So you just go on believing what you like. And in five years or so I'll check in and see if you have faced reality yet.
Posted on 07/04/2008 4:13:56 PM PDT by decimon
Michael Robertson, chairman of Linspire, said the assets of his company were sold to Xandros after "years of frustration in trying to achieve the goal of desktop Linux."
< >
"Trying to compete with Microsoft on the desktop has been a futile effort. What the last 20 years has shown is that the Microsoft ecosystem goes far beyond Windows" into thousands of drivers for PC devices and applications to run on end-user machines. For Linux to match that may be impossible, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Gee... I never had that problem.
I run 7 PCs at the house: 5 Vista, 2 XP. Haven’t had a virus in years and years. I run AVG as well.
Corporate America is not shifting from Windows anytime soon. Everything they run is Windows based.
As far as I know, NONE of my most used software will run under anything but Windows. I would like it if someone can tell me otherwise. Specifically, I use Visual Studios 2008 all day long, UltraEdit, and other development tools.
Microsoft is very organized where it counts: development tools.
Microsoft’s underlying architecture works very well together and that’s what makes them formidable. They control the dev environment and are very good and cultivating 3rd party dev tools. The Microsoft dev environment is incredible and even a lot of Linux proponents will acknowledge how strong the toolset is for MS development work.
In corporate America, I don’t have to ask if they have x,y,and z installed. it already is and I can count on it being there. Excel, for example, is on just about every desktop and everything I touch involves Excel at some point. that commonality allows code to be shared and makes for easy deployments.
I have never encountered Linux on a client machine in corporate America to date and i’ve been a consultant for 10+ years.
Why does a firewall matter? I don’t have any firewalls and have not been compromised.
You sit behind a NAT if you are on a router.
A NAT is effectively a firewall.Why does a firewall matter? I don’t have any firewalls and have not been compromised.
You sit behind a NAT if you are on a router.
Most modern routers installed for consumer apps are NAT enabled. Almost everyone I know has routers from their service providers (DSL, Cable) and are NAT-enabled.
Whether it is Windows, Linux, Apple, whatever, most people are protected. Vista and XP are secure and have been for a long time. To claim otherwise is false.
You are just as vulnerable regardless of O/S. The arguments over Windows vulnerability are passe and the Linux proponents have not shown a valuable reason for switching on value. It is still a fear argument and people simply aren’t buying it.
LOL!Whether it is Windows, Linux, Apple, whatever, most people are protected. Vista and XP are secure and have been for a long time. To claim otherwise is false.
You are just as vulnerable regardless of O/S. The arguments over Windows vulnerability are passe and the Linux proponents have not shown a valuable reason for switching on value. It is still a fear argument and people simply aren’t buying it. [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]
A 5 year old worm? That’s the best evidence available?
The Linux community touts how it is patched super fast yet Windows is also patched automatically. If someone is running Windows w/o an update for 5 years and the system is compromised, how does that reflect on Windows overall?
Would it be fair to have Linux on a 5 year old base be evaluated?
When was the last time a Blaster style worm hit Linux and made headlines?
5 year old story, let it go.
When was the last time a productivity app hit Linux and scored $1B in revenue? $100M? $10M? $1M?
No business model there and viruses aren’t scoring big. No upside for Linux, no downside for Windows. That closes up the argument. Without money, businesses don’t care about supporting Linux and there isn’t a compelling reason to change from Windows.
There are two basic problems with your fascination with your two percent number.
One, Linux developers are not chasing market share. They build a product that they, and those users that interact with them, want to use. They aren't doing market studies or focus groups to determine that you need to move a menu 18 pixels to the right and 1.4% of your users will feel better about themselves.
Secondly, if we accept the fact that some people (other than developers and actual users) really do care about what inroads Linux on the desktop has made, how do you count the numbers? Linux is a free download. And even if you try to count the download numbers, it is common and perfectly legal, to download a single ISO and install it on multiple computers.
The vast majority of Linux users also use advanced web browsers that allow the modifying of User Agent strings to mimic IE, thus making any count of UA string metrics unreliable.
And let's not forget that once upon a time, MSDOS had a microscopic share of the market.
And part of your very reply indicates why Linux can't do the same. With all the "distros", the Linux community seems determined to avoid the consistency that might actually get to critical mass on support, community, device drivers, and the other factors that have to be there for mass market acceptance.
Spoken by someone that doesn't really understand how Linux works. Since all Linux distros are based on the same kernel and userspace apps, there is a large amount of consisitency that doesn't appear in closed-source software. All a distribution does is package the same Linux kernel and same GNU userspace apps with some integration utilities. Much like how a dozen different chefs, given the same ingredients, all can come up with different dishes, Linux distros are much the same inside but different in how they are prepared.
Also, because of it's open nature, code from one project can be taken and put into another project. There is a lot less duplication of effort between two "competing" open source email programs than there would be between, say, Outlook and Lotus Notes.
The links you posted were interesting, and highly typical of Microsoft converts. While he didn't post an entire list of his hardware, he did make some posts concerning certain kinds of hardware that pointed out pretty clearly that what he did was take his crappy old hardware that used to run Windows and throw Ubuntu on it.
He has become indoctrinated to the One Microsoft Way. That's show by the way he had problems with his USB key. He unplugged it from his Windows box without unmounting it first. Windows tags this as a dirty file system and then doesn't recognize the dirty filesystem when you plug it back in.
Ubuntu did exactly the right thing. It saw a dirty file system and refused to mount it. That's the right thing to do. That's what Windows should have done, but doesn't do because it's broken. Note that Windows does do this sometimes, like if you power off your PC without properly shutting it down, the filesystem on the hard drive gets flagged as dirty and you have to run a disk check on the next power up. For some inexplicable reason, Windows doesn't do this with USB keys.
His problems weren't with Ubuntu, his problems were with being used to doing things the Microsoft way and Ubuntu not being Windows.
Interestingly (and highly common with these highly publicized "Linux switcher failures") is his lack of information about what he tried to do to fix the problem.
On a Windows platform, you fiddle with it and you fiddle with it and maybe it will start working and maybe it will stay working. On a Linux platform if it doesn't work, you avail yourself of the many and excellent support options.
I recently helped out a FReeper with a quite similar problem. He put Ubuntu on a PC and everything worked but the horribly broken, Windows-only wireless card. There is an ugly hack to MAKE one of those work on Linux, but the much easier and more correct option is to buy a wireless card that is actually supported by Linux.
He popped in the new card and it just worked.
Once again, most of the problems these convertees have is that they are trying to make a Windows box into an Ubuntu box. Most of the time it works, but if you want it to work right the first time you can do one of two things.
You can check your hardware against the list of supported hardware, or you can buy a PC with Linux already installed.
I've yet to see a failed conversion when one of those criteria is met.
Perhaps you would like to explain away the presence of the botnet.
Vint Cerf estimated that between 20% and 40% of Windows computers were infected with some kind of botnet. Microsoft's own estimates came in around 68%.
Most people THINK they are protected. The malware of today is very different than the clumsy software of yesterday. Today's malware is quiet. It doesn't crash servers or bring down networks. Today's malware just makes your machine a little slower. Today's malware is responsible for the vast majority of spam.
So if your sitting there all smug because you've never been infected, the greater likelihood is that you just don't know you've been infected.
Yes, but if Microsoft has corrected the problem 5-10 years ago why do people insist on beating them up on a problem they fixed?
BTW, my systems are fine because I monitor them. if they were compromised, I should be able to discover it. I was actually monitoring packets today and nothing appeared abnormal but bots are bots.
Linux from 1998 would be a security hole as well, which is my point. XP and Vista are very secure, especially if people keep up their Windows Update which is the recommended setting.
Whether it is MVS, Unix, or Windows, systems can be compromised. Unix and MVS tends to get more attention on patches because they have loyal followings or lots more money involved. Most folks running Windows have no clue that they need to manage IT infrastructure but they do. All systems run the same and they all need some level of oversight.
Perhaps Microsoft’s biggest mistake is that they made systems seem simple: they are not.
I am in the middle of reverse engineering a binary file format with a team of coders (it runs on all systems including VMS). The amount of work and experience to do it is incredible. How the non-tech person works with systems on a day-to-day basis amazes me: Windows made that happen.
I don’t really care about the O/S because I deal with all of them. Beating up on Windows is like beating up on the Model A: it made America, good or bad.
All OSes have security issues from time to time.
Microsoft has a long history of serious security issues and they often take a very long time to fix them.
The also have a history of fixing problems, then shipping a new patch and unfixing it. That's what happened with Slammer.
BTW, my systems are fine because I monitor them. if they were compromised, I should be able to discover it.
"Should" being the operative word. Bot creators are constantly updating their malware to evade known Windows security scanners. They also put hooks into the OS to instruct installed security scanners to ignore the malware.
Basically, if you don't boot and scan from safe, read-only media you can't really trust the effectiveness of the scan.
I was actually monitoring packets today and nothing appeared abnormal but bots are bots.
Bots don't spew data all the time. They wake up from time to time and check in. So, if you aren't monitoring your traffic (from another system. See above) 24/7 you won't necessarily see bot traffic.
Linux from 1998 would be a security hole as well, which is my point. XP and Vista are very secure, especially if people keep up their Windows Update which is the recommended setting.
Unix and unix-like operating systems are a completely different design. They were built with privilege separation from the start. Windows privilege systems are a bolt on.
Whether it is MVS, Unix, or Windows, systems can be compromised. Unix and MVS tends to get more attention on patches because they have loyal followings or lots more money involved.
Even the smallest and least used Unix type OS is safer than Windows. Microsoft publishes hundreds of megabytes of updates on a regular basis yet they are still found vulnerable to system-level exploits on a regular basis. This is due to fundamental design flaws.
Perhaps Microsoft’s biggest mistake is that they made systems seem simple: they are not.
Thus my disdain for MS, Inc. They have spent a great deal of effort to tell Joe User that you don't need to be an administrator to run Windows. So, millions of Windows boxes aren't properly administered. Combine that with the flaws in the Windows design and viola! you get millions and millions of compromised Windows machines.
Beating up on Windows is like beating up on the Model A: it made America, good or bad.
Microsoft's operating systems were present when the PC boom occured. To say that the PC boom happened due to Microsoft's software would be disingenuous at best. No matter what OS IBM picked to put on it's first PC, the boom would still have happened.
Between Bill Gates buying QDOS, his mother being on the board of directors of the United Way alongside IBM President John Opel and some slick licensing deals, Microsoft's dominance of the PC market has been due to good fortune rather than good software.
Good, because the market share is not there and is never going to be there as long as Linuxen have the same "Linux is ideal and everything else sucks" attitude that I see exhibited by most of them. That position simply ignores reality and the cost/benefit comparison of various options for various users.
"...how do you count the numbers?"
Those numbers are from surveys of real users, asking what they actually use (not what they've downloaded and played around with).
"And let's not forget that once upon a time, MSDOS had a microscopic share of the market."
And how long did that microscopic share last? About a year or so. Then in less than four years it went from nowhere to the dominate operating system for personal computers.
You're really trying hard to blow off the most salient facts here. Two percent! Fifteen years! Come on, doesn't that suggest something less than optimal about this platform that you are so enamoured with?
"Spoken by someone that doesn't really understand how Linux works. Since all Linux distros are based on the same kernel and userspace apps, there is a large amount of consisitency that doesn't appear in closed-source software. All a distribution does is package the same Linux kernel and same GNU userspace apps with some integration utilities. Much like how a dozen different chefs, given the same ingredients, all can come up with different dishes, Linux distros are much the same inside but different in how they are prepared."
This is nonsense on toast! If someone has a problem with a Linux system and asks a Linux maven for help, the very first question that will be asked is "what distro are you using?" If what you say is true, there would be very little need to ask that question!
"The links you posted were interesting, and highly typical of Microsoft converts. While he didn't post an entire list of his hardware, he did make some posts concerning certain kinds of hardware that pointed out pretty clearly that what he did was take his crappy old hardware that used to run Windows and throw Ubuntu on it. "
First, he didn't have crappy old hardware. It was a recent Thinkpad.
Second, don't you Linux guys constantly tell us that one of the benefits of Linux is that it allows people to run old hardware that's obsolete for Windows? So now you're changing the story to "the problem was crappy old hardware".
I could find plenty of other incidents. I just happened to run across that one recently. But I don't think it would matter how many I showed you. You would find some minor point that explained why they just didn't do it right. Because goodness forbid that the fault be on the Linux side!
If you don't like Microsoft, that's fine. If you think Linux hung the moon, that's fine too. But if you can't face reality about the costs, benefits, advantages, and disadvantages of both those technology sets (plus Macintosh), then you have no place in advising anyone about what technology to choose because you're too biased.
In short, don't get emotionally attached to your technologies. They're just tools. Different jobs need different tools. And when the tools are functionally similar, different people will have different tastes.
Surveys are an interesting way to see what kinds of things are happening out there, but they are seldom good indicators of real, hard numbers of installs. Traditionally, sales numbers are used for that and indeed, commercial software continues to make use of sales numbers, while Linux numbers are, at best, an estimate.
You're really trying hard to blow off the most salient facts here. Two percent! Fifteen years! Come on, doesn't that suggest something less than optimal about this platform that you are so enamoured with?
And then you return to your fabricated "two percent" theory. Nice.
Besides, are you seriously trying to compare the increase in numbers of MSDOS (which tracked exactly with the increase of the new IBM PC) to the increase of an OS into an existing PC market already dominated by a monopoly?
This is nonsense on toast! If someone has a problem with a Linux system and asks a Linux maven for help, the very first question that will be asked is "what distro are you using?" If what you say is true, there would be very little need to ask that question!
Of course, because nobody ever asks which version of Windows someone is using, right? Windows 2000 (Home and Pro), Windows Server 2003, Windows XP (Home and Pro), Windows Server 2008, and the near dozen different Vista versions. And then there's Media center and half a dozen different ways to license the server versions, each one of which comes with different capabilities.
First, he didn't have crappy old hardware. It was a recent Thinkpad.
Which may or may not have had hardware supported by the version he installed. In fact, several of the problems he complained about are very common when you run up against hardware vendors that won't publish specs for their hardware.
Second, don't you Linux guys constantly tell us that one of the benefits of Linux is that it allows people to run old hardware that's obsolete for Windows?
Two different things. Yes, Linux will run on older hardware that would be unusably slow with Windows. It still has to be SUPPORTED hardware.
You seem to be insisting that just because Linux will install and run on most hardware that it must do so with zero problems. The simple fact is that Linux will install and run nearly all hardware, but some hardware will require additional tweaking. If you don't mind digging into the internals, it can almost always be made to work on what ever hardware you have at hand.
If you don't want to do that, you can always use fully supported hardware.
This is a primary difference from proprietary software. If hardware isn't supported with a Windows driver, it simply won't work with Windows. Full stop. With Linux, unsupported hardware can be made to work if you have the skill and the patience.
For the experimental user, Linux will work on what they have. They may have to fiddle with it a lot, but it can be made to work.
For the whiny crybabies that want to use unsupported hardware and then complain that it doesn't work perfectly out of the box, the answer will always be the same. USE SUPPORTED HARDWARE.
I could find plenty of other incidents. I just happened to run across that one recently. But I don't think it would matter how many I showed you. You would find some minor point that explained why they just didn't do it right. Because goodness forbid that the fault be on the Linux side!
And I could show you hundreds of examples where people installed a Linux distro and had no problems at all. So what?
But if you can't face reality about the costs, benefits, advantages, and disadvantages of both those technology sets (plus Macintosh), then you have no place in advising anyone about what technology to choose because you're too biased.
That's a laugh. Since you have demonstrated no knowledge of how GPL software works in the commercial software market (it doesn't) and little knowledge of the technical requirements of Linux and how they make the difference between a good experience and a poor experience, and you have demonstrated hostility towards Linux based on incomplete knowledge, you're a fine one to talk about "bias."
In short, don't get emotionally attached to your technologies. They're just tools. Different jobs need different tools. And when the tools are functionally similar, different people will have different tastes.
You would be wise to take your own advice. Microsoft is currently the dominant force on the desktop. Once upon a time, Novell was the dominant force in the server room, Lotus was the dominant force in the spreadsheet market, WordPerfect was the dominant force in the word processor market and Ashton-Tate was the dominant force in the database market.
Tools and how they are used change over time. Companies that keep trying to sell the same old thing to the same users will eventually find themselves out of the market.
Markets change over time too. Once upon a time, you'd buy a computer and the software would be provided for free, along with source code. Companies like Data General, DEC and IBM gave away their software and sold support (along with selling their hardware.)
IBM has already started moving back to this position. AS/400s and RS/6000 are generally shipped with dozens of Linux virtual machines. IBM doesn't charge for the Linux. They sell a support contract.
Don't get too caught up in "sales numbers." When all software is sold, it's a good metric. When there is a trend toward free, downloaded software those numbers don't mean as much.
For those that aren't aware, the Eee PC is the hottest selling PC form factor on the market. Asus is forecasting worldwide shipments of 10 million 7 to 10 inch screen netbooks this year! And a billion in 2018.
So much for Linux not being ready for "the masses."
I would simply point out that I've been the one mentioning Apple as a viable option, and that they have figured out what it takes to compete with Microsoft. I'm also the one that has been saying that if you like Linux, that's fine with me.
On the other hand, I've yet to see a single statement from you that indicates that Linux is less than perfect or that Microsoft technologies ever make sense as a choice. From that, I'd say it's pretty clear who is emotionally attached to their technologies.
While at the same time casting aspersions on Linux due to it's percieved lack of market share, with the assumption that market share, or lack of it, has any bearing on the quality or suitability of the product.
On the other hand, I've yet to see a single statement from you that indicates that Linux is less than perfect or that Microsoft technologies ever make sense as a choice.
From that, I'd say it's pretty clear who is emotionally attached to their technologies.
If you are saying that after careful study and long reflection I've come to the conclusion that Open Source software over the long run provides a better and more stable product, you'd be right.
But that's not what you've been saying. You've been trying to marginalize one of the fastest growing products in the industry based on your bias against Linux. The reason for such bias isn't precisely clear, but considering your lack of knowledge of how Linux fits into legacy market dynamics, it's pretty clear that it's a dislike based on little else than fear of the unknown.
Posting a link that doesn't come anywhere near to proving what you claim it proves doesn't exactly bolster your case. It makes you look like a desperate partisan.
"While at the same time casting aspersions on Linux due to it's percieved lack of market share, with the assumption that market share, or lack of it, has any bearing on the quality or suitability of the product."
Ya know, a believer in free market capitalism would say that lack of market share is pretty relevant as to the quality or suitability of a product. If it were high quality, more suitable, and cheaper to boot, you would think it would have taken over the world by now. Somehow it hasn't.
" All OSes have security issues from time to time. "
I refuse to go back through my thousands of tech posts since 1998 and deliver to you the many times that I've noted that Linux isn't perfect.
Ya know, a believer in free market capitalism would say that lack of market share is pretty relevant as to the quality or suitability of a product.
HAHAHAHAHAA!
I wondered when you'd start intimating that I was a communist or something. It seem it's the last, desperate gasp of the Linux hater. You think you guys would get some new material.
As soon as you provide hard numbers for Linux installs then we can proceed with a discussion about marketshare. Until then, it's just hand waving.
Oh, and the industry for some time has been quietly laughing up their sleeves at Microsoft's "market share" numbers, since Microsoft counts every copy sold to OEMs, even if those copies are sitting on machines or in boxes in a warehouse.
And I note that you completed ignored the post about the EeePC, the hottest selling computer in the market today. And that it ships with Linux.
If it were high quality, more suitable, and cheaper to boot, you would think it would have taken over the world by now.
The quality of a product and the suitability of a product hae exactly zero to do with marketshare. Not everyone owns a Mack truck or a Lamborghini. Their market share is abysmal. Yet there aren't a bunch of people screaming that they are failures.
Linux is moving into places like embedded PCs, mainframes, clusters and micro-laptops where Windows hasn't and will never hold a monopoly.
Only those people frightened of change and hanging on to the traditional way of determining success by the number of SKUs shipped continue to ignore that.
Why should I even try? If you don't like the numbers, you'll just come up some handwaving excuse not to accept them.
The ones I already cited were done by a reputable survey firm with no ax to grind. And notice that the 2% number was the high end. But you don't like the numbers, so you simply don't accept them. Fine, but then don't tell you us you are not emotionally wedded to Linux. It insults our intelligence.
Handwave?
Here's a story about why Linux estimates can't be trusted.
And here are a couple of reputable firms that have estimates all over the place.
IDC also says 12% of the server market.
Siemens says it's closer to 20%"
So, which one is it?
The truth of the matter is that due to Linux not being a product that has real sales numbers, you can't accurately estimate the number of machines that it's being used on.
Secondly, many Windows systems (that are counted as Windows market share) are formatted and Linux installed. This is true of the machine I'm typing on now and at least 9 machines within eyesight here at the office.
Let me relate a story that will shed more light on these kinds of numbers.
Many of these "estimates" are created by polling the CIO's of corporations and asking them what OS they are running.
I was doing some work for a Fortune 1000 company, tweaking a monitoring system, when I overheard the CIO make a statement like, "I don't know where people get the idea that Windows is unstable. We run Windows file servers and we haven't had any down time in years!"
The IT guy with me snickered all the way back to the server room. Once there he told me that they had replaced the crashy Windows file servers with Samba servers running on RedHat nearly two years before.
This in hardly uncommon. I know that my boss doesn't know what OS I have on my company provided laptop or desktop and he doesn't care. As soon as I had them in my hands I got rid of Windows and installed Ubuntu. Everyone else on my team does the same.
So tell me, O Guru of Marketing, which is the correct number, if any.
And please let us benefit from your boundless wisdom and explain your reasoning as to which number is correct and why.
Be sure to show your work. Answers without facts will be dismissed as guesses.
You want predictions? I've still got the graph from the Gartner Group from 1990 that said that Unix would be the most popular desktop OS by 1995.
So you've got nothin'. Prediction and anecdotes about people laughing in the server room are all you can trot out.
You just don't want to accept the numbers generated from real surveys. Too bad, but your ardent desire for Linux' success does not change reality.
You do realize that of all the links I posted, the estimates are the ones that showed how they gathered the data.
The one's you cite as "real surveys" have no information on how the data was gathered. They could have rolled dice and recorded the throws.
And ALL of them are from trusted reporting groups.
So here we are, with you doing what you claimed I was doing.
You have dismissed certain numbers because you don't like them.
Too bad, but your ardent desire for Linux' success does not change reality.
And your rabid hate of Linux does not give you mystic powers to determine what the numbers actually are.
I've said over and over again that I don't trust ANY of the numbers because the old way of recording marketshare doesn't work with Linux.
The number may well be 1% or 2%.
I don't know. The thing is, neither do you or anyone else.
But because of your nasty dislike of Linux, the low number simply MUST BE.
Get back to me when you understand the difference between a prediction and a survey.
"The one's you cite as "real surveys" have no information on how the data was gathered."
"This report was generated 02/29/2008 based on the last 20,873,774 unique visits to all tracked websites at that time. W3Counter's sample currently includes 12,370 websites. The last 25,000 page views to each website are analyzed to identify unique visits. Some visits may occur before the month of the report."
And the other site has this page:
"We use a unique methodology for collecting this data. We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of live stats customers. The data is compiled from approximately 160 million visitors per month. The information published is an aggregate of the data from this network of hosted website statistics. The site unique visitor and referral information is summarized on a monthly basis.
"In addition, we classify 430+ referral sources identified as search engines. Aggregate traffic referrals from these engines are summarized and reported monthly. The statistics for search engines include both organic and sponsored referrals. The websites in our population represent dozens of countries in regions including North America, South America, Western Europe, Australia / Pacific Rim and Parts of Asia."
Are you going to keep coming back with more nonsense? How many times do you want to get pwned on this thread, anyway?
I should probably address this one too. Linux isn't to my taste, but I bear no particular dislike of it, and certainly no "nasty dislike". I have Linux installed on one system, which I use for browser compatibility testing. It's OK, though I can't say I'd like to use it for my regular system.
But it seems perfectly functional for some tasks, and if someone want to use it, I have no beef with that. I also don't find Macintosh to my taste, though I have to admit they have done some pretty interesting and innovative things, and I understand why some people use them.
No, I don't dislike Linux. When it comes to overzealous Linux advocates who bend the facts to make Linux look better than it is... well, that's another story.
And perhaps one day you will learn the difference between a hard number and a guess.
One of these so-called surveys says this:
"We use a unique methodology for collecting this data."
Which means, because it's unique, that no one else uses it. I wonder why.
What they are gathering is the User Agent strings. We have already discussed how User Agent strings are not reliable because they can easily be changed. And they often are in order to pretend compatibility for poorly-coded IE-only pages.
Here's a link that explains why a user agent string isn't very useful for statistics.
Here's a Wikipedia article that says:
One result of user agent spoofing is that the usage share of Internet Explorer, the user agent browsers typically spoof, is probably overestimated
There is a Linux application called Crossover Office. It's purpose is to allow Linux users to run Microsoft Office. As a bonus, it also let's you run Internet Explorer. How many people have bought CX Office? I don't know. I do know that they've been selling (yes, selling) CX Office for over 10 years and managed to stay in business. How many people who use CX Office run IE? Well, I know my wife does. That tells me two things. One, it actually works and two, the number of people doing it is not zero.
So what you have are a bunch of web browsers that identify themselves as running on Windows. Not all of them are. And you have programs which let Windows browsers run on Linux. Which ones showing up as Windows machines actually are? I don't know. Neither do you. Neither do the people that collect these statistics.
Fact: Unless you go into businesses, boot up machines and actually count which are Windows and which are Linux all you have is a very complicated guess.
Are you going to keep coming back with more nonsense? How many times do you want to get pwned on this thread, anyway?
How many times are you going to spew this debunked FUD? Do you figure that if you keep telling the lie eventually it will become true?
How about playing audio and video files. What works through all the different formats and codec?
I believe this it what is called "damning with faint praise."
When the hottest selling PC runs Linux, when Spain installs 80,000 desktop systems running Linux, when China installs 140,000 desktops running Linux, when IBM offers Linux on desktops inside the company, when the most downloaded Linux distro is Ubuntu, a desktop Linux, then many people think it's more than merely "functional for some tasks."
I use mplayer and xine. The combination plays just about everything except iTunes m4p’s.
The dual monitors aren’t difficult with Ubuntu at all. A search of the Ubuntu forums has a step by step guide for it.
In fact, I find that the support for dual monitors is head and shoulders above Windows.
How is the Mini Note? Of the small laptops, that seems to me to be the one to get, but the VIA processor made me hesitate. Seems like it should have an Atom.
Thanks for the guidance.
So you just go on believing what you like. And in five years or so I'll check in and see if you have faced reality yet.
Wifi problems in Linux are almost always due to the hardware manufacturer not releasing their specifications. Those wifi chipsets that are fully documented (Intel, Ralink) generally work out of the box.
On the few occasions where it's a natively supported wifi chip the problem is usually a configuration issue, often user induced. A check of the log files, some posting to forums or some googling will often find you a resolution.
But with Windows you get these...
From Win95 to Vista (pictured) it's nice to know that Microsoft never changes anything, isn't it?
"Ah, because Windows never has problems, right?"
I never said that. Yet another attempt on your part to change the subject. (I can understand why. Defending Linux as enthusiastically as you do would require any weapon at hand, disingenuous or not.)
"Wifi problems in Linux are almost always due..."
Why would the typical desktop user care where the problems came from? The facts are that Vista is very smart about wireless networks and Linux is not. (That does not mean Vista never has problems, but it does work transparently for a wide variety of wireless hardware, and Linux apparently does not.)
"But with Windows you get these..."
Not very often. Only happens on catastrophic failures (such as disk failures). The driver certification program makes it rare for drivers. I've yet to see the blue screen on Vista. I've seen the blue screen perhaps two or three times in six years using XP.
You're reaching, pal. Every post you make proves how desperate you are to make Linux look better than it is and Windows look worse than it is. Neither is perfect, and neither is garbage. They just suit different classes of people.
Hey, hate Microsoft all you like. They get on my nerves too, particularly with their stupid activation thing. And I still don't like Office 2007 compared to earlier versions. It's made for users who are pretty much ignorant, and they actually took out features that power users want and need.
But don't let Microsoft's flaws cloud your perception of reality. Microsoft did not get to be the biggest, most successful software company in history by selling products people don't find useful. They invest many millions in trying to make their products install cleanly. With the wide variety of hardware out there, they can't make the process perfect, but they do pretty well.
The Linux community will not, in any foreseeable future, have the investment dollars to match that kind of effort to make Linux as transparently easy to install on the desktop as Mac or Windows. That's simple fact. Denying it just makes you look out of touch.
In fact, this entire exchange with you has confirmed every impression I've ever had about the Linux fanatic who just won't face up to the limitations of Linux. I suspect I'm not the only one who sees it. I think you're hurting your own case by looking so out of touch, and thereby actually making it less likely that people will try Linux.
Because it matters a great deal if it's a systemic problem inherent to a design flaw in the OS (which the user can't fix), if it's a hardware incompatibilty (which the user can fix by replacing the hardware with compatible hardware) or if it's due to a self-inflicted config change.
Not very often. Only happens on catastrophic failures (such as disk failures). The driver certification program makes it rare for drivers.
It is somewhat less in the recent past, but driver signing just says that Microsoft has made a cursory inspection of the driver. It no more guarantees good driver code than the Microsoft logo on a Windows shrink-wrap package guarantees good code.
. Microsoft did not get to be the biggest, most successful software company in history by selling products people don't find useful.
Ah, that old chesnut. Actually, Microsoft got to be the monopoly that it is in two phases. One, piggybacking on IBMs successful PC line and two, maintaining their dominance through stealing, lying and cheating.
They invest many millions in trying to make their products install cleanly.
In fact, this entire exchange with you has confirmed every impression I've ever had about the Linux fanatic who just won't face up to the limitations of Linux. I suspect I'm not the only one who sees it.
And you've confirmed the presence of the Microsoft shill.
I think you're hurting your own case by looking so out of touch, and thereby actually making it less likely that people will try Linux.
Yes, that explains why none of those EeePCs are selling.
You are just another Microsoftie that keeps trying and trying to talk down anything but Microsoft.
Here's a clue. It's not working.
Are you saying Bill Gates killed him?
"...driver signing just says that Microsoft has made a cursory inspection of the driver."
Ever been involved in one? No, I didn't think so. Therefore, you are talking out of your a$$. You would equate a complete protological exam to a "cursory inspection" if you thought you needed to in order to defend Linux.
"And you've confirmed the presence of the Microsoft shill."
I spend a big chunk of a post talking about what I don't like about Microsoft, and I keep mentioning Apple as an alternative, but to the Linux fanatic, I'm still a shill. Because I don't worship at the holy altar of Torvalds, I can't possibly be anything else, can I?
As I've said, anyone reading this thread can come to their own conclusions about who is in connection with reality and who is not. You may think your lathered-up Linux fanboy posts are helping your case, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of readers would disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.