Linux versus Windows

[Stacey]

Jim Strand wrote:

Perhaps the biggest "problem" for most is that Linux works differently
than the MS OS's users are more familiar with. Akin to learning a
foreign language. And like another language the more you use it the
more comfortable you become with it.

That's a great analogy. I've also learned that each =flavor= of linux is
like another dialect of that language so I feel it's best to pick one,
learn it and stick with it. They like to move the config files to different
locations on different distros which can be VERY confusing!

 

[Ancra]

@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, nameir@_deletethis_hotmail.com
says...
Microsoft ARE NOT the best, they merely have the best marketing.

Since I don't intend to participate on any side, I won't offer any
judgement on good or bad. But since I currently have no better thing
to do, and since I think, because of reasons... never mind.
I'll throw some light on this.

I have no opinion whether MS have the best marketing, or even a good
one. I do know however, that it would have nothing to do with MS
dominance. MS' position today is the result of the convergence of five
factors:

1: Any computer, OS and it's program model/models is a _Standard_.

2: Any competing *standard* that has a big enough share of the market,
suddenly gains the property of 'gravity'. Becomes a black hole even.
And sucks up the rest, in a very _STABLE_ dominance. Neither quality,
value or even capability have anything at all to do with this.

3: In the early days of the personal computer, there seems only to
have been two persons in any position of influence, that understood
the above two paragraphs. One of them was Bill G, who got in, thanks
to IBM's badge of approval. The other one was, through his personal
esthetics and ethics, deeply commited to quality and excellence. He
was also in the hands of venture capitalists, who slit his throat,
even before the start of any serious market war.
Thus MS were allowed to gain that share, the critical mass, during a
time when they actually completely lacked competition. They were the
only ones going all out for market share. The other cluless idiots did
what they always do, when selling sugar or water, went for the short
term money and stock value.

4: Once MS gained their market, they've never let it go.
I said earlier any OS and it's program model constituates a standard.
But consider then that MS, since gaining dominance, have very
carefully kept their customers through four distinctly different types
of OS's; DOS, Windows, Windows9x, WindowsNT/2000/XP.
And five distinctly different program models; DOS, DPMI, Win16, Win32s
and Win32.
Running on four distinctly different hardware platforms; PC/XT,
AT/286, 386, and the PCI-PNP-Pentium.
The primary goal of all MS software engineering has always been to
_keep_ their customers, and thus their market share, through migration
to new systems. And at _ALL_COSTS_! No matter what penalties that
brought. Nobody else ever did that!
What if Apple had relentlessly developed the Apple II?
What if Commodore had relentlessly developed their C64?

5: Mass market and mass production always tends to level the
playfield. Thus the originally lowliest computer, MS domain, grows and
gradually takes over tier after tier of computing. And market niches
that IBM, DEC, Sun and HP figured were theirs to keep, slowly but
steadily trickles into MS hands.


ancra

 

[Meta WinAPI]

You're right but in the specific case of DirectX it is not activated in the
default installation configuration. That's why for the Server version of
WinNT 5.x the patch is 'important' not 'critical'. Have you installed it?
The Internet configuration is somewhat tighter and some services e.g. sound
are not enabled. But I agree with you. Microsoft should probably offer a
ultra tight cut down install option for those who decide they want to run
Microsoft - 'put that cmd.exe to use!

Meta

--

Remove the Obstacle to reply by email or to Messenger me.

--
| Meta WinAPI wrote:
|
| > LOL 'Caught me!
| >
| > Yes, you'd think they'd learn. Supposedly the bug catching scheme at
| > Microsoft is better than ever but, you know, until they design an
| > architeture where buffer overruns cannot happen ...
| >
| >
|
| I have to wonder why a server OS even needs/has direct-x or active-x? I'd
| think for server apps they could come up with a simple (maybe even comand
| line?) OS and let the user add what he needs a la linux. The linux
"server"
| I have at home doesn't have any GUI and does everything it needs to =get
| going= on boot with no user interface. I don't even have a monitor
conected
| to it after I configured it. Like I said, why is the hell does MS add all
| the desktop bells and whistles to their server OS's? Seems like that is
| ASKING for problems and it seems they want this to happen? I'm concerned
at
| some point MS is going to try to blame TCP/IP as the cause for all these
| problems and try to push the internet to "a more secure" TCP/MS which of
| course would mean only MS OS's would work on the internet..
|
| --
|
| Stacey

 

[Adrian]

Windows is best for the desktop by far and away. Linux finds its
niche on

drone machines serving up files and websites

That is true - I can't speak for desktops but I've seen it used a lot
for database and web hosting, in other words, non-desktop roles.
However, for desktops it's beginning to look fairly capable.

The Linux guys would have you thinking that Linux is the OS Katmandu or
Shangri-la but on the desktop Linux is more like La La Land.

LOL!!!

~ Adrian ~

 

[Jim Strand]

That's a great analogy. I've also learned that each =flavor= of linux is
like another dialect of that language so I feel it's best to pick one,
learn it and stick with it. They like to move the config files to different
locations on different distros which can be VERY confusing!

I've found Mandrake 9.1 to be rather user friendly. Do appreciate
things like the Open Office suite that emulates MS Word and Excel.
Not to mention Power Point.

This distribution comes with multiple browsers, e-mail clients, and
news readers. Sure beats paying for another copy of MS whatever when
building new systems. Besides, once you get familiar with the new
names and protocols Linux becomes a viable alternative indeed.
***************************************
delete "nospam" for e-mail reply
***************************************

 

[Stacey]

I've found Mandrake 9.1 to be rather user friendly.

Yep I've been a mandrake fan since 7.2. 9.1 works good with newer hardware
but I've found 8.2 is better/less buggy using older stuff. I'll be glad to
see 9.2 and imagine, no cost to upgrade to the latest OS!