Cost isn't the main issue
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Oct 20, 2009 4:35 PM EDT |
There is nothing wrong with what's in this article per se. What's wrong is what isn't in it. If the only difference between Windows, MacOS and Linux was cost then I would argue that the small savings isn't worth the effort of using different apps and learning the differences in an OS. He never mentions the security issues Windows users have to put up with that MacOS and Linux users are blissfully free of. This is a fluff piece that ignores the real issues that do make the choice of OS important. |
| theboomboomcars Oct 20, 2009 9:07 PM EDT |
Since you can't really cross shop computers with different OSes, cost doesn't matter at all, the OS comes with the computer. Most people do not purchase upgrades for their OS. Some times they will pay someone to fix their computer and don't pay attention to what the fix entails, but they will usually only do this once since the cost of the new OS plus upgrades to get it running cost more than a new computer would have. Non-Windows OSes have many selling points besides cost that it is ridiculous to write an article with cost as it's main point. This type of article is why so many people try Ubuntu and complain that it wasn't just a free Windows. |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 20, 2009 10:40 PM EDT |
Think of it this way Caitlyn; "How can I talk good about Linux without completely (and easily) picking Windows apart?" I pick on the one and most obvious thing that is on everybody's mind who reads the WT, how much does it cost. Most people assume that all OS's are as insecure and buggy as Windows, those things for which we who use FOSS know to not be the norm. Cost is more easily explained than characteristics. |
| caitlyn Oct 21, 2009 1:39 AM EDT |
Um... Scott... if you're touting the advantages of Linux over Windows then why not pick Windows apart? Windows security (or lack thereof) is the reason a lot of us run Linux. With the FBI Director now saying that Windows isn't safe, the Washington Post publishing an article to that effect, and Australian police saying the same thing it's pretty hard to blame our picking apart of Windows security on an anti-Microsoft bias. If you want to promote Linux (or FOSS in general) you need to tout the real advantages. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 21, 2009 4:53 AM EDT |
It depends on the WT audience I guess. Perhaps a technical comparison (and picking apart Windows security) is wasted on WT readers? It wouldn't surprise me. |
| hkwint Oct 21, 2009 12:38 PM EDT |
Quoting:He never mentions the security issues Windows users have to put up with I didn't read the article yet, but in my opinion security issues also translate to costs. At least for the readers of WT. |
| caitlyn Oct 21, 2009 2:08 PM EDT |
Scott, I don't think so. I think Washington Times readers can understand that law enforcement, including FBI Director Mueller, have warned against using Windows for online transactions and have suggested Linux as a safer alternative. You can make the case without being overly technical. |
| dinotrac Oct 22, 2009 7:02 AM EDT |
All that is well and good, but you can't pick Windows apart right now, except as a historical joke. After we get to know Windows 7, maybe, but it's presently in a "no criticism" zone. |
| jdixon Oct 22, 2009 10:17 AM EDT |
> After we get to know Windows 7, maybe, but it's presently in a "no criticism" zone. But not a "no exploits" mode. :) |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 22, 2009 12:59 PM EDT |
Last week the kid wanted to play her old Windows-only games again. So I put Vista back on a laptop for the duration of this little fad. (since the games use DirectX 8 and 9, and VirtualBox doesn't do DirectX) So I finally had to sit down and deal with Vista. CRAP! Who but Microsoft could make their product harder and harder to use over time and call that "innovation"? I finally was able to get an evaluation of Win7, that did install under VB, and while it's at least not worse than WinVista, that feeling may only exist because of the lack of vendor-supplied nagware that came with the Compaq Vista pre-installed. Using the two (three) systems side by side the differences in "usability" are obvious and painful. As much as I try to remove of the nagware Compaq "provided", I then run into nags that are built into Vista/7 and cannot be gotten rid of. And that's all without having to deal with any malware or viruses (yet). |
| jdixon Oct 22, 2009 1:23 PM EDT |
> ...and VirtualBox doesn't do DirectX... The OSE version doesn't, no. The free but closed personal use version does a limited subset of 3D acceleration, and DirectX9 will install with it. Not enough to support Pirates or the Sims 2, but enough for some games. And yes, Vista is terrible, and Windows 7 is far better in comparison, probably on par with Windows XP. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 22, 2009 2:01 PM EDT |
I'm using the "evaluation" VB, and yes DirectX installs, but doesn't work. I've tried. Really. |
| jdixon Oct 22, 2009 2:19 PM EDT |
> ...and yes DirectX installs, but doesn't work. I've tried. Really. Not for any advanced games, no. :( |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 22, 2009 2:38 PM EDT |
Heck, not for "Dora's Animal Adventure" either! Or "Pooh's Kindergarten", both of which still Win95 on their CD labels, and try to install DirectX-8 |
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!