Vista Will Exterminate Desktop Linux Once And For All.

  • Thread starter Thread starter cymon.says
  • Start date Start date
http://www.vistahelp.ca

JEDIDIAH said:
Or they could have logos for each of the major platforms.

Dell might not want to completely ignore the Mac user.

A USB port is just a USB port, even on a minimac that Dell
didn't get to sell you.
Click to expand...

I met Jack Tramiel once. I would place him much higher on the list of greedy
no good sons of #######'s than Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. He tried to explain
to me why the wholesale cost of a Commodore 64 was $40.00 higher than the
suggested retail price and how I could make money selling them in spite of
this conundrum. It wasn't a volume thing either. I had the second highest
sales of independent dealers in western Canada at the time. I can't imagine
him donating anything let alone billions to charities.
 
[email protected] said:
When Vista hits the streets Linux on the desktop will become a
has-been. The truth is that Linux has had 15 years of Microsoft's
blunders to gain the confidence of enough destkop users to make some
kind of impact on the desktop and it has failed to do so.

Microsoft Vista is generating excitement amongst the Windows users,
which account for approximately 95 percent of the desktop users.
PC Magazine, PCWorld and all the other main stream magazines devoted to
PC computing are filled with articles concerning Vista.

http://www.pcworld.com/
http://www.pcmag.com/


The excitement is building and when Vista hits the streets, it will be
the final nail in the Linux coffin because if Linux hasn't managed to
gain any appreciable market share over Windows in the last 15 years and
especially in the last 4 years or so since Microsoft has released a new
version of Windows, Linux will never do it.

Linux is free and that's about the best that can be said for Linux.
So how is it that a free operating system that has a lot of application
programs included isn't generating excitement?
Free usually means a great interest, except when it pertains to Linux.
Why are people willing to fork over $200 for XP or Vista when Linux is
free?

The obvious answer is that Linux sucks.
Think about it.
People are just not interested in Linux.
Then think about Linux going down the proverbial drain just like OS/2
and BEOS have done.

Long live DOS!
Long live Linux!
Hurrah!

In a couple of months, Linux will become irrelevant.
Click to expand...
No doubt about Vista, but it is not justified to say that Linux is irrelevent.
Linux is a separate OS and has its loyal followers. Certainly good for poor
people who cannot buy Windows. Atleast they can work on computers.
 
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv
<[email protected]>
wrote
My point is this: Linux makes so much sense in so many ways, that
there's got to be "a reason" why it's not used more by the big OEM's.
That "reason" is Micro$oft incentives and pressure to not do so.

Anything about Linux being "too expensive to support" is bullshit.
Click to expand...

I'll admit to some curiosity as to how to properly set
up the issue, but it's clear that supporting 2 operating
systems is slightly more expensive than 1. (The usual
amount quoted is about 5% for a port.) However, the major
game engines -- Quake, Unreal, Doom -- all run on both
OpenGL and DirectX9, so there's no real excuse for *them*.

Programmers are also advised to put all of the
system-dependent stuff in as localized an area as possible;
in C++ that's fairly trivial by abstracting the problem.
In a pinch one can #ifdef WIN32 but that's a little ugly.

As for drivers...good question. I'd have to look to see
how driver protocol has mutated since 1.0 or 1.2 (when
exactly did Linux get loadable modules?), but I doubt it's
changed all that much; contrariwise, Windows has rewritten
its core driver stuff 3 or 4 times. Therefore, the Linux
variant doesn't really need all that much support, unless
a new piece of hardware comes out.

At least, such is my snap assessment of all this.
 
I haven't had a change of heart. I would like to see more diversity. My
scenario was an attempt at a bit of humour and also to point out some of the
hurdles that marketing an alternative OS would face. I like Linux, I use
Linux. I try to sell boxes with Linux on them. I am also a realist who has
been in business for a long time. I know what it takes to market and sell a
product. My scenario was a poke at the industry in general as much as
anything else. The industry is dominated by large companies who have no
interest in changing the status quo. They foist the image of computers as
easy to use consumer devices on the general public when most people in the
industry know this is anything but true. The poor consumer is so confused
and misinformed they tend to stick with something they know or at least have
heard about.
Click to expand...


This is absolutely try.
Also consider that the manufacturers are already set up for Windows be it
hardware support, software support or systems tech support.

Adding support for another operating system costs money far beyond the
preload.


Linux has to be a better Windows than Windows for consumer desktop users
to be enticed to switch.

In many ways Linux is, but in many ways it is not and even when Linux is
better than Windows, it's not *that much better* and Joe user is so
entrenched in Windows software that there is no reason for him to switch.

The truth is in the proof.
Linux is free.
Windows is not.
Windows is a security nightmare.
Linux is not.

Why hasn't Linux taken over Windows on the desktop?

That is the question to be answered.
 
Oh really? Even when there can be $hundreds in savings in software
costs right off the bat with Linux?

Boy, you are a smart one.
Click to expand...

Linux is free.

Windows is not.

So why does Linux command about 0.2 percent of desktop share?

Why do industry leaders predict Linux might make single digit desktop
share in 5 years?

Where is this mass exodus to Linux you Linux guys are always squawking
about?
 
http://www.vistahelp.ca



I met Jack Tramiel once. I would place him much higher on the list of greedy
no good sons of #######'s than Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. He tried to explain
to me why the wholesale cost of a Commodore 64 was $40.00 higher than the
suggested retail price and how I could make money selling them in spite of
this conundrum. It wasn't a volume thing either. I had the second highest
sales of independent dealers in western Canada at the time. I can't imagine
him donating anything let alone billions to charities.
Click to expand...

Yeah... trying to get you to agree to a really bad deal ranks up
there with extortion (MITS) or outright fraud (IBM).

You personally likely are no better than Tramiel in this respect.

OTOH, men like Rockerfeller or Carnegie tend to get nice in their
old age once they realize they will be remembered as total bastards or
decide that their wealth is not nearly sheltered enough.

Gates isn't so much rich as visible.

--

It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.

They brought us the email virus.

In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \
 
Hadron said:
Lies? What lies?
Click to expand...

Your claim that "the cola gang" changed it's "mantra" on this issue.
Stop sticking your head in the and calling people
liars. It doesnt strengthen your position.
Click to expand...

I only do so when I see a lie.

Can you point to a specific person who has changed his stroy on this
issue? Links to both posts would be appreciated.
The OEM? But they dont make printers.
Click to expand...

They sell printers.
 
flatfish+++ said:
Why hasn't Linux taken over Windows on the desktop?

That is the question to be answered.
Click to expand...

No, it's not, dumbass troll.

The question is why don't we see more usage of Linux by OEM's. We're
a LONG way from Linux "taking over" Windows on the desktop.

Most consumers need the OS pre-installed, and Micro$oft uses it's
market power to keep the large OEM's from pre-installing Linux.
 
Monopolysoft said:
Me too Kerry!
Click to expand...

Many would benefit by having Linux/Windows dual-boot setup from the
factory. This would allow pain-free, risk-free trial of Linux by the
masses.

Obviously, Micro$oft will NOT allow this.
 
What hardware, FUDmeister? On a typical office PC, all the hardware
is on the motherboard. You're full of shit, as usual, Erik.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, and of course having the hardware on the motherboard means it
doesn't require a driver.

Spot the logic flaw, Mr. Kettle.
 
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
LIAR!!!
I said windopes can't play multiple videos. Who give a fsck if
other proprietory players you pay for can?
In any case, are you sure its coming from the HD and not RAM cache???
Some dum dum had 2Gb cache to rise to the challenge.
256Mbytes RAM is not enough to cache large 6 DVD videos
to be played at the same time.



Out of date information - Linux has taken bigger chunks out of the
pie becoming ubiquitous embedded devices, servers, and slowly but
relentlessly taking on the desktop.
Click to expand...


Nah, very up to date:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/October/os.php
 
Why would they do that? Why not choose hardware that's compatible with
both Windows *and* Linux?
Click to expand...

Because the Windows hardware might be cheaper for a variety of reasons?
(you know, software processing like WinModems and the like, or simply
because they can sell more units).

So if it costs $40 for hardware that works on both Linux and Windows, but
$15 for Windows only hardware, they're going to choose the $40 hardware for
all their machines?
I worked in R&D for 25 years. If we didn't want to have to write the
drivers ourselves then we just told the supplier to come up with them or
we'd choose a different chipset from someone who would. The major
chipset suppliers all have teams whose sole job it is to fill these
requests. It's simply not the OEM's problem. Even if it were, you're
trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Creating drivers
represents an insignificant percentage of the overall production cost of a
computer.
Click to expand...

If that were true, then it would be in the hardware vendors best interest
to create drivers for every possible platform. Other than network drivers,
which are pretty standard, that's simply not the case. That suggests it's
a little more than an "insignificant" percentage.
If that were true, they wouldn't consider OSS at all and you wouldn't have
to run around FUDing all the time.
Click to expand...

That's just it, they really don't, other than on the server, which has a
much smaller range of OS's that are considered "enterprise class".
Except they don't have to hire their own programmers to do it because the
OSS developers are damn good and damn quick. Look at Intel's release of
the IA-64 and AMD's release of the AMD-64. In both cases company engineers
worked closely with open-source volunteers on coding the drivers. The very
day those chips were released, the open-source crew had a 64-bit OS
ready-to-go, all of their open-source drivers were already recompiled to
run on 64 bit systems, and they had thousands of 64-bit applications. A
year later Windows finally came along with an OS. Several years after that
we're still waiting for the Windows drivers and applications. Even
Microsoft is telling us a full set of 64-bit applications is at least
another year past the commercial release of Vista.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. This is just one example. I can give you a bunch of
examples of the opposite. For example, the AGP GART support for intel
chipsets took over a year to get written from the time Intel released the
product.
Now imagine that you're an OEM wanting to give consumers or a large
corporate customer a reason to replace their perfectly good hardware.
Touting the benefits of new technology is the usual way to go. However you
can't sell them on the new 64-bit CPU's if they run Windows and are tied
to all those 32-bit-only Windows apps. If only they ran Linux, though...
Click to expand...

There is simply no guarantee that any open source developer will care
enough to do your work for your within any kind of timeframe. AMD-64 was a
huge deal, so yeah, there were lots of people working on it. But what if
you're ACME tv tuners?
You mean like Intel and AMD needed to *know* there'd be an OS, drivers,
and applications for their new 64-bit CPU's?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I mean. You're taking a few singular, and massively
important events and trying to translate them to obscure hardware. That's
flawed reasoning.
Tell me Erik, who was there first - open source, or closed source?
Click to expand...

Both. You do realize that there's more to Closed source than just
Microsoft, right?
 
flatfish+++ said:
This is absolutely try.
Also consider that the manufacturers are already set up for Windows
be it hardware support, software support or systems tech support.

Adding support for another operating system costs money far beyond the
preload.


Linux has to be a better Windows than Windows for consumer desktop
users to be enticed to switch.

In many ways Linux is, but in many ways it is not and even when Linux
is better than Windows, it's not *that much better* and Joe user is so
entrenched in Windows software that there is no reason for him to
switch.

The truth is in the proof.
Linux is free.
Windows is not.
Windows is a security nightmare.
Linux is not.
Click to expand...

I would change this to say Windows in it's default configuration running as
an administrator user is a security nightmare. A Linux user running as root
would be just as much of a security nightmare. Its the culture of "It's my
computer and I'll do what I want" that makes Windows insecure. Windows (NT
based versions) configured properly is as secure as any other OS. If as in
most Linux distros a standard user was created during the Windows install
and then was the default logon account most of the Windows security problems
would go away. There would be a lot of pain because programmers have also
bought into the everyone is an administrator paradigm over the years but
eventually it would get sorted out.
 
Ahh yes, and of course having the hardware on the motherboard means it
doesn't require a driver.

Spot the logic flaw, Mr. Kettle.
Click to expand...

What flaw?

Excepting wide variances in motherboards, which are not
out of the question given the wide variances in things like NICs,
integrated peripheral components will at the very least provide
you with a good deal of PREDICTABILITY that makes it rediculously
easy to support what is a very stable target.

--

It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.

They brought us the email virus.

In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \
 
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv
<[email protected]>
wrote
Many would benefit by having Linux/Windows dual-boot setup from the
factory. This would allow pain-free, risk-free trial of Linux by the
masses.
Click to expand...

Ideally. I'll admit I wonder who constructs the image
slapped onto thousands if not millions of machines as they
amble down the assembly line.

If it's Microsoft, we're in trouble. If it's the OEM,
it would depend on his technical expertise in constructing
the image.
Obviously, Micro$oft will NOT allow this.
Click to expand...

Unless forced to by external causes, such as DoJ. :-)
 
Because the Windows hardware might be cheaper for a variety of reasons?
(you know, software processing like WinModems and the like, or simply
because they can sell more units).
Click to expand...

Linux can run many winmodems and most other "Windows-only" devices,
provided the specs and firmware are made available. In some cases it can
do it even without the specs, for example using ndiswrapper to run Windows
networking drivers.
So if it costs $40 for hardware that works on both Linux and Windows, but
$15 for Windows only hardware, they're going to choose the $40 hardware for
all their machines?
Click to expand...

No, they're going to tell the manufacturer of the $15 device that they'll
order 10,000 pieces only if they come with Linux drivers, else they'll
buy from a competitor.
If that were true, then it would be in the hardware vendors best interest
to create drivers for every possible platform. Other than network drivers,
which are pretty standard, that's simply not the case. That suggests it's
a little more than an "insignificant" percentage.
Click to expand...

An "insignificant percentage" of the total cost is still a finite amount.
It's only worth producing drivers for a given platform if that will
produce enough sales to exceed the costs. IMO Linux has been there for
some time but Microsoft works very hard (to put it exceedingly politely)
to deter OEM's and hardware manufacturers from allowing OSS into the
market.
That's just it, they really don't, other than on the server, which has a
much smaller range of OS's that are considered "enterprise class".
Click to expand...

Ah, but they really do. The high-end video drivers released by ATI and
Nvidia aren't needed by servers, you know.
Apples and oranges. This is just one example. I can give you a bunch of
examples of the opposite.
Click to expand...

And I can give you a whole bunch more the other way.
For example, the AGP GART support for intel chipsets took over a year to
get written from the time Intel released the product.
Click to expand...

How long did it take someone to write the drivers for all those chipsets
for Windows?
There is simply no guarantee that any open source developer will care
enough to do your work for your within any kind of timeframe.
Click to expand...

Of course there is. If you don't trust the OSS process and just
*have* to have a contract, hire a consultant. I hear that many of the
kernel guys pick up some spare pocket change this way.
AMD-64 was a huge deal, so yeah, there were lots of people working on
it. But what if you're ACME tv tuners?
Click to expand...

If the manufacturer cooperates, the open-source community will be thrilled
to create the drivers.
No, that's not what I mean. You're taking a few singular, and massively
important events and trying to translate them to obscure hardware. That's
flawed reasoning.
Click to expand...

No, I'm demonstrating a massive failure of closed source to satisfy the
chip manufacturer's needs in a timely manner.
Both. You do realize that there's more to Closed source than just
Microsoft, right?
Click to expand...

That's why I said "closed source" instead of "Microsoft". It wasn't just
Microsoft that failed with the move to 64-bit CPU's. The whole
closed-source model failed to produce the drivers and applications to help
sell the new platform.
 
The system ships with a blank hard drive, the just toss a CD in the box
with the PC when it goes out the door. And they don't make any bones
about "operating system support". They don't install it and they won't
support it. Maybe they will toss in a ubuntu cd next month if some one
will send them some freebies, same support.
Click to expand...

That'd be good 'nuf for me. All I want is a Linux compatibility and to be
able to forego the "Microsoft Tax".

Not that I'm silly enough to think Microsoft would ever let it happen, but
with WPA/WGA there's really no reason the bundled Windows can't be a
30-day trial.
 
Back
Top