As Rush says, "Competition makes things better."
Guess which OS Rush uses?
Posted on 01/04/2003 10:38:39 AM PST by Schnucki
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:04:58 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I have trouble understanding why anyone would use Windows for anything other than a few, specialized graphics or other specialty programs.
Perhaps Windows users love viruses, high software costs, and all the rest of the fun that comes with using Microsoft's most popular proprietary program. I personally prefer Linux and other open-source software, and I think Windows users should be glad that a growing number of smart computer users share my preference for software freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at extremetech.com ...
Completely false premise. Hardware costs are directly proportional to the kind of OS's they are compatible with, because of the time it takes to develop drivers for multiple platforms.
As Rush says, "Competition makes things better."
I think you've completely missed the point here. I interpreted this to mean that you're not coerced in to continually spending money on newer, more powerful hardware so as to keep up with the increasingly bloated upgrades from Microsoft.
I'm surrounded by folks who could spend their money on more needful things by installing Linux on their old, cheap hardware. This would save them the OS costs and the hardware upgrade cycle forced on them by Microsoft.
Pardon me for this, but I'd like to improve my statement a bit:
"I'm surrounded by folks who could spend their money on more needful things by installing Linux on their existing, and therefore cheaper, hardware. This would save them from the OS costs and an unnecessary hardware upgrade cycle while providing better and more stable functionality for most of their activities."
As for software bloat, I will not deny it is happening, but I would lay the blame more on reaction to consumer demand than on Microsoft pushing it off on people.
Before you get the idea I am a complete Microsofty, I do like a lot of tasks that Microsoft makes easy, but the level of control and customization offered through Unix derivatives is amazing.
I'm typing this response in Netscape 7.01 on a machine running Mandrake Linux 8.0 and assure you that your statement is the opposite of the truth.
At work, where I'm forced to use Win2k Pro for my desktop, I installed Netscape 7 so I wouldn't have to waste another minute waiting for Explorer to provide (slightly) inferior renderings of pages. I research products and download drivers and demos. I work and Explorer gets in my way, though it doesn't crash as routinely as it used to.
(At work I also installed Gnu Cygwin tools and a couple of scripting languages (Perl and Ruby) so that I would have some of Linux's functionality on the otherwise crippled Windows platform)
As Rush says, "Competition makes things better."
Guess which OS Rush uses?
I agree, too, that Microsoft has a problem keeping a gazillion customers happy with the same software title. Why make two when you can make one that does two things. But crap like putting a flight simulator "easter egg" in a product sure makes you wonder ... .
I'm like you: I need some Microsoft here and some Unix there.
The more competition, the better! :)
Don't let objectivity (or facts) get in your way. "Needful things"? In whose opinion. You sound like a liberal do-gooder who thinks they know what is best for the masses. This is still a free country and you and I can buy whatever the hell we want without anyones approval.
This would save them the OS costs and the hardware upgrade cycle forced on them by Microsoft.
Here you sound like a typical Microsoft-bigot. Microsoft didn't force anyone to buy their OS or even a PC. I've bought lots of Macs during Microsoft's rise. Twenty-two of them, and half a dozen Unix servers and a couple of dozen PCs. Who kept you from buying a Mac? I have enough Unix experience to know that Linux will never sell to the masses. Drivers have always held Unix back and will continue to keep Linux and its variants out of serious contention. How many Microsoft complaints/crashes can be traced directly to third-party drivers over which Microsoft has no control? More Linux drivers implies less stability for Linux too.
I'm firmly in the camp that believes that Microsoft is a fierce competitor who has succeeded because of the ineptness of its competitors. Digital Research, Novell, Oracle, Netscape. It's a very long list. Novell, who owned the file server market, fought putting a GUI front-end on their servers. Now they are largely extinct. Netscape owned the internet with their browers and servers until they went public. Then, armed with lots of cash, they lost their focus and went off in twenty different directions, rather than focusing on their core business. I know, because I was a Netscape business partner who tried to follow their new initiatives. All failed. Oracle owned the database server market. They too were late to market with a slick GUI development environment. SQL Server now has a good share of the market. Are these examples of failure Microsoft's fault?
I have sometimes succeeded in competing with Microsoft and sometimes failed. I'm at least adult enough to accept responsibility for my failures rather than try to blame Microsoft.
You can piss and moan all you want about Microsoft but the fact remains that each version of their OS has been a substantial improvement over it's predecessor, with the possible exception of ME. None of them had expiration dates. You can still run Windows 3.1 if you want. What's more, Microsoft made the internet ubiquitous by building TCPIP, a browser and dial-up software into every version since Windows 95. No other single thing you could point to, drove the growth of the internet. For that we are all indebted to Microsoft, begrudgingly or not.
"Still" have problems? If you mean have problems when using Linux as OS, you may be right, I have no idea, I've never used Linux.
If you are referring to the browsers in general use, you are sadly mistaken.
Netscape, at least, which I use on a MAC and a PC, has no problems whatsover except when going to web sites who have bought Microsofts idea that they should tailor their site so that it will only work properly with IE.
I find it really irritating that lazy people and companies let Microsoft tell them that they can ignore and even shut out everybody who doesn't use Explorer on Windows.
APPLE & OS10.2 RULE!
As for the HP system, I didn't know they had built such a thing. However, my best guess as to the reason they chose Linux is open source code, in that they are free to modify it in whatever way they see fit without having to partner with Microsoft.
With flight simulator, I can understand you wondering, but heck, why not have some fun when you build a product?
While I've heard of the trade off between security and ease of use, the idea of a trade off between power and ease of use is new to me. Not to put words into your mouth, but you're probably meaning "flexible" instead of powerful.
It seems logical to me that a more flexible system should be more capable of providing ease of use. That's why it's strange to me that Linux hasn't managed that yet. Maybe part of the reason is due to the Unix world's high percentage of computer (and operating system) snobs. ;)
As for games: that's one of the big reasons for keeping at least two Windows machines in my home. :)
I haven't heard about this, will you explain what this refers to?
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.