Linux? Windows? Huh?

This is not a gripe against windows. I use windows on a daily basis and I know how to get the most out of the experience. With a little work, it’s a highly polished and reliable OS. But how much “a little work” can we expect of an inexperienced new computer user. I have also recently installed the latest release of Ubuntu Linux and have found that its ease of use is second to no other OS I’ve used as of yet. What this is, is a gripe against the mainstream OS and computer manufacturing business.

Mainly, new computer users don’t use Linux because they’ve never heard of it and almost no PC’s come with it preinstalled. It wouldnt be hard to convince a person to use Ubuntu Linux who had no experience with computers. The words “Free OS and gobs of free software instantly at your disposal” would win someone over immediatley. And if you think Linux is hard to use, read on.

“Back in the day” people figured out Commodore 64’s and Amiga’s (as well as early IBM’s and Apples) without any problem but today if you stuck 99% of people in front of one of them, they’d instantly transmorgrify into a sack of potatoes. The OS’s (and support services) of today simply produce people who are convinced that you can’t possibly know anything about computers unless you have a degree surrounding them. Simply, they produce dummies. The idiocy of computer hardware vendors amplifies this ten-fold.

I’ve put together a small comparison so you can get an idea of what I’m talking about. We’ll go Windows XP vs Ubuntu Linux 6.06.

When you (as a first time computer user) get a new Windows computer, the first time you boot you get the following:

* You get 400 trillion icons spread all over your desktop. * Your “blazing fast new computer” takes 15 minutes to finish booting because of all the packaged software that starts up with it. * Your system tray extends half the way across the screen which has for some reason been set at the stunted resolution of 800×600. * As a result of the preset resolution, you can’t fit 75% of the website that you visit on one screen. You have to scroll from side to side in your web browser. * You don’t know how to get to the control panel let alone operate in it so you can’t figure out how to uninstall programs. (You might not even know such a thing exists) As a result, for all eternity when you boot, norton, mcafee and pc-cillin all annoy the heck out of you constantly telling you that you should sign up for their updating service and buy full versions of their products. They all also run scans at random times for your 120 day trial (after which they still bug you) and this slows your computer down to a crawl on a constant basis. You also have AOL, Netscape, Netzero and other ISP message popping up every time you boot and no doubt 17 other programs asking you to finish or start some process that will no doubt ask you for a credit card number. * Did I mention that you don’t get a functional office suite? Yeah they give you MS Office…but in 30 days it will deactivate itself and demand $329 to continue use. Yeah there are free ones out there, but how many normal windows/office users have you ever met that have heard of OpenOffice.org? Maybe it lacks about 15% of the MS features…but free vs. $300+ sounds pretty stinking good to me. Heck, whole governments (local all the way up to national) have gone to using it over MS office and you don’t hear them complaining… * Do I need to mention how stunted windows help can be? Good luck trying to find out how to do something that you need to do… You can buy a book on how to use windows, but hopefully you’re OK with shelling out the extra $30 bucks on top of the extra $100 you spent to get Windows on this PC instead of Linux.

When you (as a new computer user) receive a new PC with Ubuntu Linux installed on it, the first time you boot you get the following:

* Well, first…you would likely have been told that the OS that came on your PC was totally free. You just saved yourself $100 off the price of a new computer. This isn’t a feature, but it’s worth mentioning. * Maybe one or two Icons on your desktop. They would be links to other hard drives that you have on your system. Other than that, the desktop if your domain to do whatever you want with. * In the top left, there is a menu that says “Applications.” Any idiot could figure out that this means “Programs that I can use!!!” In that menu, programs that you install are automatically placed in the categories that they go best under. You have Games, System, Accessories, Graphics, Internet, and Office Folders. There’s also a convienient option to add or remove options from this menu that you may or may not want. * You don’t know much, but you want to write a paper for class. Duh…the office folder. Inside that folder you find OpenOffice.org products. A word processor, Spreadsheet maker, and a Presentation maker. Aside from the fact that this was all free…you have found what you were looking for instantly…right where one would expect it to be. * Maybe you want to surf the internet or chat. Under the internet folder you find the Evolution mail client, Firefox Web Browser, and Gaim Instant Messenger. Upon starting Gaim you are walked through adding your AIM account, MSN account and Yahoo accounts all into the same program. Your browser suddendly is brimming with features, it automatically updates itself and it even allows you to open *tabs* which means surfing 5 sites doesnt require juggling 5 windows which are clogging up the taskbar (which is placed at the bottom of your screen.) * At the top of your screen you also see a “System” menu. Under this, your first two options are “Preferences” and “Administration.” * Under Preferences you see obvious options like “Desktop Background,” “Sound,” “Screen Savers,” and plenty of other things. * Under Administration you find more advanced options and a very special option called “Synaptic Package Manager.” This is your door to tens of thousands of free programs that you can almost instantly install with the click of a button. You search for what you want, Check the box next to the appropriate result of your search and click “Apply.” This program is downloaded, installed and configured for you. It now shows up in your Applications menu under the correct category and you can use it right away. While some people would say “What if you didn’t know it was there?” I would reply that any person who gave you or sold you a computer with Ubuntu linux would without doubt tell you about this feature. (My one complaint with the system is the lack of this icon being put on the desktop. Small gripe, but a gripe nonetheless.) * Also under Administration is the Update Manager. You open this program and it updates EVERY program that you have installed (yes you read right). It doesn’t just update The OS. It also takes a fraction of the time that Windows Update does and doesn’t require a reboot. * The center option on the menu system at the top of your screen is “Places.” Under this you will find “Home,” “Computer,” and a few others. “Home” is sort-of the linux version of “My Documents.” This is where your files for your user account are stored. What you put in here is yours and can’t be messed with by other users on the same computer. “Computer” brings up the drives that you can access on your computer. (It’s the Ubuntu version of “My Computer.”)

Those of you familiar with Windows are undoubtedly impressed with all you can do with so little effort. Ubuntu linux also installs in under 10 minutes and requires only one reboot. Updating it to the latest versions also takes less than one minute. The entire installation process is graphically driven from start to finish and when you insert the installation CD your computer actually boots into the OS to give you a preview of what you will have when you get done. (There’s an install icon on the desktop that you click to actually install the OS). It will walk you through Manually or Automatically partitioning your hard drive and setting up a user account, and then it will go to town. From this point until you’re done is less than six minutes on a midrange computer. You then eject the CD and reboot into your new OS.

Windows installs in 30-45 minutes. It begins with a semi-graphical/keyboard driven process where you agree to the user agreement (which, incedentally tells you that you don’t actually OWN the the OS, you’re just borrowing it from MS), and then allows you to set up the hard drive for the installation. It then copies some files and reboots. It enters an “out of control” stage where it takes over the installation and sets everything up. It will reboot two or three times during this process.After its final reboot you are brought to a prompt where you set up your user account, network connections and are prompted to register your copy of XP. (You don’t HAVE to register, but be prepared for a hassle if you ever want to call Microsoft for support.) You then must “Activate” your copy by sending your hardware information to MS. If you ever change enough substantial hardware on your PC, you must reactivate it by calling MS and having them give you a “special code.” I’ve done this before and it is about a fifteen minute process.

You then need to update the OS by going to windows update. This takes quite a long time. First you have to download and install Service Pack 2. This is a large file and can take anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes (or more) to install after it gets done downloading. You then have to get all the updates that are not included in SP2. After downloading these updates and installing them you will be prompted to reboot. You then run Windows Update again and it will find more updates which were dependant on the previously installed ones. Do this until no more updates come up. At my last reinstallation of windows i had to run windows update 4 times to get all the updates installed. Each time required a reboot. Now Microsoft has what they call the “Windows genuine advantage” which double checks to make sure you’re not an “evil OS stealer” before it will allow you to run windows update. You actually have to download a program, run it and paste the “special code” it generates into windows update which will allow you to proceed.

I should also mention that a base windows install comes with only “basic” accessories and software. It includes not even a trial of an office suite or anything else. This compared to the Ubuntu compliment of almost a hundred third party programs at install time just doesn’t cut it.

Now, which side of the OS industry do you think has it right? I don’t think Microsoft is Evil, don’t get me wrong. I actually kinda like the company. Their competition fuels a lot of third party innovation. I don’t think MS really does much “innovation” except in their rewritten definition, but they do offer rather pretty alternatives to products and some of their stuff does do a better job. I just think having started off on the right foot, they and the hardware vendors stepped on the wrong stepping stone at some point and fell into the river. Now they figure if they throw enough crap into the river, they can somehow swim out. I feel that it’s time for PC big business to go back to the drawing board and try building a bridge.

This is a boon to communists who don't really want to pay anyone anything. Besides, they probably care more about security than many members of the US government.

There's nothing we really need to discuss further, with your lack of respect for American ingenuity and products which have long dominated the worldwide software market. If foreign developers were equally adept, obviuosly they would have some unique and worthwhile products of their own, that weren't all knock offs of American ones. But you are certainly free to chose them if that is your preference.

I've been using Linux since summer 2004...started with Linspire, migrated to Xandros. I have Xandros 3 Business Edition with StarOffice8 included with the OS.

Unfortunately, I read some disturbing rumors that Xandros 4 will have some kind of "product activation" feature similar to the Windows XP product activation feature (which basically makes WinXP crippleware unless your product key is ok'd by MS). If that rumor proves to be true, I will either just stick with Xandros 3 Business or move to Ubuntu. I like Ubuntu, but I have had trouble getting my NetZero dial-up software to work on there. I have NetZero installed here on Xandros (NetZero advertised the software to be for Linspire, but it should work with any Debian-based OS since the NetZero software comes in the .deb file format).

I think eventually we're heading for a time where people who run DRM-compliant OSes will be looked at favorably by the computer bigwigs and the government, while people who run non-DRM-compliant OSes will probably be taxed, tracked, and traced...and I figure non-DRM-compliant OSes will not be allowed to connect to the Internet or Internet2.

There's nothing we really need to discuss further, with your lack of respect for American ingenuity and products which have long dominated the worldwide software market.

I do not lack respect for American ingenuity. I am choosing what is, in my mind, the best product. I am open to trying others (which is, in fact, one of the things I am looking forward to doing this weekend).

If foreign developers were equally adept, obviuosly they would have some unique and worthwhile products of their own, that weren't all knock offs of American ones

You don't quite seem to understand Linux's history. Linus Torvalds wrote Linux specifically because the BSD (you know what that stands for? Berkeley Standard Distribution; a distribution based on the AT&T code with Berkeley students and faculty's add-ons) code was tied up in lawsuits and Minix (developed by Tanenbaum for his textbook) was not free (as in freedom). In short, had things been a little different, Linux wouldn't exist. The only reason that the "foreign developers" wrote a clone of UNIX is that the American products were not available for one reason or another.

Furthermore, I recommend you take a second look at the GNU utilities. If you think that they add nothing, you are wrong. GNU utils are written so that they can be run in POSIX compliant mode, but they also have many extensions of their own. On non-Linux systems (like BSD or Solaris), these utilities are often installed with a 'g' prepended to the name (gawk, gsed, etc.). Why? Well, a lot of the non-windows world uses them and they have a lot of slick stuff. In short, even when "cloning" there is inovation in these products.

All in all, you haven't a technical leg to stand on. You lombast it just because it isn't American made What you need to understand is that being American made does not make them inherently good. Wake up and smell the market.

The reason was clear - the American products weren't free. Now replacing the American products with these free foreign clones is not what needs to be done, it takes R&D dollars to build new and better products, something foreign cloners have no concept of since all they do is piggyback on American ingenuity.

It was more than that. Commercial UNIX systems were designed for mainframes, something that the average basement hacker simply didn't have and had no prayer of every affording. So true-blue (no IBM pun intended) UNIX was not an option. After that was the BSDs, but those were not legally useable due to their uncertain state in courts pending AT&T's lawsuit (they were trying to eliminate source access; after being broken up and losing their status as a government-regulated monopoly, they were permitted to get into the software business and they wanted to capitilize on the development of UNIX in Bell labs). The other thing to keep in mind is that many a hacker valued the freedom to alter the software to match their wants/needs. Keep in mind that the BSD software, which they were happy to use, cost money: they had to pay Berkely for the cost of distribution on tapes (which were more expensive then than the equivalent CD-ROMS are today).

Furthermore, if you want to say it is "piggybacking", then you have to say that it is also Americans piggybacking Americans. Do you have a problem with that? That is part of how the free market breeds innovation. You have to be different and better than your competitor to stay ahead.

Since the time of the initial clone, development has continued on those systems so that they are now superior to what they originally cloned. Take Linux's kernel. There is ingenuity in R&D there. The 2.6 kernel now sports an O(1) scheduler making it a far more responsive system than the older O(n) algorithms. Features have been added to these systems. Do you think that the ability to cluster Linux systems was automatic? Do you think that they were doing this in Bell labs? Hardly.

And the fact still remains that coders from all over the world including the US work on Linux. It isn't like you are buying a piece of Nigerian pirated software when you use Linux.

All in all, your opinions and "reasoning" show that you don't understand the technical history or merits of OSS & FSF. You are just out to destroy something that you do not perceive as being American manufactured. You mentioned having Linux "shoved down people's throats" earlier. It seems to me that you are trying to shove Windows down ours.

UNIX didn't require mainframes, I was using SCO Unix on PC's in 1992.

Furthermore, if you want to say it is "piggybacking", then you have to say that it is also Americans piggybacking Americans.

Linus Torvalds isn't American, he's from Finland and still only allowed in the US via a green card last I heard.

Since the time of the initial clone, development has continued on those systems so that they are now superior to what they originally cloned.

Thanks to American companies like IBM, that would have been better off putting their IP somewhere it was protected instead of giving away to the rest of the world for free.

It seems to me that you are trying to shove Windows down ours.

Where did I mention Windows? I commonly recommend OSX and Solaris. Solaris is American, "open source", and runs on Intel. It also is fully indemnified from patent lawsuits, with none of the major baggage associated with Torvalds or Stallman.

Where did I mention Windows?

In previous posts. In any event, the point was the same. You seem to be trying to shove disusing Linux down our throats.

I was using SCO Unix on PC's in 1992.

When looking at the origins of Linux, you have to be looking at what was widely/semi-widely available in 1991. If I made an error, I am sorry. Furthermore, you neglect the other portion of what I was saying: price was important, but so was the freedom to alter the operating system and userland utilities to suit yourself. The importance of this in Linux's origins and modern following cannot be underemphasized.

Linus Torvalds isn't American, he's from Finland and still only allowed in the US via a green card last I heard.

I know he is. But Linus isn't the only programmer (in fact, at the moment, he isn't even the main programmer, his duties are primarily administrative). There are many who work as the core group of developers and many more who have contributed code in some stripe of whom there are a decent number of Americans. Linux isn't owned by Linus Torvalds.

Solaris only became open relatively recently and Mac isn't open.

What "baggage" is there associated with Stallman or Torvalds? Stallman is a virulent leftist, true, but by using GNU Awk or Bash, for example, you aren't donating to his politics or anything. It isn't like using GNU is giving to the DNC. Furthermore, the fact that Torvalds's father was a communist betrays nothing about his own leanings (about which I do not know much; the interviews I have seen with him are always about computers).

It is still quite apparent that your beef with GNU/Linux has no technical basis. It is just your own bias (and please try to remember that GNU != Linux; one can package/run GNU utilities on a Solaris or Mac just as readily as Linux).

And I don't like software licensed by virulent leftists.

Try to focus your narrow mind for a moment and answer this question: why does it matter? You are not paying them for the software and even if you were, you'd be paying for a product, not an ideology. You still refuse to see that GNU and Linux are not the same thing. You could create an entire distro that does not use a single GNU utility. Linux is only the KERNEL! Not the userland as well.

Obviously a respectable if not admirable position for me to take, especially since there are other "free", "open source" options available, should that somehow be a requirement.

I didn't say that it was a requirement. However, for a great many people (for one reason or another), it is.

I don't see why you loathe it so, even if I were to grant the above. Fine, you don't want to use software that has been licensed by leftists. Don't use it, then, but why get on everyone on this forum who does like it?

You're reasoning lacks in a key element: reason.

Just because you don't care that Linux is a foreign fake of US products doesn't mean that others don't. Just because you don't care that "virulent leftists" are behind it doesn't mean that others don't. And without me here to expose those facts, an uneducated lurker would not have known. He would have been misled to believe the lies such as the ones I debunked in posts such as 33 and 38. If you like foreign software from leftists, at least admit it as you have now done. But do it up front, and don't act like there is something wrong with me for questioning it.

Just because you don't care that Linux is a foreign fake of US products doesn't mean that others don't.

Linux isn't a foreign fake. It isn't a carbon, illegitemate copy of UNIX posing as UNIX. It is its own product. It is a clone, not a copy for crying out loud.

Just because you don't care that "virulent leftists" are behind it doesn't mean that others don't.

I admitted the GNU founder, Stallman, is a leftist. However, LINUX IS NOT GNU!!!! Stallman is not Torvalds. Get used to it.

You debunked nothing. You only showed your irrational hatred for a piece of software.

But do it up front, and don't act like there is something wrong with me for questioning it.

I have been entirely up front. You, however, have not. The fact remains, despite your pompous postering, that the only thing you have against Linux is your own hatred. Linux is not a threat, in any way, to the United States, to Christendom, or to conservatism.

I don't hate Linux, I just realize the dangers it presents to the economy and security of the United States. If you care about the US, use products from the US, that conform to our intellectual property laws, rather than come from abroad and attempt to turn our laws on their head. There's plenty of other existing software choices already, that don't involve questionable foreigners like Torvalds or radical leftists like Stallman. Those guys don't believe in the American dream, or even understand it. They suffer from some twisted view that people should give their property away, and rely on "the community" to support them. If that's your thing, fine, but don't expect it to be mine. See ya.

"I don't hate Linux..."

That has to be the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard you make. You spend literally days at a time here, coming up with new reasons to hate Linux when everyone makes clear how ridiculous your irrational and unfounded beliefs are. It is clear that you hate it with every fiber of your being.

There's no possible argument that you could have against the average Linux user that would even come close to holding water. That has led everyone here, and rightly so, I believe, to suspect you of being a paid shill for Microsoft. There's no way that anyone could give a crap about the mind-numbing minutiae that you spout each day, flinging personal insults and defaming the character of others all the while.

"If defending leftists and covering up their own words is your thing then fine. But don't expect me to go along with you."

A perfect example of what I'm talking about. I have witnessed you on multiple occasions attribute statements and sentiments to people who have never made them so that you may keep your tirades going. You know full well that I have never defended any leftists, but you have to twist words and make mountains of molehills in order to make your arguments appear to make sense. No one's buying it. And when you're pressed to defend your ludicrous statements, you invariably change the subject or ignore the multiple challenges to prove your inane and entirely unfounded statements.

Did you go back and read anything that happened when you were gone? If you had, you'd realize what a parody of yourself you had become. It's sad, because you either don't realize it, or you do it completely intentionally (which I believe to be the case), ignoring any standards of reason and ethics so that you can prove your points.

Sad.

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.