Linux, is it worth trying?

[Colossus 2]

So I was seeing a reconstuction/documentry-movie where

Bill Gates stole the mouse system and some grapichal system from Apple.

He lied to IBM that he had a operating system and bougth a OS from a guy in Seattle for $50,000 afterwords

(Damn guy should have been in jail by now )

So I was thinking about other operating systems after that movie

and I had heard that Linux was a good operating system, but is it any good with games?

I mean, I have plenty of games but they are all for Windows.

Can you, for example, play OFP on a Linux OS (Lindows for example)?

I have a computer I don't use right now, is it worth trying Linux and why?

Hope someone can tell me something about Linux  

EDIT #1: I know there is topic of this already (pretty old ones), but I can't dig up something that is 4 months old.

[bn880 5]

You should try it, however, just use a different HDD to avoid all possibiliteis of losing partitions when you install/reinstall etc.

Linux is generally not good with most games, and it requires a lot more maitenance to get new things, especially games running in it.

my 1c

[Colossus 2]

I have read that Lindows is OS (should be linux OS, so said there webpage)

that uses some of the same file types as you have on Windows.

Have you ever tried OFP or other games on Linux?

[kegetys 2]

Lindows is just like any other Linux distribution, it just comes with Wine (and crossover office?) and some office programs preinstalled. And it costs money. Try something free like Mandrake instead if you want a desktop Linux system.

Some Windows games work with Wine or WineX, but Direct3D games especially work slower than in windows since Wine needs to convert the direc3D calls to OpenGL calls in real time. For gaming, Windows is unfortunately pretty much the only choice unless you want to only play older games or games that have native linux ports like Unreal Tournament, Quake, etc.

[denoir 0]

I have a computer I don't use right now, is it worth trying Linux and why?

No, not unless it is a self-serving purpose - i.e you want to familiarize yourself with a Unix system.

I've installed Linux at least a dozen of times through the years, but never ended up actually using it on a regular basis. Right now I have a VMWare (virtual machine) Linux under Windows - and I can't remember the last time that I actually used it.

Don't take me wrong, I applaud the Linux community's efforts of creating a free usable operating system. The problem is that it falls short on the "usable" part. It's not the problem of the OS - it's the problem of the available applications. Linux is always a secondary target platfrom for PC software development and much of the software developed are clones of various Windows programs. And while those clones can be quite good (like OpenOffice for instance), it almost without exception is inferior to the original.

It can also be a 'political' question. People that really hate Microsoft and what it stands for are generally willing to put up with the shortcomings of the Linux platform and manage to use it as their primary computing platform. Personally, I'm pragmatic - hence I always end up with Microsoft as you can count on that whatever they do, bad or good, is or will become standard.

[Colossus 2]

Well, that movie really changed my 'political' view on Microsoft,

they stole most of the things that makes Microsoft as they are today and that I don't like that.

It's a crapy and unstable OS,

it's a ¨put some buggy junk there and there and lets hope it works¨ OS

(Sorry about the flaming)

So thats mostly the reason to try something else then Windows. I hope game companies some day find out that there is other OS that is better to use then Windows  

EDIT: I must do a bit of a search on the Unix later to day, I'm too sleepee now (3.31 am - 03:31   )

[denoir 0]

It's a crapy and unstable OS,

it's a ¨put some buggy junk there and there and lets hope it works¨ OS

(Sorry about the flaming)

So thats mostly the reason to try something else then Windows. I hope game companies some day find out that there is other OS that is better to use then Windows  

Which one? I have my Windows Server 2003 running for over six months now - without a single crash (not counting a hardware failure of my power supply unit).

The Dos/Win95/98 series were crappy software, but from NT and on it is a solid architecture, far more modern than any Unix system. Linux has been trying to catch up on some fronts, but it's still basically Unix - a system designed in the late 60's. So from a technical point of view the NT/XP/Server are more modern and superior to Linux.

As for bugs, wait until you try Linux. Makes Windows look like a masterpiece of coding.

My biggest beef with Microsoft is in their user interface design - where they have a tendency to try to predict and control the workflow of the user. I'm talking about the "My Documents, My Music" etc crap.

[kegetys 2]

The Dos/Win95/98 series were crappy software, but from NT and on it is a solid architecture, far more modern than any Unix system. Linux has been trying to catch up on some fronts, but it's still basically Unix - a system designed in the late 60's. So from a technical point of view the NT/XP/Server are more modern and superior to Linux.

You shouldn't express an opinion like its a fact. ;)

I'd say the fact that unix is designed in the sixties only tells you how good the design is; Unix is much much more flexible than any version of Windows, Windows is all about doing everything as Microsoft allows you, and if you want to do something else, you're out of luck. Even with NT design microsoft seems to have been really shortsighted (as always) since they seem to have some serious problems in getting the x86-64 version of XP out. Whatevery they make they make for the present and dont seem to care what comes in the future, but then again they dont have to either, its the customers that have to pay for new products all the time.

If Unix is so bad, then why is microsoft so scared of Linux, and why are they implementing features to Longhorn that are imitated from Unix, like proper, flexible command line tools?

[Tovarish 0]

I have a computer I don't use right now, is it worth trying Linux and why?

Switch to Linux

[denoir 0]

Even with NT design microsoft seems to have been really shortsighted (as always) since they seem to have some serious problems in getting the x86-64 version of XP out.

It depends on which parts you are refering to. For instance the file system and memory management is excellent. Linux is very far from anything similar. Microsoft Networking on the other hand is complete crap - because they didn't anticipate the need when NT was designed.

Quote[/b] ]Whatevery they make they make for the present and dont seem to care what comes in the future, but then again they dont have to either, its the customers that have to pay for new products all the time.

I'd say on the contrary. When they saw that the DOS variety would not work, they did NT from scratch. And it was designed by David Cutler - the same guy who wrote VAX/VMS, the most long-lived OS ever built.

A few years back, they realized the problems of swtiching to 64 bit. Longhorn is .NET based, so besides writing the CLR, there is basically no additional work of porting. As for the XP/NT story - NT ran just fine on 64-bit Alpha processors. By the time of W2k Microsoft streamlined the core because NT was a bit too general and had performance issues. That streamlining continued with XP so by the time they got to the 64 bit editions, they had some additional stuff they had to do. In the future with .NET, it won't be a problem.

Quote[/b] ]If Unix is so bad, then why is microsoft so scared of Linux, and why are they implementing features to Longhorn that are imitated from Unix, like proper, flexible command line tools?

I'm not under the impression that Microsoft is scared of Linux - I don't even get the feeling that they care. They were a bit alarmed of the temporary successes of the Open Source movement, but that has nothing to do with Linux or Windows.

As for imitating Unix - it's Microsoft - what do you expect? They copy, borrow and steal stuff from everywhere. But to be fair the only thing that the Linux community has been doing for the past 10 years is stealing from Microsoft and making Linux more like Windows. One distinguishing feature with Linux is that they have not come up with anything innovative by themselves.

As for proper command line tools - well, you can do that with W2k/XP/WS2k3 as well. Just install a third party bash or cshell as your default command line engine. I think however it's pretty much lost on Windows. Different type of interaction. In an X-window system, the xterm is central. In windows the command line tool is not part of the regular usage flow.

[Mister Frag 0]

So I was seeing a reconstuction/documentry-movie where

Bill Gates stole the mouse system and some grapichal system from Apple.

He lied to IBM that he had a operating system and bougth a OS from a guy in Seattle for $50,000 afterwords

(Damn guy should have been in jail by now )

With all due respect, that is complete nonsense.

The mouse and graphical user interface were not stolen from Apple. The first mouse and graphical user interface were pioneered in 1974 at Xerox's PARC research center in Palo Alto, years before Apple even came into existence. The Mac predecessor, the Lisa, didn't come out until 1983 -- I had the opportunity of using one back then.

Bill Gates was a gifted programmer in his own right, and no doubt could have produced an operating system himself. But he is even more gifted as a businessman, and the fact that he decided to license and later buy Seattle DOS instead of reinventing the wheel on short notice demonstrates that. Of course, it is far more fashionable to attack him for that...

[toadlife 3]

Well, that movie really changed my 'political' view on Microsoft,

It sounds like the makers of that movie you watched had quite the agenda.

they stole most of the things that makes Microsoft as they are today and that I don't like that.

Actually they bought these things. They didn't steal DOS - they bought it. They didn't steal the Gui interface or mouse system from Apple. The concept of using a computer with a mouse and the GUI interface was around long before Apple or Microsoft existed. If anyone "stole" anything, it was Apple who "stole" the GUI interface from Xerox. I put quotes around stole because I really don't think anyone stole anything.

It's a crapy and unstable OS,

All OS's have the ability to be crappy and unstable. Different OS's just crash differently.

Quote[/b] ]I hope game companies some day find out that there is other OS that is better to use then Windows

Actually, America's Army has a Linux version. I run it in FreeBSD from time to time, but contrary to what some Linux fan boys will have you believe, the Linux version is no faster than the Windows version. Ironically, the Linux version of AA crashes my computer once in awhile, while I've never had AA crash while running it in Windows.

[Colossus 2]

OK I might be wrong on some of the thing here, but I still want to try something else and see if that OS is more stabel then Windows XP Pro.

I defrag and clean my computer ones in a week but that dosen't make much of a difference, as I can see it.

I have a computer I don't use right now, is it worth trying Linux and why?

Switch to Linux

Lol  

I'm not that geeke and I have a life outside my computer time    

they stole most of the things that makes Microsoft as they are today and that I don't like that.

Actually they bought these things. They didn't steal DOS - they bought it. They didn't steal the Gui interface or mouse system from Apple.

I didn't say they stole DOS, I know that they bougth that.

My research is terrible, as always, the film is a drama called 'Pirates Of Silicon Valley'.

I don't know if anybody has seen it but then again I messed up about facts, again

[kegetys 2]

Even with NT design microsoft seems to have been really shortsighted (as always) since they seem to have some serious problems in getting the x86-64 version of XP out.

It depends on which parts you are refering to. For instance the file system and memory management is excellent. Linux is very far from anything similar.

Look at this article, even microsoft guys agree that Linux and Windows kernels are at least equally advanced. They say that Windows has windowing stuff in the kernel, which sounds quite stupid to me... As for file systems, I'd say ReiserFS or XFS for example are at least as advanced as NTFS is.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Whatevery they make they make for the present and dont seem to care what comes in the future, but then again they dont have to either, its the customers that have to pay for new products all the time.

I'd say on the contrary. When they saw that the DOS variety would not work, they did NT from scratch. And it was designed by David Cutler - the same guy who wrote VAX/VMS, the most long-lived OS ever built.

A few years back, they realized the problems of swtiching to 64 bit. Longhorn is .NET based, so besides writing the CLR, there is basically no additional work of porting. As for the XP/NT story - NT ran just fine on 64-bit Alpha processors. By the time of W2k Microsoft streamlined the core because NT was a bit too general and had performance issues. That streamlining continued with XP so by the time they got to the 64 bit editions, they had some additional stuff they had to do. In the future with .NET, it won't be a problem.

Thats exactly the problem, they screwed with DOS design, they screwed with Win32, they screwed with NT design, and I bet they will need to dump Longhorn design too after some years. All this leads to either losing backwards compatibility or having to do things like WOW, ugly hacks to get old software working in the new design.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]If Unix is so bad, then why is microsoft so scared of Linux, and why are they implementing features to Longhorn that are imitated from Unix, like proper, flexible command line tools?

I'm not under the impression that Microsoft is scared of Linux - I don't even get the feeling that they care. They were a bit alarmed of the temporary successes of the Open Source movement, but that has nothing to do with Linux or Windows.

Then why do they have campaigns like this, why do they do questionaires to Linux users about what sucks in Windows, why are they (apparently) preparing a huge patent war againist free software by patenting the most ridiculous things, and why do they spend alot of money to fund "researches" that say Windows is better than Linux(like this, which is just funny)? Microsoft is kindof facing an opponent that itself once was, as Microsoft used to be the cheap "poor mans alternative" to expensive commercial Unix systems. Now Microsoft is the big boy and Linux is the cheap alternative, with a price that Microsoft cant fight. And they do seem to be scared.

Quote[/b] ]

As for imitating Unix - it's Microsoft - what do you expect? They copy, borrow and steal stuff from everywhere. But to be fair the only thing that the Linux community has been doing for the past 10 years is stealing from Microsoft and making Linux more like Windows. One distinguishing feature with Linux is that they have not come up with anything innovative by themselves.

It all depends what you use, if you use something like KDE it sure feels like Windows since its designed to be so. Windows people want a familiar OS to use, so they have the choice to do so by using programs that behave the same as the Windows versions... There's dozens of other alternatives too which are nothing like Windows.

Quote[/b] ]

In windows the command line tool is not part of the regular usage flow.

But if you'll ask someone who administers a big number of systems, they'll say that command line is the ultimate tool. Click-Click interfaces are good as long as you are sitting at the computer you are using, but doing remote administration is a pain without a proper command line. In Windows the command line is a joke, you cant do anything useful with terminal services.

[denoir 0]

Even with NT design microsoft seems to have been really shortsighted (as always) since they seem to have some serious problems in getting the x86-64 version of XP out.

It depends on which parts you are refering to. For instance the file system and memory management is excellent. Linux is very far from anything similar.

Look at this article, even microsoft guys agree that Linux and Windows kernels are at least equally advanced. They say that Windows has windowing stuff in the kernel, which sounds quite stupid to me... As for file systems, I'd say ReiserFS or XFS for example are at least as advanced as NTFS is.

No, they're saying that Linux is closing up on Windows - playing catch-up.

Which I think is quite funny. When Microsoft uses some idea from elsewhere, then it's stealing. When Linux imitates and directly steals Microsoft design, then it's ok. They're not doing any innovation or real design of their own - just cloning stuff designed by Microsoft. And that's why Linux will always lose.

Quote[/b] ]

All this leads to either losing backwards compatibility or having to do things like WOW, ugly hacks to get old software working in the new design.

Yepp, but then they come with a fundamental redesign. Like NT was for DOS, Longhorn was for NT so will another thing replace Longhorn.

Quote[/b] ]Then why do they have campaigns like this

Microsoft India. Gee, I wonder why in a country where 90% of the population are piss-poor they think that Linux might be a threat...

Quote[/b] ], why do they do questionaires to Linux users about what sucks in Windows, why are they (apparently) preparing a huge patent war againist free software by patenting the most ridiculous things, and why do they spend alot of money to fund "researches" that say Windows is better than Linux(like this, which is just funny)? Microsoft is kindof facing an opponent that itself once was, as Microsoft used to be the cheap "poor mans alternative" to expensive commercial Unix systems. Now Microsoft is the big boy and Linux is the cheap alternative, with a price that Microsoft cant fight. And they do seem to be scared.

It's extremely naive thinking. Microsoft is dirt cheap. There are very few companies who would replace the cheap software that they buy from Microsoft and get good support on with cheap, mostly work-in-progress software that they get for free and without any support.

You don't have to listen to me though - the numbers are talking. Number of linux users estimate per year (from linuxcounter):

As for number of PC's world wide.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

Y.     PCs  Linux   Percentage

1995 229    2       0.8%        

2000 530    7       1.32%

2001 603    8       1.32%

2004 670   14      2.10%

Average = 0.4% year

To become a threat (say 20% of the market) to Microsoft that has today some 90% of the market, at this rate, it would take about 50 years.

I would not hold my breath.

The best bet for Linux is that third-world countries get interested - but it's fairly likely that Microsoft will give away their products to such places. As a matter of fact they already do it to some extent - older versions of Windows are given away to schools in thrid world countries.

Quote[/b] ]But if you'll ask someone who administers a big number of systems, they'll say that command line is the ultimate tool. Click-Click interfaces are good as long as you are sitting at the computer you are using, but doing remote administration is a pain without a proper command line. In Windows the command line is a joke, you cant do anything useful with terminal services.

Actually on Windows Server 2003, Termial Services have become quite good. The administration tools are also fairly solid.

[kegetys 2]

Even with NT design microsoft seems to have been really shortsighted (as always) since they seem to have some serious problems in getting the x86-64 version of XP out.

It depends on which parts you are refering to. For instance the file system and memory management is excellent. Linux is very far from anything similar.

Look at this article, even microsoft guys agree that Linux and Windows kernels are at least equally advanced. They say that Windows has windowing stuff in the kernel, which sounds quite stupid to me... As for file systems, I'd say ReiserFS or XFS for example are at least as advanced as NTFS is.

No, they're saying that Linux is closing up on Windows - playing catch-up.

Did you read the article? It said the only thing Linux is "behind" is that it doesnt have the windowing operations in the kernel. And I dont think the kernel even is the place for those, its user level stuff.

Quote[/b] ]

Which I think is quite funny. When Microsoft uses some idea from elsewhere, then it's stealing. When Linux imitates and directly steals Microsoft design, then it's ok. They're not doing any innovation or real design of their own - just cloning stuff designed by Microsoft. And that's why Linux will always lose.

When Microsoft copies everything, and when the same things are implemented in Linux, how can that be copying from Windows? The things "copied" weren't "invented" by microsoft in the first place.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

All this leads to either losing backwards compatibility or having to do things like WOW, ugly hacks to get old software working in the new design.

Yepp, but then they come with a fundamental redesign. Like NT was for DOS, Longhorn was for NT so will another thing replace Longhorn.

Thats exactly what is the problem. Why didn't they design DOS, or NT, or Longhorn so that they dont NEED to do fundamental redesigns ever again?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Then why do they have campaigns like this

Microsoft India. Gee, I wonder why in a country where 90% of the population are piss-poor they think that Linux might be a threat...

Because Linux is cheaper. Though the India thing just happened to pop up in google, here is the same thing as non-india specific page.

Quote[/b] ]Microsoft is dirt cheap. There are very few companies who would replace the cheap software that they buy from Microsoft and get good support on with cheap, mostly work-in-progress software that they get for free and without any support.

Maybe Microsoft is cheap for some, but not every company is a multimillion company to which a ten thousand dollar investment every year to licencing costs makes no difference. I dont know where you got the "work-in-progress software" from, most distros, especially those targeted to business customers (redhat, xandros) are really solid packages and have business level support too. Of course those cost money, but they are much more cheaper than Windows.

Quote[/b] ]

You don't have to listen to me though - the numbers are talking. Number of linux users estimate per year (from linuxcounter):

That graph seems to be going the right way to me ;)

Quote[/b] ]

Actually on Windows Server 2003, Termial Services have become quite good. The administration tools are also fairly solid.

I have Windows 2003 Server here myself and the remote administration features are really primitive. I didnt even find a way to use SSH instead of telnet to use the command line, and the only useful thing I can do in it seems to be the ability to kill processes and copy files.

[denoir 0]

Even with NT design microsoft seems to have been really shortsighted (as always) since they seem to have some serious problems in getting the x86-64 version of XP out.

It depends on which parts you are refering to. For instance the file system and memory management is excellent. Linux is very far from anything similar.

Look at this article, even microsoft guys agree that Linux and Windows kernels are at least equally advanced. They say that Windows has windowing stuff in the kernel, which sounds quite stupid to me... As for file systems, I'd say ReiserFS or XFS for example are at least as advanced as NTFS is.

No, they're saying that Linux is closing up on Windows - playing catch-up.

Did you read the article? It said the only thing Linux is "behind" is that it doesnt have the windowing operations in the kernel.

Here's the article, show me where they say that the Linux kernel is "are at least equally advanced" as the NT based one:

Quote[/b] ]At Microsoft's Tech Ed conference in Amsterdam on Wednesday, a session was devoted to how, according to one Microsoft fan at least, the Linux kernel is beginning to resemble, well -- Windows.

The talk, given by Mark Russinovich, chief software architect for Winternals Software and co-author of Inside Windows 2000, 3rd edition (published by Microsoft press), was clearly delivered to a home crowd, and its message was clear: Linux is paying catch-up with Windows and the gap is narrowing.

It all means, said Russinovich, that the kernel is becoming less relevant. Both kernels are monolithic, he noted, meaning that all core operating system services run in a shared address space in kernel mode. And, he asserted, both have a common heritage.

"Both operating systems had their origins in the 1970s and their real birth in the 1990s and have been evolving quickly since then. The two operating systems are very similar from a kernel perspective, because as engineers work on problems they look around to see what’s working elsewhere. So you end up with a lot of similarities," said Russinovich.

Windows, said Russinovich, owes a great deal to a project led by David Cutler, one of the creators of Digital's VMS operating system, to port Windows to what was then Digital's 64-bit Alpha processor. While at Digital, Cutler, who now works on 64-bit Windows, also worked on a project to port VMS to the Intel IA-32 platform.

Meanwhile Linux, noted Russinovich, owes a great deal to the work of Andrew Tanenbaum, who created the Unix-like Minix operating system for educational purposes. Although Linux creator Linux Torvalds has never denied that he drew inspiration from Minix, both he and Tanenbaum refute claims that Torvalds used Minix code in Linux.

In a relatively technical session that took the audience of several thousand through everything from process management to I//O management, security management and virtual memory management, and went on to cover concepts such as pre-emptible and re-entrant kernels, Russinovich's slides highlighted the similarities between the two operating systems' kernels. Russinovich's presentation, which he claimed to have run by Torvalds, Cutler and Linux kernel developer Ingo Molnar, did not cut any slack for what Russinovich characterised as u-turns by Linux developers -- most notably Molnar.

For example, on making the kernel re-entrant (which refers to letting software be executed multiple times simultaneously), Russinovich cited an article he wrote which pointed out the lack of this feature in the Linux kernel. "Molnar said it was a 'clear red herring', said Russinovich, "A month later he turned around and made all paths (in the Linux kernel) r-eentrant."

"I also pointed out that a pre-emptible kernel is a lot more responsive to a high priority thread," said Russinovich, moving on to his next target. "The Linux kernel 2.6 was made fully pre-emptible."

As these -- and other -- differences have been removed, said Russinovich, the only major difference between the two operating systems is how windowing is handled. "Windows has kernel windowing. When it wants to perform a graphics operation, it does call into the kernel. In Linux, the application sends a message to the x-window process, which looks like any other process."

"With Linux, you have messages transmitted which can degrade performance," he said, but conceded that this does make it easier to do remote applications. "With X-windows you can run windows for applications on a remote client. That is much more difficult in Microsoft Windows," he said.

Security was also another area where there significant differences remain between the two operating systems. But ultimately, said Russinovich, the gap between the two operating systems will continue to narrow to a point where their underlying kernel becomes irrelevant. "Layered services will become more important," he concluded.

It says that "As these -- and other -- differences have been removed, said Russinovich, the only major difference between the two operating systems is how windowing is handled. " - a testiment on how Linux is copycating Microsoft.

Quote[/b] ]And I dont think the kernel even is the place for those, its user level stuff.

On a Unix-style system, yes. In Windows, most certainly no. Unlike for Linux, the GUI system is a part of the operating system core. It's a fundamental design difference.

Quote[/b] ]When Microsoft copies everything, and when the same things are implemented in Linux, how can that be copying from Windows? The things "copied" weren't "invented" by microsoft in the first place.

Except for that Microsoft doesn't copy everything. For instance the NT kernel, which Linux is copycating bit by bit. Microsoft dumps billions of dollars every year on R&D, which then the Free Software people promptly steal. And I don't have a problem with that - the problem is in the double morality of then accusing Microsoft of unethical behavior.

Quote[/b] ]Thats exactly what is the problem. Why didn't they design DOS, or NT, or Longhorn so that they dont NEED to do fundamental redesigns ever again?

Because they can't predict the future? When the NT core was designed, nobody could predict the internet boom etc Linux is however no way better in that respect. Compare the 1.xx kernel with the 2.xx kernel - it has barely anything in common. It is far a bigger re-design from Linux 1.0 to 2.0 than NT to XP.

Quote[/b] ]I dont know where you got the "work-in-progress software" from, most distros, especially those targeted to business customers (redhat, xandros) are really solid packages and have business level support too.

Tell me of one solid GNU application. Even their gcc/gpp compilers, which have been under development > 30 years are inferior to commercial alternatives - even Microsoft. There's plenty of good software (say GIMP), but their commercial counterparts are almost without exception better (say Photoshop). The problem is not in Linux itself - the kernel is developed in a fairly disciplined matter. It's with the GNU software - which are peoples' hobby projects and have that quality.

Quote[/b] ]That graph seems to be going the right way to me ;)

Yeah, except that it is increasing more or less in a linear fashion, while the number of PC users are growing exponentially.

Quote[/b] ]I have Windows 2003 Server here myself and the remote administration features are really primitive. I didnt even find a way to use SSH instead of telnet to use the command line, and the only useful thing I can do in it seems to be the ability to kill processes and copy files.

I use the remote desktop TS all the time. You can basically do whatever you can do locally. It has also extensive support for batch jobs etc As for SSH, you just need to install a third party ssh server and configure the TS to use it instead.

[toadlife 3]

but I still want to try something else and see if that OS is more stabel then Windows XP Pro.

There is no hurt in trying Linux, just don't get your hopes up. It sounds like you're looking for an OS that will replace XP. What you will find is that many of the apps you took for granted in XP are simply not available for Linux. Some apps have replacements, but in many cases they are incomplete, or just not as good as their Windows counterparts.

On the other hand if really get into it, using Linux can be a rewarding experience, as you will start to learn Unix, which is the basis for every major Operating system today (except Windows or course ).

[der bastler 0]

I've finally dumped Windows last autumn and switched the desktop machine to Gentoo Linux. Ok, can't play OFP. But Unreal Tournament 2004 plus its mods, Enemy Territory, FlightGear, Racer, Enigma --hopefully Doom3 soon...

My notebook is running Gentoo Linux since spring 2003 and I'm using it to write LaTeX docs, to work with MATLAB/SIMULINK (student version), to burn CDs, to watch DVDs, to play old LucasArts games with ScummVM...

This is my current desktop.

Linux is different, but worth a try.

The table of equivalents / replacements / analogs of Windows software in Linux

[kegetys 2]

Here's the article, show me where they say that the Linux kernel  is "are at least equally advanced" as the NT based one:

Well, you quoted it yourself: "As these -- and other -- differences have been removed, said Russinovich, the only major difference between the two operating systems is how windowing is handled. "

Quote[/b] ]

a testiment on how Linux is copycating Microsoft.

So what if it is? Though most of the features implemented come from the Unix world, Linux even was made as a Minix clone. Microsoft copycats Unix too, and even uses BSD code directly.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And I dont think the kernel even is the place for those, its user level stuff.

On a Unix-style system, yes. In Windows, most certainly no. Unlike for Linux, the GUI system is a part of the operating system core. It's a fundamental design difference.

Yes, Windows is built aroudn the GUI which is fine as long as you are using a GUI, but if you aren't, things get ugly. Does Windows even start up "headless", without a video card installed?

Quote[/b] ]

Except for that Microsoft doesn't copy everything.

And neither do the Linux developers.

Quote[/b] ]

the problem is in the double morality of then accusing Microsoft of unethical behavior

I believe the reason why people are more angered when Microsoft does copycatting is because Microsoft makes money directly with their copied ideas. Linux itself is free, and those who make money with Linux do it mostly indirectly with "side products" like technical support, manuals, etc and not with the copycatted ideas. Lately Microsoft also seems to have been interested in patenting everything, including things that have been used for a long long time already like this. I find that very dirty, since they know that nobody in the open source movement has the money to do a court case to challenge that patent, even though the roots of sudo that does the same thing as that patent go back to 1980.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Thats exactly what is the problem. Why didn't they design DOS, or NT, or Longhorn so that they dont NEED to do fundamental redesigns ever again?

Because they can't predict the future? When the NT core was designed, nobody could predict the internet boom etc Linux is however no way better  in that respect. Compare the 1.xx kernel with the 2.xx kernel - it has barely anything in common. It is far a bigger re-design from Linux 1.0 to 2.0 than NT to XP.

Look at Unix. Its designed in the sixties as you said, and the basic design is all still there and doing well. No need to do major overhauls for 40 years. Linux kernel 1.x to 2.x was a major overhaul, but as far as I know, the 2.x kernel was still binary compatible with 1.x binaries, and without ugly hacks like WOW.

Quote[/b] ]Tell me of one solid GNU application.

I'll mention Irssi since I have it running right now ;)

Quote[/b] ]It's with the GNU software - which are peoples' hobby projects and have that quality.

Many are, but that doesnt make even them useless. You'll find lots and lots of crappy software for Windows too, no one is forcing you to use them. Sure many smaller GNU projects have a cruddy user interface for example, but not all do, and projects like Gnome have very disciplined user interface rules that maybe even are better than what Microsoft has. Not to mention something like Openoffice which I even use on my windows system since it does everything MS office does, but its free.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]That graph seems to be going the right way to me ;)

Yeah, except that it is increasing more or less in a linear fashion, while the number of PC users are growing exponentially.

That doesn't change the graph's direction. Its going up and up is good. :P

I dont see a "linux monopoly" a likely or even a good goal. I'd like to see Linux gain enough users to make a difference, and bring Microsoft to a turning point where they have to either start playing nice with other OS's and standards, or start losing all they have. I can pick pretty much any two OS's out there and they'll come along with common standards, except Windows, which doesnt support anything that isn't made by Microsoft and everything made by Microsoft is not documented in any way. That makes it very difficult for Windows & other OS's to coexist, which is not good since Microsoft can now shove almost anything they want to their customers and the customers just have to deal with it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I have Windows 2003 Server here myself and the remote administration features are really primitive. I didnt even find a way to use SSH instead of telnet to use the command line, and the only useful thing I can do in it seems to be the ability to kill processes and copy files.

I use the remote desktop TS all the time. You can basically do whatever you can do locally. It has also extensive support for batch jobs etc As for SSH, you just need to install a third party ssh server and configure the TS to use it instead.

Does that third party server cost money? I find a remote desktop a very inconvenient way to do remote administration, it's fine for LAN but if you'll try to use it with a slower connection, it wont work too well. You can remote use an Unix system with a mobile phone using a GSM data link and you can do everything with it that you can while sitting next to it.

[denoir 0]

I believe the reason why people are more angered when Microsoft does copycatting is because Microsoft makes money directly with their copied ideas. Linux itself is free, and those who make money with Linux do it mostly indirectly with "side products" like technical support, manuals, etc and not with the copycatted ideas. Lately Microsoft also seems to have been interested in patenting everything, including things that have been used for a long long time already like this. I find that very dirty, since they know that nobody in the open source movement has the money to do a court case to challenge that patent, even though the roots of sudo that does the same thing as that patent go back to 1980.

Yes, most linux fanatics seem to have a problem with the concept of "capitalism".

Quote[/b] ]Look at Unix. Its designed in the sixties as you said, and the basic design is all still there and doing well. No need to do major overhauls for 40 years. Linux kernel 1.x to 2.x was a major overhaul, but as far as I know, the 2.x kernel was still binary compatible with 1.x binaries, and without ugly hacks like WOW.

There have been major overhauls, ranging from the most elementary multitasking and IPC to memory management and filesystems - all imitating Microsoft's constructions. And 1.x software is far less compatible with 2.x software than DOS 1.0 software is compatible with the latest Longhorn pre-alpha build. And that's because Microsoft actually cares about real world systems and the money that people have invested in existing codebases.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Tell me of one solid GNU application.

I'll mention Irssi since I have it running right now ;)

An IRC client? Hardly a serious application, but never mind:

http://www.irssi.org/

Check the builds and the bug fixes, etc. Not to mention the fact that you can run it under Windows.

Quote[/b] ]Not to mention something like Openoffice which I even use on my windows system since it does everything MS office does, but its free.

I wouldn't think so. Try this in OpenOffice - create a table populated automatically by a two-way SQL link while using internal multi-user version control that can display the changes over time and restore the database.

Or why not a very trivial example. In Windows you can (of course) drag-drop an image you are editing in photoshop directly into word. Try doing that with OpenOffice and GIMP.

Or the other way around. Try drag dropping a segment of text to from OpenOffice to your beloved irssi. It didn't work? Oh, dear, what a surprise.. not.

Quote[/b] ]I dont see a "linux monopoly" a likely or even a good goal. I'd like to see Linux gain enough users to make a difference, and bring Microsoft to a turning point where they have to either start playing nice with other OS's and standards, or start losing all they have.

Microsoft is pretty much going very strong for open standards these days. .NET has XML as a core technology, and you can't get more open than that. They've even released the source code for the .NET CLR.

Quote[/b] ]can pick pretty much any two OS's out there and they'll come along with common standards, except Windows, which doesnt support anything that isn't made by Microsoft and everything made by Microsoft is not documented in any way.

There are not really any common standards in the Unix world - and that's their fundamental problem. While Sun, HP and SGI were bitchslapping each other over trivial differences, Microsoft leaped ahead. And it's the same story all over again. You have KDE doing their stuff and GNOME pushing their agenda with at least another dozen of factions re-inventing the wheel and fighting over which standard to use. Now while that extensive number of choices might be appealing to individuals and hobby computerists, it's scaring away any major business. And that's why even the most trivial things like drag-and-drop won't work, unless you use software from just one faction.

With Microsoft, you have one standard. Bad or good, you know that everybody will follow it and you get a much desired predictability in software tools.

The point with computers and software are not that they're supposed to be cool, innovative or fun to work with. The point is that they should work in a reliable and predictable fashion.

Quote[/b] ]That makes it very difficult for Windows & other OS's to coexist, which is not good since Microsoft can now shove almost anything they want to their customers and the customers just have to deal with it.

Do you know who Microsoft's biggest competitor is? Microsoft. Yepp, their primary problem is to convince people to upgrade - and that can only be done by improving their products - which they do.

Don't take me wrong, there is plenty of wrong with Microsoft products. Personally I hope that the team that designed Word will die in a horrible industrial accident and if I ever meet the person who designed the Solution/Project management routines in Visual Studio, I'll make sure to hurt them.

Bottom line is still, for all their flaws these products are superior to their free counterparts because 1) they are standard 2) they are superior in usability 3) they are contemporary. Word for instance is a horrible horrible product that I think we should protect children from - but still it is overall more usable than anything out there.  

Quote[/b] ]Does that third party server cost money? I find a remote desktop a very inconvenient way to do remote administration, it's fine for LAN but if you'll try to use it with a slower connection, it wont work too well. You can remote use an Unix system with a mobile phone using a GSM data link and you can do everything with it that you can while sitting next to it.

I used the F-Secure SSH server, but IIRC there are free alternatives. In any case it is actually an overkill with WS2k3 - the regular telnet TS connection has 128 bit encryption by default.

As for bandwith, I'm using the remote desktop either through WLAN or a 3G mobile data link. Never had any problems.

[kegetys 2]

I believe the reason why people are more angered when Microsoft does copycatting is because Microsoft makes money directly with their copied ideas. Linux itself is free, and those who make money with Linux do it mostly indirectly with "side products" like technical support, manuals, etc and not with the copycatted ideas. Lately Microsoft also seems to have been interested in patenting everything, including things that have been used for a long long time already like this. I find that very dirty, since they know that nobody in the open source movement has the money to do a court case to challenge that patent, even though the roots of sudo that does the same thing as that patent go back to 1980.

Yes, most linux fanatics seem to have a problem with the concept of "capitalism".

So you are calling me a fanatic? Nice argument.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Look at Unix. Its designed in the sixties as you said, and the basic design is all still there and doing well. No need to do major overhauls for 40 years. Linux kernel 1.x to 2.x was a major overhaul, but as far as I know, the 2.x kernel was still binary compatible with 1.x binaries, and without ugly hacks like WOW.

There have been major overhauls, ranging from the most elementary multitasking and IPC to memory management and filesystems - all imitating Microsoft's constructions. And 1.x software is far less compatible with 2.x software than DOS 1.0 software is compatible with the latest Longhorn pre-alpha build. And that's because Microsoft actually cares about real world systems and the money that people have invested in existing codebases.

I can name a whole bunch of DOS software that doesnt work in NT, and the 16bit DOS environment is emulated in NT (using WOW), NT itself is not backwards compatible with DOS. You dont need emulators to run Linux 1.x binaries with 2.x (afaik.).

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Tell me of one solid GNU application.

I'll mention Irssi since I have it running right now ;)

An IRC client? Hardly a serious application, but never mind:

http://www.irssi.org/

Check the builds and the bug fixes, etc. Not to mention the fact that you can run it under Windows.

So what's a "serious application" then? I run irssi 24 hours a day and never had problems with it, and the user interface couldn't be better. What software doesn't have builds or bug fixes? Windows? And of course you can run Irssi, just like any other GNU application, under Windows. Its open source.

Quote[/b] ]Try this in OpenOffice - create a table populated automatically by a two-way SQL link while using internal multi-user version control that can display the changes over time and restore the database.

Can't try that, not that it would ever bother me anyway.

Quote[/b] ]

Or why not a very trivial example. In Windows you can (of course) drag-drop an image you are editing in photoshop directly into word. Try doing that with OpenOffice and GIMP.

Or the other way around. Try drag dropping a segment of text to from OpenOffice to your beloved irssi. It didn't work? Oh, dear, what a surprise.. not.

I did a drag and drop from Photoshop to Openoffice and it worked fine, though I'll rather use copy-paste. Copy-pasting text to my terminal window worked fine too, drag and drop would propably work if I used some other terminal program (using SecureCRT 3.3.2 now), though its better that it doesnt work since I hate the concept of "drag and drop everything", I have dozens of times accidentally drag'n'dropped toolbars, text, or other GUI elements in Windows and its annoying having to drag'n'drop everything back as they were. That's one user interface thing that I think is screwed in the Windows world.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I dont see a "linux monopoly" a likely or even a good goal. I'd like to see Linux gain enough users to make a difference, and bring Microsoft to a turning point where they have to either start playing nice with other OS's and standards, or start losing all they have.

Microsoft is pretty much going very strong for open standards these days. .NET has XML as a core technology, and you can't get more open than that. They've even released the source code for the .NET CLR.

I think we had discussion about this already, and the last posts in that thread were about Microsoft's XML patents. So much about "open" standards. Yes they do even show Windows source code to some people, but you can't do anything with it. How useful. :P

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]can pick pretty much any two OS's out there and they'll come along with common standards, except Windows, which doesnt support anything that isn't made by Microsoft and everything made by Microsoft is not documented in any way.

There are not really any common standards in the Unix world

How's these? :P Well, they aren't really so strong standards, but most if not all unices understand standard protocols like NFS, SSH, ftp, etc. of which Microsoft adds support only to those they absolutely must, like a http server or ftp server. How hard is it for them to add NFS client and server support to Windows for example? Not hard, but they dont do that since it would make it easier to use both Windows and an Unix system like Linux together.

Quote[/b] ]You have KDE doing their stuff and GNOME pushing their agenda with at least another dozen of factions re-inventing the wheel and fighting over which standard to use. Now while that extensive number of choices might be appealing to individuals and hobby computerists, it's scaring away any major business. And that's why even the most trivial things like drag-and-drop won't work, unless you use software from just one faction.

With Microsoft, you have one standard. Bad or good, you know that everybody will follow it and you get a much desired predictability in software tools.

It all comes down to either having no choice at all or having alot of choices of which to pick what you like. Make your choice :P Or with Linux, you can let someone else do the choice for you by installing a distro that installs whatever they think is the best for you, and you use that.

Quote[/b] ]

The point with computers and software are not that they're supposed to be cool, innovative or fun to work with. The point is that they should work in a reliable and predictable fashion.

And is Microsoft's way the only reliable and predictable way?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]That makes it very difficult for Windows & other OS's to coexist, which is not good since Microsoft can now shove almost anything they want to their customers and the customers just have to deal with it.

Do you know who Microsoft's biggest competitor is? Microsoft. Yepp, their primary problem is to convince people to upgrade - and that can only be done by improving their products - which they do.

Imo. they arent doing a very good job, the problem is that every product they make seems to become more and more resource hungry. So you cant just upgrade Windows, you need to upgrade your whole computer at the same time. Not everyone can afford that, and you'll end up with people who still use Windows 95. Not to mention that their security has been really slacking, they even encourage everyone to use their system with administrator priviliges at all times. Or something like Outlook, I still get virus emails all the times from Outlook users who are infected by an Outlook virus. Sure their security has become much better, but they only reacted after windows, IE and Outlook got hit big time, multiple times. They should have designed everything more secure from the ground up and we all would have been saved from alot of trouble.

Quote[/b] ]

Bottom line is still, for all their flaws these products are superior to their free counterparts because 1) they are standard 2) they are superior in usability 3) they are contemporary. Word for instance is a horrible horrible product that I think we should protect children from - but still it is overall more usable than anything out there.  

I find modern Linux desktops very usable also. They are standard (There are many standards but you can just choose one to follow), they have great usability, and they are contemporary I suppose (whatever you mean with that :P). I'd much rather use Linux on this system too, but as I still do gaming I'm forced to use Windows. And its annoying. Luckily most of the stability problems seem to be gone now so I can at least use Windows without pulling my hair out every day.

Quote[/b] ]the regular telnet TS connection has 128 bit encryption by default.

How is that possible? I dont think any telnet client will have any idea of encryption, unless its another Microsoft's own telnet "standard" (why couldn't they just support an SSH connection natively?)

[Colossus 2]

So how much difference is it between the Linux versions?

I heard RedHat is a popular one, how is that?

[denoir 0]

I believe the reason why people are more angered when Microsoft does copycatting is because Microsoft makes money directly with their copied ideas. Linux itself is free, and those who make money with Linux do it mostly indirectly with "side products" like technical support, manuals, etc and not with the copycatted ideas. Lately Microsoft also seems to have been interested in patenting everything, including things that have been used for a long long time already like this. I find that very dirty, since they know that nobody in the open source movement has the money to do a court case to challenge that patent, even though the roots of sudo that does the same thing as that patent go back to 1980.

Yes, most linux fanatics seem to have a problem with the concept of "capitalism".

So you are calling me a fanatic? Nice argument.

No, but the "people" you refered to in your text. I don't know if you belong to that category.

Quote[/b] ]

So what's a "serious application" then?

Something more heavyweight. I can talk all day about the reliability of "Notepad", but I don't think it will make for a good general argument.

Quote[/b] ]I did a drag and drop from Photoshop to Openoffice and it worked fine, though I'll rather use copy-paste

Nonono, Gimp and Openoffice, not Photoshop. The Windows version of OO complies of course with Windows functionality, which includes the drag-drop.

Quote[/b] ]Copy-pasting text to my terminal window worked fine too, drag and drop would propably work if I used some other terminal program

My point exactly.

Quote[/b] ]I have dozens of times accidentally drag'n'dropped toolbars, text, or other GUI elements in Windows and its annoying having to drag'n'drop everything back as they were.

Well, it does require some basic hand-eye coordination  

Quote[/b] ]That's one user interface thing that I think is screwed in the Windows world.

I disagree on that. I drag drop everything. As a matter of fact I'm inserting your text in this by drag-dropping text from the "original post" textbox.

Quote[/b] ]I think we had discussion about this already, and the last posts in that thread were about Microsoft's XML patents. So much about "open" standards. Yes they do even show Windows source code to some people, but you can't do anything with it. How useful. :P

"Open" as in: "Look ma, I can see what they've done", not "Open" as in "free to do with whatever you want".

Quote[/b] ]How hard is it for them to add NFS client and server support to Windows for example? Not hard, but they dont do that since it would make it easier to use both Windows and an Unix system like Linux together.

But why would they? It's bad business. Microsoft had this year the 20th year in row of increased revenue - i.e each year for the last 20 years they have been making more money than the previous year. So I think they got the correct  business idea. Why support Linux when they can get people to buy Windows instead?

Quote[/b] ]It all comes down to either having no choice at all or having alot of choices of which to pick what you like. Make your choice :P Or with Linux, you can let someone else do the choice for you by installing a distro that installs whatever they think is the best for you, and you use that.

Except for when you have 500 different distributions, the number of people that use what you use drops radically. Plus far from all the software is cross-compatible between distributions. Does for instance GIMP support KDE drag and drop? etc Standards are useful when they are.. well.. standard. Defining your own little world can be fun, but for it to be practical, other people have to use it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

The point with computers and software are not that they're supposed to be cool, innovative or fun to work with. The point is that they should work in a reliable and predictable fashion.

And is Microsoft's way the only reliable and predictable way?

It depends what you use the computer for, but for most applications, yes. Not necessarily because of technological superiority, but because it enforces a standard across the entire platform. And when you have to have software interacting, it is very important.

Quote[/b] ]Imo. they arent doing a very good job, the problem is that every product they make seems to become more and more resource hungry. So you cant just upgrade Windows, you need to upgrade your whole computer at the same time. Not everyone can afford that, and you'll end up with people who still use Windows 95.

So's Unix. KDE requires far more resources than say CDE or Motif. But that's software - more features - more resources. Complaining about newer version of Windows taking more resources is like complaining that newer games require better graphics cards. Software and hardware development goes hand in hand. Performance is not an issue due to the rapid development of computer hardware. And you can't claim that the quality of a system like WS2k3 is on the same level as of Win95.

Quote[/b] ]I still get virus emails all the times from Outlook users who are infected by an Outlook virus. Sure their security has become much better, but they only reacted after windows, IE and Outlook got hit big time, multiple times. They should have designed everything more secure from the ground up and we all would have been saved from alot of trouble.

And linux script kiddies?   Linux is not more secure in any way - it's just that fewer people use it. And as for Outlook - I started using it about two years ago because I wanted good integration with my iPaq - I've never ever had any problems with it on the virus front. On the contrary, the security system is overly paranoid by default. I can only guess that the outlook viruses still floating around are because people are using pre-historic versions of it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]the regular telnet TS connection has 128 bit encryption by default.

How is that possible? I dont think any telnet client will have any idea of encryption, unless its another Microsoft's own telnet "standard" (why couldn't they just support an SSH connection natively?)

It goes through TS sockets, which are secure and not through the regular telnet port. So it's windows<->windows only. As I said - if you want SSH, install it. Plenty of windows implementations out there.

[kegetys 2]

Quote[/b] ]

I believe the reason why people are more angered when Microsoft does copycatting is because Microsoft makes money directly with their copied ideas. Linux itself is free, and those who make money with Linux do it mostly indirectly with "side products" like technical support, manuals, etc and not with the copycatted ideas. Lately Microsoft also seems to have been interested in patenting everything, including things that have been used for a long long time already like this. I find that very dirty, since they know that nobody in the open source movement has the money to do a court case to challenge that patent, even though the roots of sudo that does the same thing as that patent go back to 1980.

Yes, most linux fanatics seem to have a problem with the concept of "capitalism".

So you are calling me a fanatic? Nice argument.

No, but the "people" you refered to in your text. I don't know if you belong to that category.

So do you mean that when Microsoft does unethical things, like play dirty with patents, you say "oh well, thats how corporations work" and when a Linux developer copies a feature from Microsoft, that Microsoft copied from someone else, its bad and makes Linux suck?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

So what's a "serious application" then?

Something more heavyweight. I can talk all day about the reliability of "Notepad", but I don't think it will make for a good general argument.

Well, how about... Apache?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I did a drag and drop from Photoshop to Openoffice and it worked fine, though I'll rather use copy-paste

Nonono, Gimp and Openoffice, not Photoshop. The Windows version of OO complies of course with Windows functionality, which includes the drag-drop.

I dont want to touch Gimp, especially the Windows version. I thought the discussion was about Openoffice, not Gimp... If Gimp doesn't support drag and drop, how does that make Openoffice bad?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Copy-pasting text to my terminal window worked fine too, drag and drop would propably work if I used some other terminal program

My point exactly.

And this was Windows software. It doesnt work using MS Office either.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I have dozens of times accidentally drag'n'dropped toolbars, text, or other GUI elements in Windows and its annoying having to drag'n'drop everything back as they were.

Well, it does require some basic hand-eye coordination  

Ever misclicked something with the mouse? The handles to move the toolbars around are right next to the icons, and the icons are big enough to allow moving the mouse while clicking the icon so it doesnt matter if you just quickly sweep the mouse over the icon while pressing and releasing the mouse button. But when you miss the icon, and hit the toolbar handle instead, the toolbar becomes detached and the whole UI is screwed. I have done that countless times, maybe there's something wrong in my eye or hand, but there's still no way around it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]That's one user interface thing that I think is screwed in the Windows world.

I disagree on that. I drag drop everything. As a matter of fact I'm inserting your text in this by drag-dropping text from the "original post" textbox.

You like it, but I dont. Still, I can't disable it. I'm forced to have drag and drop enabled because Microsoft thinks everyone should.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I think we had discussion about this already, and the last posts in that thread were about Microsoft's XML patents. So much about "open" standards. Yes they do even show Windows source code to some people, but you can't do anything with it. How useful. :P

"Open" as in: "Look ma, I can see what they've done", not "Open" as in "free to do with whatever you want".

Yes. It only exist so they can call their software "open source" (or is it shared source?), without really being so.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]How hard is it for them to add NFS client and server support to Windows for example? Not hard, but they dont do that since it would make it easier to use both Windows and an Unix system like Linux together.

But why would they? It's bad business. Microsoft had this year the 20th year in row of increased revenue - i.e each year for the last 20 years they have been making more money than the previous year. So I think they got the correct  business idea. Why support Linux when they can get people to buy Windows instead?

Exactly. But if Linux keeps gaining users, they might have to rethink their strategy and coexist instead of being a monopoly that forces people to their will.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]It all comes down to either having no choice at all or having alot of choices of which to pick what you like. Make your choice :P Or with Linux, you can let someone else do the choice for you by installing a distro that installs whatever they think is the best for you, and you use that.

Except for when you have 500 different distributions, the number of people that use what you use drops radically. Plus far from all the software is cross-compatible between distributions. Does for instance GIMP support KDE drag and drop? etc Standards are useful when they are.. well.. standard. Defining your own little world can be fun, but for it to be practical, other people have to use it.

Why would you need to be using what everyone else is using? If you're a regular home user, you're propably happy with office tools, web broser, email client, media player, etc. all of which are all ready in all big distros. Commercial users propably need more specific tools, but when they deploy the systems all of the systems would likely be using the same distro and the same tools. If you use IE and your buddy uses Mozilla, you can still browse in the same internet. If you use Outlook and your buddy uses Pine, you can still send and receive emails to each other. Sure there are tasks to which there aren't so good Linux software, like professional graphics (Photoshop), but not everyone needs that. Those who need it can use Windows or MacOS. Or tell Adobe that they want a port for their OS, maybe they will make one if there's enough users.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

The point with computers and software are not that they're supposed to be cool, innovative or fun to work with. The point is that they should work in a reliable and predictable fashion.

And is Microsoft's way the only reliable and predictable way?

It depends what you use the computer for, but for most applications, yes. Not necessarily because of technological superiority, but because it enforces a standard across the entire platform. And when you have to have software interacting, it is very important.

So, whats wrong with, say, Irix then? Or MacOS X?

What if I'll install litestep to a windows system, remove IE and all Microsoft services... Will that make Windows platform suck since my Windows isn't so standards compilant anymore? You can use a Linux distro and go with the standards set by that distro, and everything will work very well. Or you can customize it, and install software that isn't made for your desktop, but its not the distro maker's fault if things dont work so well anymore.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Imo. they arent doing a very good job, the problem is that every product they make seems to become more and more resource hungry. So you cant just upgrade Windows, you need to upgrade your whole computer at the same time. Not everyone can afford that, and you'll end up with people who still use Windows 95.

So's Unix. KDE requires far more resources than say CDE or Motif. But that's software - more features - more resources. Complaining about newer version of Windows taking more resources is like complaining that newer games require better graphics cards. Software and hardware development goes hand in hand. Performance is not an issue due to the rapid development of computer hardware. And you can't claim that the quality of a system like WS2k3 is on the same level as of Win95.

I can install a brand new linux distro, on a 200MHz machine with 16MB of memory and it will work fine (depending a bit on the distro of course). Windows XP most likely wouldn't even install, so if I'd take the Microsoft path i'd be stuck with something like Windows 98 or Windows NT4 on that system. Not very good choices I think.

Quote[/b] ]Linux is not more secure in any way - it's just that fewer people use it.

When you use a Linux system, you are encouraged to run with a restricted user account. Any viruses you encounter wont get to the system, and they can't break the system as they dont have the permission to do so. That alone makes a big difference. Of course Windows is the primary target platform for viruses and such because its so widely used, but the standardization of it also makes it a very good target; For example all Windows NT based systems had the messenger service enabled by default. You find an exploit in that, and boom, you have found an exploit to almost every single windows system out there. If you'd find an exploit in KDE Konqueror, of all the Linux users out there you could only exploit a small part of.

Quote[/b] ]

It goes through TS sockets, which are secure and not through the regular telnet port. So it's windows<->windows only.

So it is Microsoft's own "telnet". And I'd bet its not documented anywhere so I cant connect to that using anything else than a Windows system.