OEM vs Retail XP Pro

[Mxsmanic]

This is the problem with Linux. I have actual work to do...and can't do
it without a printer and wireless Internet access. I can piddle around
with innards of an OS that is supported only via the best guesses of
kindly geeks, or I can stick with Windows, which simply works. My SO was
certainly delighted when I hauled out 100 feet of CAT 5 cable to see if
Suse would work with wired ethernet..which it did

Linux advocates, like so many geeks, don't understand that the vast
majority of people with computers today just use the computers as tools
to get things done ... they don't play with computers for the sake of
playing with a computer. And when one has actual work to do, the only
realistic choices for the desktop are Windows or a Mac (usually the
former, since more applications are available for it).

 

[Mxsmanic]

Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering so
much is incredibly fun.

No, it's not. About 99.999% of all computer users today do not consider
tinkering with computers to be "fun." Computers are a necessary evil; a
tool to get things done, and nothing more. They are not a source of fun
or entertainment.

Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff.

The other 99.999% of modern computer users don't.

 

[Mxsmanic]

The Linux community is predicting that based on growth rates and projecting
that at a certain marketshare, OEM's will be forced to come onboard and
support their hardware.

The Linux community doesn't necessarily have a realistic view of the
computer world.

 

[John Doe]

Ruel Smith writes:

The Linux community doesn't necessarily have a realistic view of
the computer world.

That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for desktop
users (something about people living in the Third World comes to
mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but a small part
of the overall problem for normal desktop users. Linux is a server
operating system, not for mainstream desktop users.

Someday, it might happen. But, barring unforeseen/bizarre
technological innovation, that is going to mark an event of
humongous global significance.

 

[Mxsmanic]

That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for desktop
users (something about people living in the Third World comes to
mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but a small part
of the overall problem for normal desktop users. Linux is a server
operating system, not for mainstream desktop users.

All versions of UNIX and clones (such as Linux) are essentially server
operating systems, even if Apple managed to cobble together a desktop OS
out of one of them (with tremendous coding effort).

On the desktop, I recommend Windows. On servers, I recommend UNIX
(FreeBSD, specifically). I don't recommend Linux for anything, since
it's a wannabe desktop that is dramatically inferior to Windows, and the
emphasis on desktop use makes it less than ideal for servers as well.

 

[John Doe]

John Doe writes:

All versions of UNIX and clones (such as Linux) are essentially
server operating systems, even if Apple managed to cobble
together a desktop OS out of one of them (with tremendous coding
effort). On the desktop, I recommend Windows. On servers, I
recommend UNIX (FreeBSD, specifically). I don't recommend Linux
for anything, since it's a wannabe desktop that is dramatically
inferior to Windows, and the emphasis on desktop use makes it
less than ideal for servers as well.

You recommend server software?

I don't think Linux has an emphasis on desktop use, except by
Linux groupies.

Take Red Hat Linux for example, the only profitable Linux Corp. so
far. Here is its business summary. "Provides an enterprise
operating system and related systems management services based on
open source technology for the information technology
infrastructure requirements of large enterprises."

Linux is doing well as a server operating system. Linux does have
the backing of many large companies. Linux also has the backing of
many governments, including some of our (United States)
governments. The greatest threat to Windows, in my estimation, is
the banding together of other countries to thwart Microsoft's
dominance of computing (Microsoft is a giant, powerful
corporation). Linux appears to be the weapon of choice. Linux has
been and continues to be gaining ground on other forms of UNIX.

 

[Ruel Smith]

I've heard about Kubuntu but haven't run across a copy yet (I
can't download since I'm on dial-up). It's Ubuntu with KDE added,
right? I like KDE, which I got used to in Mandrake, but really, I
find that the simplicity of Gnome is not bad. It seems more
transparent to me, somehow.

Yes, Kubuntu is Ubuntu with KDE instead of Gnome as the desktop. The
repositories are all the same, so you can install Gnome as well, or KDE in
the case of Ubuntu and end up in the same place.

 

[Ruel Smith]

That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for desktop
users (something about people living in the Third World comes to
mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but a small part
of the overall problem for normal desktop users. Linux is a server
operating system, not for mainstream desktop users.

Someday, it might happen. But, barring unforeseen/bizarre
technological innovation, that is going to mark an event of
humongous global significance.

I think it _can_ happen, but then again, it seems as if Linux purists are
trying to NOT make it happen. They run people off in newsgroups that are
absolutely clueless, and they complain about distros like SuSE that
actually try and make Linux better for the mainstream user.

I also think SuSE (Novell) and Mandrake (now Mandriva) in particular, can do
a lot more than they are doing to make it more paletteable to the average
desktop user. Unfortunately, some tools still seem rather crude to many
users that come from a more polished desktop user experience like Windows.
It doesn't seem that they've made great strides in those particular areas
in quite awhile. While there has been strides to get WiFi working, and
other things, things like setting your monitor resolution and refresh rate
are still crude. Sax2 seems to be the best so far, but even that seems
rather crude. You'd think SuSE would have put some spit shine on it by now,
but its been virtually the same for a very long time.

I don't know if it's a money issue, or if the techno gurus that develop this
stuff are actually clueless to what the average user needs, but it doesn't
seem that anyone is actually making huge strides to make it more consumer
friendly. If they really put some effort into it, it could change for the
better in just one or two releases.

I hope Linux does get better, and companies like Novell really make an
effort to make it more consumer friendly. Let's face it, the way Novell is
going get more enterprise desktop marketshare is to get the same OS on the
home computers as well, making working at home and sharing files to/from
home and office a lot more natural.

 

[Ruel Smith]

All versions of UNIX and clones (such as Linux) are essentially server
operating systems, even if Apple managed to cobble together a desktop OS
out of one of them (with tremendous coding effort).

On the desktop, I recommend Windows. On servers, I recommend UNIX
(FreeBSD, specifically). I don't recommend Linux for anything, since
it's a wannabe desktop that is dramatically inferior to Windows, and the
emphasis on desktop use makes it less than ideal for servers as well.

You're full of it. Linux is just a kernel. The Gnu and OSS applications that
actually turn it into an operating system make it dynamic. Linux is
everything from an embedded OS on Palm-like devices, the underlying OS in
the PlayStation 2, and many other embedded devices. Major companies are
making great strides to shift to Linux both on the desktop and for their
servers, in particular DaimlerChrysler. Average everyday Joes are using
Linux on the desktop too, like myself. I'm probably a little more informed
than the average computer user, but I'm not a techno geek. I just kept at
it and learned something. It's not hard, just different.

 

[Ruel Smith]

Mandrake, now Mandriva, has a desktop emphasis. It has some ways to go, but
it's pretty good. Hell, you can insert a Knoppix CD and boot it and be up
and running in minutes. And it's not hard to use, just different.

Almost all users of Linux are Linux groupies. The entire Linux movement
is driven by them. People who aren't groupies and just want servers
knew about UNIX long before Linux came along, and versions of UNIX that
make superior servers have existed for years.

Nope. I tried using Linux based on all the buzz about it back in 1998. I
struggled with it dearly. It was very crude back then. I've slowly found
out more and more about it.

Let's face it, the first time you sat down to a computer, did you have a
clue? Using a completely different OS is like sitting down to a computer
for the first time all over again. What you think you already know about
them doesn't apply at all.

Gee, and I thought Linux was supposed to be _free_.

First of all, though Red Hat is probably the MOST profitable, I believe SuSE
was profitable as well.

Most distros are completely free. Debian, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Mepis, Knoppix,
Gnoppix, Slackware, Gentoo, and others are completely donation funded.
Distros like SuSE and Mandrake have commercial versions and they are
somewhat of an illusion. What you're paying for is the the non-free
software included, the printed manuals, disks, installation support, etc..
They are not permitted to charge you a single dime for any of the GPL'd
software. They can only charge you their costs for distribution of it. Now,
the printed manuals, etc. are another story. However, both SuSE and
Mandrake have free downloadable versions on their FTP sites. Red Hat even
offers Fedora for free.

However, GPL does not restrict anyone from charging you anything. It's free
as in freedom, not as in beer... It is copyrighted software, afterall.

Linux is technically inferior to most flavors of UNIX; it advances only
because of some of the same hype that originally caused Windows to
advance.

Linux has its strengths and weaknesses. Unix flavors such as FreeBSD would
not be as good as they are without the Linux movement. Much of the software
it uses came from the Linux community, ported to BSD Unix.

 

[Ruel Smith]

If Linux is such a good OS, why does it require support? Especially
paying support.

Why does Windows enterprise use require MCSE certified support staff?

Why does Window require support at all?

 

[Ruel Smith]

The other 99.999% of modern computer users don't.

Funny... Recent estimates have Linux home use at approximately 13% of all
users either using Linux full time, dual booting it, or slipping in a
Knoppix type disk and running it...

 

[Mxsmanic]

You recommend server software?

If a server is what someone wants, yes.

I don't think Linux has an emphasis on desktop use, except by
Linux groupies.

Almost all users of Linux are Linux groupies. The entire Linux movement
is driven by them. People who aren't groupies and just want servers
knew about UNIX long before Linux came along, and versions of UNIX that
make superior servers have existed for years.

Take Red Hat Linux for example, the only profitable Linux Corp. so
far.

Gee, and I thought Linux was supposed to be _free_.

Here is its business summary. "Provides an enterprise
operating system and related systems management services based on
open source technology for the information technology
infrastructure requirements of large enterprises."

What would you expect it to say?

Linux is doing well as a server operating system. Linux does have
the backing of many large companies. Linux also has the backing of
many governments, including some of our (United States)
governments. The greatest threat to Windows, in my estimation, is
the banding together of other countries to thwart Microsoft's
dominance of computing (Microsoft is a giant, powerful
corporation). Linux appears to be the weapon of choice. Linux has
been and continues to be gaining ground on other forms of UNIX.

Linux is technically inferior to most flavors of UNIX; it advances only
because of some of the same hype that originally caused Windows to
advance.

 

[ropeyarn]

Like I said, SuSE 9.3 should have the new kernel with wireless connectivity.
The new Mandrake, 2005LE, has the 2.6.10 kernel, but I'm willing to bet
that it backported the wireless stuff.

You might try and install the newest version of SuSE and maybe get the
wireless going.

Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering so
much is incredibly fun. Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff. )

Never adopted any early Apple products (to pricey). But was a prowd
owner of a Commodore 64.

I'm still relatively amazed at the richness of a full color display..and
while I have my own beefs with MS (and particularly with some of their
marketing to technically uninformed customers), I have grown fond of
bringing a printer/camera/scanner/wireless USB ethernet adapter/you name
it home and having it working within minutes.

If Suse 9.2 had supported wireless Internet out of the box, there's a
very high probability that the Windows partition on that machine would
have disappeared within the week.

www.wlinux-wlan.com has information that suggests if I am willing to
back down to 802.11b, there is some potential for support of a wireless
USB adapter. All I have to do is follow the instructions as presented
in 13 --count 'em 13-- pages of instructions.


Of course, without Internet connectivity, the Suse box is undeniably the
most secure machine in my house

 

[Clyde]

Linux is like a kit car. You can get one that needs complete assembly
(Gentoo), one that comes with a rolling chassis but still needs some work
from the buyer to get roadworthy (Debian), or a turnkey one the will run
great, provided you stick the right key in (SuSE, Mandrake). You can
install your own engine (custom kernel) and really soup it up or provide it
with a custom built engine (prepackaged custom kernel), provided you have
the muster to do it. You can even get a rental (Knoppix)...

The market for kit cars has always been very small, but enthusiastic. It
is right for a handful of people, but not even close for most. Have fun!

Clyde

 

[JD]

Gee, and I thought Linux was supposed to be _free_.

Linux is free and will always be free unlike windows the money comes
from support they believe software should be free and modifiable by any
person who chooses .. you pay for the support!

 

[Al Smith]

Unless Linux can be made to recognize and work with common

Kubuntu would be a better choice for a first time Linux user, as it's Ubuntu
based on KDE rather than Gnome. However, once installed, you can install
either KDE or Gnome to the other and it's all the same.

I have a big problem with Ubuntu/Kubuntu: When logged in as user, and you
need to do something administrative, it asks for your _user_ password - not
your _root_ password. This seems to almost be as wide open as Windows...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't like it at all. I'm sure there's a way to
change it, but I just didn't bother to dig that deep.

I've heard about Kubuntu but haven't run across a copy yet (I
can't download since I'm on dial-up). It's Ubuntu with KDE added,
right? I like KDE, which I got used to in Mandrake, but really, I
find that the simplicity of Gnome is not bad. It seems more
transparent to me, somehow.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Linux is free and will always be free ...

Where are all these distributors making their money, then?

... unlike windows the money comes from support ...

If Linux is such a good OS, why does it require support? Especially
_paying_ support.

 

[John Doe]

JD writes:

Where are all these distributors making their money, then?

You are being obstinate. The answer is in the next line.

If Linux is such a good OS, why does it require support?
Especially _paying_ support.

All software of such complexity requires support. The operating
system is extremely complicated.

Which would you rather have. Instruction about how to patch it
every time it is broken, or instruction about how to modify and
make it work for your own personal needs?

Windows is a monopoly because it was the first to develop network
effects and a positive feedback loop, which keeps users and
programmers locked in. Don't look for merit when trying to figure
out why Windows is the required operating system. You just have to
accept it.

Seems to me that open-source software lends itself well to
subscription licensing, which looks promising.

Good luck.

 

[John Doe]

I don't know if it's a money issue, or if the techno gurus that
develop this stuff are actually clueless to what the average
user needs,

It is what the United States District Court spelled out in its
Findings of Fact, a part of the findings that the appeals court
overwhelmingly accepted.

Look here:

http://usvms.gpo.gov/findings_index.html

For these terms:

"network effects"
"positive feedback loop"
"applications barrier to entry"

While you are there, read the whole thing. It's long but makes for
good reading IMO if you were an active PC user during that time
when Microsoft gained its stranglehold on the desktop.







but it doesn't