December 4th, 2003, 09:12 AM
linux vs windows
Will LINUX be popular if microsft decides make windows source cod free for everyone to know
Life is a shipwreck but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats. ~Voltaire
December 4th, 2003, 10:07 AM
dude, check your spelling !
BTW, Linux IS popular and one day it will rule M$ and billgates' ass.
December 4th, 2003, 01:31 PM
M$ will not go down without a fight... it should be phun to see whats going to happen.
The internet, not just for stalkers and pervs, but for computer geeks too!
December 4th, 2003, 02:08 PM
- Windows=1967 oldsmobile(driven by Ted Kennedy)
- Linux=2004 BMW(driven by Liv Tyler)
I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.
December 4th, 2003, 03:56 PM
If Microsoft's source code becomes readily available, we will only have Win users with systems only running the services they choose. I don't know about anyone else, but I have my systems set the way they are for a reason. I have an XP Pro, a couple 2K's, a few BSD's and *Nix machines. I have found that the Transgaming Community and Linux Gaming has come along way and I have had very little problems gaming. The only reason I still use my Win box's is for multimedia and compatibility with work and other friends. I have 3 monitors. 1 monitoring services, 1 Win and 1 Nix. The only change I would make to my win boxes if the source becomes open is to pull out any services or functionality that wastes my resources on something I don't need. Will I drop Windows (probably not) I work in the IT field, I need to know both operating systems. Will the fact of Open Microsoft Source make my Windows Experience better. It really couldn't hurt. Other than that, Linux has become more readily available and has also start to move forward as a commercial business and becoming the most affordable for the masses and that is what sells. So, I think their marketing strat is what is going to make them more popular.
December 4th, 2003, 05:20 PM
The only way I see Linux being as popular as M$ Windows is if they dumben it down for the sake of user-friendliness, which would defeat the purpose of having Linux. People like Windows because they like to point, click, word process, print, and be done. Users don't care how something works as long as they meet their deadline. Most don't even know that Linux exists. If the source code for Windows comes out free for download, they will not download it, they will not improve it, and I'd still prefer Linux for the free developement tools and other software. So it would not make much of a difference.
BTW: I do run WinXP Pro instead of Linux because, unless I want to program exclusively in Java, my programs won't be compatible with most of my friends computers. However, I'm moving towards triple-booting my machine and having Windows, RedHat, and FreeBSD on my primary machine.
December 4th, 2003, 07:02 PM
I don't think that Linux needs to be "dumbed down"
As someone who has struggled with linux on a 386 as my introduction to the *ux world, I remember boot and root disks, a very limited hardware pool, and explicitly adding every piece I would need.
Now, it seems that someone could legitimately put in a CD, choose "desktop" or some other similar name, select a few options ala M$, and have a running system in as few steps.
Now, for those who have manually mucked through every Makefile they have ever seen, this may seem like a horror, but the beauty of Linux is simply that.
If someone wants something, they can get an RPM or some such package, and within a few months, I believe that someone will be able to browse an application menu online and choose what they want, and all dependencies, etc will be a matter of course.
I think that is the push of Lindows, but I have not seen it yet, so I can't say.
It looks like RedHat is dropping their push on the desktop, but luckily, Mandrake is picking up the flag and running with it. Their UPRMI package management system is just as easy as RedHat, and their auto-update function is a mirror of the RHN.
Still, if you wish, you can manually hack together a kernel, and put binaries and libraries down on a custom machine that would make Linus himself cringe.
Windows could never compete with that range of functionality.
Their CE product shows that. They CAN'T make something simple. There is too much overhead involved.
But I believe that similarly to Apple, Microsoft COULD make a great GUI system that relied on a much more robust core kernel.
Every month they waste trying to get their own core kernel as stable as BSD or Linux is another month lost.
Apple figured that out, and their OSX, regardless of anyone's feel for the Macintosh, is VASTLY superior in stability and functionality to their previous OSs as well as to any current M$ products.
It is stable, and it is secure, and it is just as functional as it ever was.
Look at Novell. They are putting their networking security and functionality on top of a Linux kernel, and I believe that with that in mind, their push after the enterprise network file and security will be much stronger and more enterprise-worthy than 2003Server could ever be.
sorry. I LIKE Microsoft. They make a great browser, a great office productivity suite, and a very popular GUI interface. Its their pride that is their greatest weakness. There is a better solution for the underlying functions of a computer. It is Linux. And Microsoft is welcome to use it and abide by the GPL.
No, I\'m not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I\'m after is just a mediocre brain, something like the president of American Telephone and Telegraph Company.
-- Alan Turing on the possibilities of a thinking