Vista Will Exterminate Desktop Linux Once And For All.

  • Thread starter Thread starter cymon.says
  • Start date Start date
When Vista hits the streets Linux on the desktop will become a
Click to expand...
In a couple of months, Linux will become irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Cool, then we won't have to listen to your rants as Google shut down
their thousands of Linux machines powering their services, and sratch
their heads trying to figure out how to run everything on Vista.......
 
In said:
hahahahahahaha :-)

Good one!

For my part, I see hordes of OSS programmers committing sucide (or at
least throwing the towel in a mix of desperation, anger and disgust),
realizing how many major things they suddeny have to catch up with,
and how negligible was the impact of past efforts.

On the other hand users, especially laptop users, will just absolutely
*love* things like Vista's ReadyBoost and ReadyDrive,
Click to expand...

hahahahahahaha :-)

The only reason Microsoft introduced ReadyBoost is because the enormous
resource requirements of the OS. Without it the market for Vista would
be severely limited. It's in effect an admission that once again their
software is truly bloatware.

And the mind boggles at the security implications of this pen-drive
loaded with confidential files.
features very unlikely to ever appear on Linux.
Click to expand...

Why not? The only reason Linux won't have its version of ReadyBoost is
because it doesn't need it.
Vista will blow all past records of deployment rate, get ready for the
unbelieveable.
Click to expand...

hahahahahahaha :-)

Yes, unbelievable things like "sleep" that OS X has had for years.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/foreveryone/performance.
mspx

"Windows Vista introduces a new power state called Sleep. The new Sleep
state in Windows Vista combines the speed of Standby with the data
protection features and low power consumption of Hibernate. Resuming use
when your PC is in the Sleep state takes just 2-3 seconds."

They seem to think this is an innovative feature - Apple PowerBooks have
been doing this for years. Sheesh...
 
And the mind boggles at the security implications of this pen-drive
loaded with confidential files.
Click to expand...

One wonders how much Homeland Security was involved in this?
Why not? The only reason Linux won't have its version of ReadyBoost is
because it doesn't need it.
Click to expand...

I like it when they complain that Linux doesn't have any antivirus
programs or spyware scanners. :-)
 
hahahahahahaha :-)

The only reason Microsoft introduced ReadyBoost is because the enormous
resource requirements of the OS. Without it the market for Vista would
be severely limited. It's in effect an admission that once again their
software is truly bloatware.

And the mind boggles at the security implications of this pen-drive
loaded with confidential files.


Why not? The only reason Linux won't have its version of ReadyBoost is
because it doesn't need it.


hahahahahahaha :-)

Yes, unbelievable things like "sleep" that OS X has had for years.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/foreveryone/performance.
mspx

"Windows Vista introduces a new power state called Sleep. The new Sleep
state in Windows Vista combines the speed of Standby with the data
protection features and low power consumption of Hibernate. Resuming use
when your PC is in the Sleep state takes just 2-3 seconds."

They seem to think this is an innovative feature - Apple PowerBooks have
been doing this for years. Sheesh...
Click to expand...

I've been running Vista without readyboost, and it runs just fine, so what
exactly is your point?
 
Desk said:
Cool, then we won't have to listen to your rants as Google shut down
their thousands of Linux machines powering their services, and sratch
their heads trying to figure out how to run everything on Vista.......
Click to expand...
I would expect the opposite to happen. A lot of people are getting
ticked off with Microsoft. When Vista becomes the only choice of
Windows available in the stores, many will turn to Linux to run their
computers (if they don't decide to buy a Macintosh instead).
 
In said:
I've been running Vista without readyboost, and it runs just fine, so
what exactly is your point?
Click to expand...

Your machine might have sufficient hardware resources to run Vista, but
the only reason Microsoft introduced ReadyBoost is because the enormous
resource requirements of the OS. Without it the market for Vista would
be severely limited. It's in effect an admission that once again their
software is truly bloatware.
 
Erik said:
That's probably the biggest weakness of the Linux business model. What OEM
wants to spend 4-10x the effort to make sure dozens of distros work with
their hardware when they can do it once, with one OS?
Click to expand...

More Erik Fudmeister lies. 4-10x the effort indeed.

There's only a few major ones, Erik. If they work, then most all will
work.
 
altheim said:
So why don't they sell boxes with Linux instead. After all, it's free to
them so discount offers become irrelevant. I'll tell you why - Linux is
bloody hard work. Frightening for newbies and costly for retailers
as the responsibility for support would fall to them.
Click to expand...

Idiot. The OEM's have computer experts who are not "newbies".
 
chrisv said:
Idiot. The OEM's have computer experts who are not "newbies".
Click to expand...

Who's talking about OEMs (note, this is plural and doesn't need
an apostrophy)? I'm talking about end users.
 
altheim said:
Who's talking about OEMs (note, this is plural and doesn't need
an apostrophy)? I'm talking about end users.
Click to expand...

chrisv : a model advocate. Everyone else is an idiot. LOL.
 
Hadron said:
chrisv : a model advocate. Everyone else is an idiot. LOL.
Click to expand...

"Hadron Quark": model troll. Take the Wintroll's side of the issue,
even when it's clearly wrong. LOL.
 
chrisv said:
Idiot. The OEM's have computer experts who are not "newbies".
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with how hard one OS is to deploy compared to another
but rather the cost of deploying and supporting two OSs in a large
manufacturing environment. I sell both Linux and Microsoft OEM OS based
boxes but I am small and the cost of being able to deploy two systems is
relatively small for me and I have a targeted niche market that is willing
to pay more for good service. If I was building 10,000's of systems per day
with several factories the cost of deploying two OSs would be prohibitive.
You'd have to pick one or the other or charge more for your systems. These
types of pc's are a consumer item and cost is one of the major factors in a
purchase decision. Not offering Windows is not an option in this market.
Offering two different OS's increases costs. This is why Linux is not
offered by large OEMs on consumer machines. It has nothing to do with the
merits of the OS, cost of the OS, or the ease of deployment. If you want the
large OEMs to start offering Linux then you have to create enough demand
that it is worth their while. Until that happens they won't be offering
Linux.
 
Nevermind said:
I would expect the opposite to happen. A lot of people are getting
ticked off with Microsoft. When Vista becomes the only choice of
Windows available in the stores, many will turn to Linux to run their
computers (if they don't decide to buy a Macintosh instead).
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point and the irony in that the OP was posting
through Google Groups which is powered by *nix servers.

Personally I like to use the right tool for the job. For me my desktop
is Microsoft because its easy, compatible with everything I want to use
and just works. My phone system is built from Linux because it saved me
5K and is rugged and reliable. Who needs a GUI on a phone server? My
main servers are a mixture of Microsoft and Linux depending on the task
they need to perform. If I did any sort of desktop publishing or video
production (As some of my clients do), then I'd probably have Mac or two
about the place.

You wouldn't put an F1 car on a stock car circuit and you wouldn't use a
motorbike to transport a refridgerator........
 
Kerry said:
It has nothing to do with how hard one OS is to deploy compared to another
but rather the cost of deploying and supporting two OSs in a large
manufacturing environment. I sell both Linux and Microsoft OEM OS based
boxes but I am small and the cost of being able to deploy two systems is
relatively small for me and I have a targeted niche market that is willing
to pay more for good service. If I was building 10,000's of systems per day
with several factories the cost of deploying two OSs would be prohibitive.
Click to expand...

Dumbsh*t. That's absolutely false. In fact a larger computer company
can MORE easily support a variety of products, OBVIOUSLY.
You'd have to pick one or the other or charge more for your systems.
Click to expand...

Wrong, moron.
These
types of pc's are a consumer item and cost is one of the major factors in a
purchase decision. Not offering Windows is not an option in this market.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean you can't offer other products as well, dumbass.
Offering two different OS's increases costs.
Click to expand...

Differentiating your products from your competitor's increases profit
margins, fool. Offering products that people want to buy increases
profits, idiot.
This is why Linux is not
offered by large OEMs on consumer machines.
Click to expand...

This is why you're a clueless imbecile talking out of your ass.
It has nothing to do with the
merits of the OS, cost of the OS, or the ease of deployment. If you want the
large OEMs to start offering Linux then you have to create enough demand
that it is worth their while.
Click to expand...

"Worth their while" even while considering Micro$oft's
incentives/pressure-tactics.
 
Linux was never developed to be a desktop solution...so I'm not sure you even
understand your own point. Yes - certain distros of Linux are trying to
compete with MS, but won't become popular until the GUI looks exactly like
Windows XP/Vista (because thats what 98% of users work on). Users don't use
the OS...they use applications. Someone who develops a desktop Linux will
only succeed if all applications run, the GUI is idiot proof, and it is easy
for administrators to deploy and maintain. This development takes $$ which
means charging for the use of the software, which means that distro of Linux
would be proprietary, which is exactly what Linux users avoid -- The GNU
public license was created and is upheld for a reason - open source. IMHO
Linux has made and proved it's place in the server world but it is definietly
not going to make it in the desktop world...at least not for a while.
 
Linux was never developed to be a desktop solution...so I'm not sure you even
understand your own point. Yes - certain distros of Linux are trying to
compete with MS, but won't become popular until the GUI looks exactly like
Windows XP/Vista (because thats what 98% of users work on). Users don't use
the OS...they use applications. Someone who develops a desktop Linux will
only succeed if all applications run, the GUI is idiot proof, and it is easy
for administrators to deploy and maintain. This development takes $$ which
means charging for the use of the software, which means that distro of Linux
would be proprietary, which is exactly what Linux users avoid -- The GNU
public license was created and is upheld for a reason - open source. IMHO
Linux has made and proved it's place in the server world but it is definietly
not going to make it in the desktop world...at least not for a while.
 
Back
Top