide a platform which will support your user requirements".is incorrect. A cursory look at the FSF goals will show that they state explicitly that their efforts are aimed at providing a free UNIX like operating system and so meets the requirements of users who require the capabilities of a modern UNIX OS. In any case such a vague statement like "user requirements" has little or no meaning in absence of quantification of the same. Neither does MS or Mac provide any such meaningless guarantee, so your point is way off the mark. |
| Borax_Man Jun 14, 2009 10:45 PM EDT |
jdixonQuoting: XP, yes. Not Windows 2000. Only a small percentage of companies still support Windows 2000.There is no contractual guarantee, but there is a history of compatibility. There is no 'guarantee' that the next Volvo make will be a safe, practical car, but its a good bet because the company caters to that market. Ferarri don't need to make sports cars, but I can bet the next one will be, despite there being no written evidence to that effect. Quoting: However, if you insist, let's start with the most commonly used application on any desktop computing platform, text editing: vi and emacs.No one uses them where I work. Quoting: Except that with the Linux distro's you're discussing, they didn't "buy" any software.There is nevertheless expenditure when you migrate. Even if the software is free. If I move into a free house, I'm still making some kind of commitment. This is where I'll be living, this will be the neighbourhood I'm living in, this will be where my kids will grow up. The fact that the house cost me nothing, doesn't remove the importance of these other considerations. Likewise, the OS might be free, but there is nevertheless, for those migrating, an analysis of the environment. It's actual cost is for many people, a minor consideration. Quoting:I dont think that pointing out a shortcoming with Windows, and saying that Linux shouldn't have to address that shortcoming is satisfactory. There are plenty of things Windows does wrong. There are plenty of things that MS does wrong. That doesn't mean its OK for Linux to do the same. Quoting: Again, there's no such documentation in Windows either. Because they don't and don't pretend to.Every company manages it's systems and manages change. Quoting: Your believing it doesn't make it true, though it may make you delusional. In my experience neither users nor developers expect that. They expect to have to upgrade apps every few years. They expect interfaces to change. They may not like it, but they expect it. Depends on the app. A lot of software is written in house, for specific purposes. I've written such software. My company uses software in certain specialised areas where upgrades are no longer possible. Quoting: Yet you're arguing the exact opposite, that users should be able to use their old apps on current systems. As I've noted before, you folks seem to have trouble keeping your talking points straight. It is both desirable to be able to A) Upgrade apps without upgrading the OS, and B) upgrade the OS without having to upgrade the apps. Depending on the situation, you may need to do A or B. It's not contradictory and different situations meet different requirements. I was a co-admin of a very heterogenous IT system and ran into both scenario frequently. Quoting:We don't. We decide, based on your comments, that you're attacking Linux.A critique is not an attack. Quoting: Except that the examples you've used aren't valid. Your point may be valid, but you appear to be incapable of supporting it.It shouldn't really matter whether the apps are closed source or not. Linux might have been desgined according to open source philosophy, but the development model the OS was designed with shouldn't influence strongly the development model that the software written for the OS. My point is this. It doesn't matter how Linux is, if you are prepared to accept that an OS which follows certain models might only be adopted by certain people. What I don't understand is, why people are so keen to attack Windows users for their choice of OS, and call them incompetent, foolish, etc, yet at the same acknowledge that Linux is not designed for closed source apps? Well, if that person wants to run closed source apps, then Windows is the better choice? Is that what I'm to understand from what you've said? Then why berate a person for choosing an OS which suits their choice of apps more? |
| caitlyn Jun 14, 2009 10:57 PM EDT |
Linux isn't designed for closed source apps? Since when? You'd better let the people at Oracle know since they develop their closed source database software on Linux. Clearly they must be doing something wrong even if they are profitable and have the most popular database software in enterprise space. I remember when OpenOffice was only Star Office and was closed. Gee... that must have been a terrible mistake too. Need I go on? Tell me, what is it about Linux that makes closed source software development on the platform a problem? I don't acknowledge any such thing and I don't believe any such thing. "Nobody at my work uses them" (the text editors) means that nobody counts except people in your workplace, I guess. Anywhere I've worked UNIX/Linux admins generally used one or the other. Why are Windows users either incompetent or foolish? Hmmm... if they know about virii, worms, trojans, spyware, perennial insecurity, etc... and keep using the software anyway that seems pretty foolhardy to me. Any software migration should be subjected to a cost/benefit analysis before doing it. I submit that if many businesses seriously considered Linux and did such an analysis the benefits would exceed the costs very quickly for a lot of companies. Not all, to be sure, and not in all situations, but very frequently it would work out that way. |
| gus3 Jun 14, 2009 11:11 PM EDT |
Netscape was originally closed, and was available for Linux in 1997 when I first tried it. Word Perfect was available, also. The Open Sound System (yeah, right) was closed-source, and that included kernel modules. nVidia, anyone? Linux isn't designed for closed-source apps. Nor is it designed for open-source apps. It's designed for speed, stability, security, and the guarantee of freedom to do with it what you wish. |
| tuxchick Jun 14, 2009 11:16 PM EDT |
Here we go again with the "nobody is using Linux" premise which underlies so much of our current little trollingwave. We know otherwise, and so do they. It takes a special stubbornness, blindness, or paycheck to keep beating that drum. Good job not getting sucked in, Caitlyn. |
| caitlyn Jun 14, 2009 11:20 PM EDT |
But tuxchick, Boroax_Man can't be a troll or an astroturfer or a shill. I know this is so because he told me he isn't. I mean, just because everything he's written in this thread lately SCREAMS troll or astroturfer or shill doesn't mean it's so, does it? |
| Borax_Man Jun 15, 2009 12:19 AM EDT |
@krisumQuoting: Oh yeah, you have no basis to claim that Windows is "perfect" when by most metrics Linux is far ahead of Windows. XP SP2 was a necessary upgrade and it broke more things than I can remember. Vista would have been a necessary upgrade more than an year back, had it not been for the netbooks and the widespread dissatisfaction with the overall quality of Vista that forced MS to extend the support for XP. Most updated software *does not* work for anything less than XP SP2.Which is still a patch for an old OS. Quoting: is incorrect. MS does not support updates to most of its basic software for Win2K or XP < SP2 like IE7/8 or Windows Media player 11. Win2K is in extended support meaning only major security fixes (btw, on which MS has a shameful record to say the least). Same holds for most third-party software including anti-virus, etc which are considered basic for Windows, as also for MacOS where most updated software requires some version of OSX. Then again one should take note of the painful (and continuous) experience that updating all third party software is on Windows. First one needs to continuously keep track of all the third-party software that should be kept updated (or at least those which may have security or other serious vulnerabilities), then update them one by one and pray that everything works. In most cases following this drill leads to something or other breaking down completely. Most users don't bother with all of this (partly) leading to security and other nightmare that is WinOS.The Linux system of updating works only if you installed from a repository, and if your distro is pretty new, far newer than WinXP. I know, I know, MS shill, etc, blah blah, but thats the truth. Upgrading all sorts of independently isntalled apps a pain? You bet it is, and the Linux system is easier, but there are caveats to that. Quoting:Leave aside updates, even a full distribution upgrade for a debian box, including third-party software, from *one version to another* can be done while still working on it (yeah, there may be some rare cases where there is third-party software that is not in repos so needs manual updating but those are few that one can easily keep track of). If there is a dire need of some updated software not in repos and one does not want to do a full distribution upgrade, then mostly backports or ubuntu ppas or openSuSE build service, for example does it. Otherwise one can choose a distribution that has a rolling update policy. So there is full flexibility and one can make an informed decision as per requirements (hint, think lock-in etc for the other OS). In any case, the point of not providing the latest and greatest in an old distribution is precisely that the software be well tested and work with *that* version of OS, unlike in Windows where things merrily break in a way that user has to reinstall the whole OS in many cases.That might be true for Debian, but not other distros. Besides, not being able to work on the machine during an upgrade is hardly an issue. I dont use my computer 24/7, so downtime is perfectly fine. I agree with Linux installations lasting longer than Windows, and Windows starting to die after ad hoc upgrades. I actually have a Red Hat 7.3 box I still run, but managed to install (had to recompile) the latest OpenSSH package and upgrade SSL. My laptop, which is Fedora Core 3 (I use this distro because I 'know' RH based ones), well, I couldn't get this latest version running and was wondering why, only after a short period of time it wasn't possible. I tried to look on the Fedora site to see if there was any policy which might hint at how long, but they were just interested in the latest and greatest. What that was, wasn't specified. I looked at other distros, and only Debian really seemed to have any sort of attitude towards defining their OS in these terms. But really, you have no idea. Now, MS does not do this any better, but market forces keep them in check, as mentioned before with Vista. They HAVE to listen because their company relies on it. Free software does NOT rely on users. The KDE developers said themselves "We dont need users". That means, if development takes a turn people dont like, they can just ignore what people want. No cost to them. I'm not saying they WILL, but what tells me otherwise? Thats the point I'm trying to drive home. Not that MS does great, but that Linux, if it wanted a greater market shrare, needs to define the platform more concretely, needs to define future upgrade paths clearly. People who are migrating, especially businesses will love being able to have this information to plan ahead. The general user will like knowing whats in store for them later. People who develop the OS might like an open future where anything could happen, but users don't. People don't like MS for this reason. But Linux could so easily trump MS in this regard. Quoting: So by all standards most linux distributions are far better engineered than Windows. In fact, the engineering of Windows is crude and primitive at best and shows no signs of improvement.Technically yes, but again you are approaching from a technical point of view and considering construction to be the be all and end all. Quoting: What is the requirement of someone who uses a modern UNIX OS? If its just about requiring a UNIX OS, then people who don't need unix shouldn't bother with Linux? Then berating Windows users who dont need Unix for not switching to Linux is unjustified? Why is there such resistance to this topic? It's not me who is 'defending' anything, but rather others who are under the false impression that something they hold dear is under attack. To reiterate, my point is actually very simple A) MS, Apple already have locked in customers. They still have to succumb to their demands, and the customers know this. Windows users may not be happy with the arrangement, but they know the history of the product, and they can to a degree extrapolate. B) Linux has practically no locked in customers. People who move towards Linux are doing it of their own free will. This is why its easy for someone who doesn't like Linux to go back to Windows, because they are 'entrenched' on that side and won't 'entrench' themselves on the Linux side. C) In order to get most others to 'entrench' themselves in Linux, or at least consider Linux as the 'default' they always go back to, you need to offer a platform people will see as stable, with what seems to be, or is, a commitment to providing a satisfactory roadmap, development path, upgrade path, etc. Also it gives users a good period of time to consider the ramifications of an upgrade, and what it will involve. If you release every 6 months, it only gives the user 6 months to plan. D) Just because Microsoft doesn't do it well, doesn't mean Linux cant do it better. This stuff matters to people and people will respond positively to a platform which elucidates as clearly as possible, its goals, the specifics of its future, the planned 'lifespan' of releases etc. Just saying 'a free OS' or 'a Unix like OS' is vague. Most of the 'goals' described by distros are generic and vague. Saying 'stable', 'moderm', 'up to date', 'innovative' and other generally positive but ambiguous statement don't define anything and just sound like every other platform. |
| Borax_Man Jun 15, 2009 12:38 AM EDT |
@caitlynQuoting: Jun 15, 2009 2:57 AM GMT Linux isn't designed for closed source apps? Since when? You'd better let the people at Oracle know since they develop their closed source database software on Linux. Clearly they must be doing something wrong even if they are profitable and have the most popular database software in enterprise space. I remember when OpenOffice was only Star Office and was closed. Gee... that must have been a terrible mistake too. Need I go on? Tell me, what is it about Linux that makes closed source software development on the platform a problem? I don't acknowledge any such thing and I don't believe any such thing.OK, how many other desktop users use these tools? It's beside the point anyway, which wasn't how many people use Vi, but how clearer goals and development paths could help Linux adoption. But everytime I make that point people go on about something else. I'm not going to address the rest of your post, because like all the others, I'm being put into a position to "defend" something I had no intention of defending. However I do have to point out that it was jdixon who said Quoting:However, It never seems to occur to you that Linux wasn't designed for closed source applications. Since to you that seems to be the be all and end all of an operating system, of course it's not suitable., ont me. I simply said it shouldn't matter with a good OS how the apps which people want to develop are developed. If you can't see how users would be more willing to move to Linux if they were given clearer and greater indication that changes would be managed, that it would be done with their own requirements they have created themselves kept in mind, then there is nothing else I can say or do to change that. You can keep banging the old "but MS don't do it either" drum, but that doesn't help anyone. Linux isn't developed by MS. Shoddyness they can get away with, Linux CANT. MS can get away with poor support of the people who use thier OS, but Linux must to better. To say that MS don't do this or that, so we can get away without addressing it too is frankly, foolish. The different development models means that different approaches are necessary. But no one has discussed this or mentioned it. The FSF goals don't cover the point I'm making, which was the only example brought up. This has been very unproductive. Rather than a discussion as to user expectations and requirements, its been nothing but namecalling and debating the minutae of side issues. Whether its an indication that no one cares what users think, or just a siege mentality, I'm not sure. To suggest that Linux has a shortcoming in anyway is to be labelled an MS shill, but one cannot suggest ways in which Linux might be better adopted without implying there are reasons that it's being held back in the first place. A catch 22. You cant suggest how Linux can do better, because you'll be an MS shill, as saying "you can do better" is to imply that "you are not the best you can be". |
| tracyanne Jun 15, 2009 1:32 AM EDT |
Except Borax_Man isn't saying "Linux can do better" |
| krisum Jun 15, 2009 4:26 AM EDT |
Quoting: Which is still a patch for an old OS.So your point is? One could regard all ubuntu upgrades as patches to "old OS", for example. Fact is that unless people upgrade to SP2 (which broke a lot of software/drivers etc), they cannot get latest updated software. So your claim that: Quoting: That is to say, there are users running WinXP and Win2000 who are still able to install the latest software.is nothing but a lie. And this is the normal engineering practise of all OSs, a point that you repeatedly fail to grasp or pretend not to understand. Quoting: A) MS, Apple already have locked in customers. They still have to succumb to their demands, and the customers know this. Windows users may not be happy with the arrangement, but they know the history of the product, and they can to a degree extrapolate.So all these essays to prove that lock-in is good? I am afraid but you are way off the mark and not much remains to be said in this regard. All this theorizing to show how lock-in is good falls flat in face of hard facts w.r.t. XP->XP SP2->Vista or MacOS->OSX transitions. Better go back and address those points first before making up such ridiculous theories. |
| jdixon Jun 15, 2009 7:17 AM EDT |
> ..but there is a history of compatibility. No more so than with Linux. > No one uses them where I work. Unless no one uses Unix at all where you work, that's BS. And whether you use them or not has nothing to do with the argument you were using. In other words, you have nothing, as with all of your other arguments. > A critique is not an attack. Correct. Come back when you have one to offer. > It shouldn't really matter whether the apps are closed source or not. I think that sums up your position perfectly, though I doubt you realize it. In fact, it makes all the difference in the world. > Well, if that person wants to run closed source apps, then Windows is the better choice? If the person wants to run "only" closed source apps, then yes, Windows is the better choice. > Then why berate a person for choosing an OS which suits their choice of apps more? I haven't done so. You're the one arguing Linux isn't suitable. I'm not arguing that Windows isn't. I'm arguing that when evaluating both by the same standards, Linux is better. Not perfect, merely better. > Linux isn't designed for closed source apps? That was my point Caitlyn, not his, and I'm prepared to argue it if you want. No Linux was not designed for closed source apps. It was designed for opens source ones. Because it's an open design, it's easy to code closed source apps for it, but that's not the same thing as being designed for them. Gus3's take on is also a good one, though not the same as mine. > The KDE developers said themselves "We dont need users". That means, if development takes a turn people dont like, they can just ignore what people want. No cost to them. I'm not saying they WILL, but what tells me otherwise? Nothing. And nothing tells users they have to use it. But, just as with Linux being open source, that's beyond you, isn't it? > Not that MS does great, but that Linux, if it wanted a greater market shrare, needs to define the platform more concretely, needs to define future upgrade paths clearly. Finally, a point which makes sense and can actually be argued. Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps if "Linux" want a greater market share, it needs to do these things. Of course, that's exactly what RHEL is designed to be, but before you even start, I know, that's not a desktop distribution. There's only one problem. There is no "Linux". There's Red Hat, Canonical, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, and a host of others. There is no single agent to do this, and given the way Linux works, there can't be. At this point in time, Canonical comes closest to what you want with their LTS vesions. If that's not satisfactory, and you feel that strongly about it, then it's up to you to do it or to find people who agree with you to do it. That's how open source works. > People who move towards Linux are doing it of their own free will. This is why its easy for someone who doesn't like Linux to go back to Windows, Exactly. And that's the way we want it. We don't want to lock people into Linux. You may want to do so, but we don't. > ...Whether its an indication that no one cares what users think... Users care what users think. If you write code no one wants to use, no one uses it. Code which people use gets supported and evolves. Code which they don't withers away. But again, that's probably beyond you. You don't seem to be able to grasp that it's freedom which matters, not the details of the code. That's the advantage Linux has over Microsoft. We're not going to give it up merely to capture a few more users in the short term. That's not what Linux is about. |
| caitlyn Jun 15, 2009 8:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:Of course, that's exactly what RHEL is designed to be, but before you even start, I know, that's not a desktop distribution. People at Red Hat would argue that one. They do sell a workstation/desktop version of Red Hat and do have a large desktop design team. Quoting:B) Linux has practically no locked in customers. People who move towards Linux are doing it of their own free will. That is Linux greatest strength, not a weakness. The fact that you can't see that speaks volumes. Linux is about freedom of choice. Your points about Fedora/RH 7.3 are irrelevant. Those distros never claimed to offer long term support. If that's important to a user they can choose a distro that DOES offer long term support, and there are many of those: Red Hat Enterprise/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS, SUSE Linux Enterprise, Slackware, and Debian all do. Many other distros, even smaller ones, define the length of support up front. For Vector Linux, for example, it's two years from initial release. If that isn't long enough for you then you are better served by choosing a distro that offers five years or seven years. Some of the ones I mentioned do just that. Quoting:The Linux system of updating works only if you installed from a repository, and if your distro is pretty new, far newer than WinXP. I know, I know, MS shill, etc, blah blah, but thats the truth. Nope, it's a bald faced lie. Why is installing from a repository a disadvantage? That's what makes software installation and updating easier than it is in Windows. The "far newer than X"' part is the lie as a number of the distros I mentioned (i.e.: Red Hat/Fedora) don't EOL a distro that quickly. Sorry, wrong answer, clearly false, try again. It's your repeated false statements that get you labeled. That, and repeating the same things over and over again or else going off on interesting tangents that when you realize a point just won't take. Oh, that, and your decision to argue ad infinitum on a Linux website. |
| TxtEdMacs Jun 15, 2009 9:01 AM EDT |
Borax ... ? A chemical found mainly in desiccated environments*. Commercial use, a detergent additive supposedly to improve whitening of laundry. Toxicitity, significant http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC34... . YBT * At the very least, inconsistent naming, considering the vapors this person emits** given his/her purported origin. ** Could be due to a manufacturing process where the mixed in plasticizers necessary for efficient extrusion are emitted upon exposure. |
| jdixon Jun 15, 2009 10:05 AM EDT |
> People at Red Hat would argue that one. Yes, they would, and they do offer a desktop version. I know that, I'm merely anticipating Borax_Man's probable response and trying to defusing it. |
| Borax_Man Jun 16, 2009 12:23 AM EDT |
I'm pretty much done. There can be no end debating the merits of OS A vs OS B because there are always rules and exceptions one can bring up. It's pretty much like any philosophical debate, there is always an argument that can be brought up to support ANY position. It's clear there is no objectivity here. The fact that this is a Linux forum, doesn't give one a moral imperitive to lose objectivity. The fact remains that a functional OS which is FREE cant break a measly few percent of the desktop market, an OS which would suit far more than 1% of desktop users needs. One which people just explain away due to 'idiot users', 'idiot admins' or some kind of MS propaganda, ie, some external pressure. Well, just keep believing that and waiting for the messianic "Tear of the Linux Desktop" to come and save you, because its pretty clear no one wants to do the analysis and work necessiry to actually make it happen themselves. |
| krisum Jun 16, 2009 12:38 AM EDT |
Quoting: I'm pretty much done.Should have been done long time back since you have no valid points to make. Quoting: The fact remains that a functional OS which is FREE cant break a measly few percent of the desktop market, an OS which would suit far more than 1% of desktop users needs. One which people just explain away due to 'idiot users', 'idiot admins' or some kind of MS propaganda, ie, some external pressure.Has been explained many times. For example a recent discussion on this: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/29163 |
| caitlyn Jun 16, 2009 1:25 AM EDT |
Quoting:The fact remains that a functional OS which is FREE cant break a measly few percent of the desktop market, an OS which would suit far more than 1% of desktop users needs. Still quoting numbers that have been thoroughly debunked, I see. 1%? Here are some objective numbers for you: Linux market share on netbooks in 2008: 24% (source: IDC) Netbook share of desktop/notebook market in 2008: 20% (sources: IDC, ABI Research) Netbook sales alone accounted for a 4.8% market share and there were plenty of desktop, nettop, and laptop offerings from companies like Dell, HP, Asus, etc... Dell and HP have expanded their Linux offerings in these areas; something they would not do without customer demand. You say we have no objectivity yet you trot out the easily disproved 1% number again. Sorry, reality is more like nearly 10%. You're done, alright. Well done. Overdone, in fact. You won't be missed. |
| azerthoth Jun 16, 2009 6:48 AM EDT |
/me hands caitlyn a $BEVERAGE and offers a hearty well done. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!