But in the "Windows World" you are not forced into this every 3 years.
Besides, most companies don't upgrade OSes on existing machines anyway.
You get the new OS pre-installed on new machines, as needed. On MY
schedule. Makes your "click the Upgrade button and grab a cup of coffee"
seem like an incredible waste of time, particularly when multiplied by 500
(or 5000) machines.
Well there's nothing stopping you from getting machines with Ubuntu
pre-installed and getting the same effect as you do from upgrading Windows
that way.
Nobody is forcing you to do OS upgrades. If you want to do so is entirely
your choice.
I mean sure, these guys don't have as slow as an upgrade cycle as
Microsoft does! They are a little faster...I don't see this as a
bad thing as it keeps my system up to date and I don't need to wait 5
years for new features.
And honestly, if I see someone "forcing" OS upgrades, it's Microsoft.
Visual studio comes to mind. VS2003, when it was released, "required"
Windows XP. It wouldn't even run on Win2000 even though there was no
reason why it couldn't. DirectX10 is another forced upgrade if you run a
business that depends on an application that will need DirectX10. CAD/CAM
and 3D Modeling comes to mind.
Microsoft also forced upgrades with their .Net Framework. Visual Studio
2003 does not support the .Net Framework 2.0, you *have* to upgrade to
2005. And what's more ironic, Visual Studio 2005 only supports the .Net
framework 2.0, does not support the .Net Framework 1.0 requiring you to
now run *both* on your machine. The headaches I've had with that,
especially if you accidentally open a 2003 project with 2005.
And just based on my own personal experiences, I won't be surprised to see
the next version of Visual Studio require Vista.
Microsoft does *plenty* to try to force upgrades where it can just based
on my personal experiences.
But agreed, if you have 5,000 systems sitting there you don't want to be
upgrading them every so often. So don't. Just get your usual security
update and be happy with it.
Though eventually, all those systems are going to need to be replaced or
updated anyway. Hardware failure, new software that it needs to run no
longer supports the current operating system, doesn't meet performance
needs anymore, and so on...
So eventually, every single one of those machines will need to be
replaced. So just do the OS upgrades at that point in time.
So you have to pay more in order to get a working solution. I thought
"It's Free" was a major advantage!?
Dunno about you but I personally wouldn't be likely to employ any OS on
hundreds or thousands of machines without having an appropriate service
and support contract. I mean Ubuntu *is* backed by a commercial company
and said company does need to pay its programmers somehow right?
MS does it by collecting license fees of almost all computers sold world
wide. These guys do it with enterprise support contract to support their
businesses.
And no, not everything in the linux world is free, that is a major
misconception. Though there are people who would like such a thing.
But there is plenty, and not exactly cheap either, commercial software for
linux that is anything but free.
The software I write sure isn't free either!!
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰