Printable View
BLAH, microsoft just dont like the fact that people are switching because linux is more stable and getting more popular. IMO, i think its exactly like a presidential campaign......slander the other over and over blah blah blah because you want to be #1, or should i say in microsofts case The only one.
Personaly, I'm using Microsoft far more then Linux. For me, it is more secure as well, simply because I know far more things about making Windows secure. I should also say, that Linux does need a bit more work on the options available for user interface.
I'm sure that's what most of the users will say.
Many people want a clear cut solution. I think that Microsoft managed to give the solution from the very start, this is why they are so damn popular. There are may in here that will start hurling stones at me, but I repeat:
"Windows is more secure, simply because I know how to secure it."
And it doesn't matter what an average "gik" like any of us would say, what matters is what an average user, like my flatmates, prefers.
Is there anywhere I could download this books from. I'll check the library tomorrow :)Quote:
Originally posted here by MrCoffee
Has anyone here read Cliff Stoll's The Cuckcoo's Egg?
Or Underground by Suelette Dreyfus ?
Always the first thing I tell people when they ask me if linux is for them.Quote:
Originally posted here by nightcat
Personaly, I'm using Microsoft far more then Linux. For me, it is more secure as well, simply because I know far more things about making Windows secure.
You should try SuSE. To be honest, I more often find myself aggravated at the lack of UI stuff in Windows than I do Linux.Quote:
I should also say, that Linux does need a bit more work on the options available for user interface.
You're mistaken, Microsoft did not manage to give a clear cut solution until 1990, almost a decade after Apple had introduced the GUI and the Mouse. Even then it was buggy as hell and still relied on DOS. It wasn't until 95 that they started making actual progress, and even then the only reason they exist today is industry support from IBM, who is ironically getting outta the PC biz. What is clear to me based on recent use statistics is that Linux is growing in popularity. If Microsoft was offering the perfect-to-everyone system you suggest, this wouldn't be the case, would it? ;)Quote:
Many people want a clear cut solution. I think that Microsoft managed to give the solution from the very start, this is why they are so damn popular.
'Average' users do not run hundreds to thousands of computers for enterprise businesses, "average geeks" like us do, so yes, it DOES matter. Last I read corporations still purchase more computers than end users.Quote:
And it doesn't matter what an average "gik" like any of us would say, what matters is what an average user, like my flatmates, prefers.
Actualy, I still think that the best OS I ever used, was "Volkov comander" also known as "Norton comander" It also relyed on DOS havily, but was stable as hell :D.Quote:
Originally posted here by chsh
Always the first thing I tell people when they ask me if linux is for them.
You should try SuSE. To be honest, I more often find myself aggravated at the lack of UI stuff in Windows than I do Linux.
You're mistaken, Microsoft did not manage to give a clear cut solution until 1990, almost a decade after Apple had introduced the GUI and the Mouse. Even then it was buggy as hell and still relied on DOS. It wasn't until 95 that they started making actual progress, and even then the only reason they exist today is industry support from IBM, who is ironically getting outta the PC biz. What is clear to me based on recent use statistics is that Linux is growing in popularity. If Microsoft was offering the perfect-to-everyone system you suggest, this wouldn't be the case, would it? ;)
'Average' users do not run hundreds to thousands of computers for enterprise businesses, "average geeks" like us do, so yes, it DOES matter. Last I read corporations still purchase more computers than end users.
I bet that having it on my PC today would have it flying and making me cups of trea if I was bothered to give Computer hands and legs.
I'll try SuSE as you advise.
Unfortunately for the "giks" they often still have to consider their average user, when instaling the computers. If you don't do it, well....... you might know the result without me :(.
The solution Microsoft gave, could be installed on any hardware and didn't have to have to be bought with the whole system. This allowed an average "Joe" to become a PC engineer. They also had a gaming support, which in the end made people buy Windows for their kids. Once they had Windows, it was very hard for them to move to another way of thinking. Especialy going on to Linux which had prety much no GUI or MAC, which had no games running on it and a different way of storing files. And we'll have to agree, that people prefer to use Windows at work, simply because they use it at home.
Although, Microsoft doesn't have a perfect for all system, people just used to it.
I think that the Linux will become more popular once there are more games for it. I understand that it sound funny, but I strongly believe that it's true. And even then, neither of the OSs will become more or less supirrior, they are just different, that's it.
This is where the idea all falls apart in my estimation. On the one hand you say that everything should cater to the average user, and on the other you define what the average user will accept. Most people have 0 issues with using linux. I've done trial runs before in work environments and ironically Linux with WINE or Crossover Office was better at legacy Windows application support than Windows 2000/XP were.Quote:
Originally posted here by nightcat
Unfortunately for the "giks" they often still have to consider their average user, when instaling the computers. If you don't do it, well....... you might know the result without me :(.
Again, you are mistaken. The solution Microsoft gave way back then was wholly developed by someone else, then ported to IBM's architecture by Microsoft. At the time, it wouldn't run on "any hardware", it just simply ran on the hardware that happened to be pushed by the largest PC manufacturer at the time. Windows 95 had no TCP/IP support initially, it had to be added via patches. It has never been true that Windows is capable of running on "any hardware", there have always been stability issues. Linux, while not offering hardware support when it isn't provided by the manufacturer, still does an infinitely superior job of stability IME.Quote:
The solution Microsoft gave, could be installed on any hardware and didn't have to have to be bought with the whole system. This allowed an average "Joe" to become a PC engineer.
Ummm, the Apple II had games that FAR outclassed what was available on Windows boxes. And let us not speak of the Amiga or C64/128.Quote:
They also had a gaming support, which in the end made people buy Windows for their kids.
I'm not sure how experienced you are or knowledgeable you are about history, but at the time hardly anyone knew about linux, and the history doesn't matter. People will transition easily to Linux if they invested even HALF as much time as they did in learning Windows. The learning curve of Linux is nowhere near as steep as everyone seems to make it out to be.Quote:
Once they had Windows, it was very hard for them to move to another way of thinking. Especialy going on to Linux which had prety much no GUI or MAC, which had no games running on it and a different way of storing files.
I don't agree. People as a whole haven't been exposed to the alternatives.Quote:
And we'll have to agree, that people prefer to use Windows at work, simply because they use it at home.
Businesses generally don't like their employees wasting away the time playing Warcraft III (which by the way, works perfectly well under Linux :D). I think the markets need to learn that they can separate office work from home use. If Linux is to make inroads into the desktop, it will come in Business first IMO, apart from the growing portion of developers who are already using it over Windows.Quote:
I think that the Linux will become more popular once there are more games for it. I understand that it sound funny, but I strongly believe that it's true. And even then, neither of the OSs will become more or less supirrior, they are just different, that's it.
Quote:
Has anyone here read Cliff Stoll's The Cuckcoo's Egg?
Or Underground by Suelette Dreyfus ?
The 'underground' book is released for free online:Quote:
Is there anywhere I could download this books from. I'll check the library tomorrow
Download it: http://www.underground-book.com/download.php3
or visit the main page http://www.underground-book.com/
The other book (cuckoo's egg) you would have to buy/get from library.
And yet, if the head of the company is used to Windows, he/she will prefer to see Windows on their desktop. They'll give you a free raign on the server side of business, but on their personal computers. When they here things like "Crossover Office" many of them just "scream and run" . I'm glad they you were allowed to make trial runs of Linux in the companies. It show that poeple are geting more educated in that matter. I'm sure that one of your bosses kids has got Linux on their PC and keeps on telling how good it is and that it's free .Quote:
Originally posted here by chsh
This is where the idea all falls apart in my estimation. On the one hand you say that everything should cater to the average user, and on the other you define what the average user will accept. Most people have 0 issues with using linux. I've done trial runs before in work environments and ironically Linux with WINE or Crossover Office was better at legacy Windows application support than Windows 2000/XP were.
I do agree with these facts. But when I was building my PC, I had a choice of Windows or Linux. And Windows was far novice friendlier. As I said having tons of of the shelf software for Windows, made it more usable. And mostly people are bought PCs to play games, for kids. Windows was not depebdant on internet so much and the hardware could be upgraded far easier then in MAC. You don't get many of the shelf games for Linux even now, and you need to know enough about Linux and internet when upgrading your hardware, to get the right drivers and instal them.Quote:
Again, you are mistaken. The solution Microsoft gave way back then was wholly developed by someone else, then ported to IBM's architecture by Microsoft. At the time, it wouldn't run on "any hardware", it just simply ran on the hardware that happened to be pushed by the largest PC manufacturer at the time. Windows 95 had no TCP/IP support initially, it had to be added via patches. It has never been true that Windows is capable of running on "any hardware", there have always been stability issues. Linux, while not offering hardware support when it isn't provided by the manufacturer, still does an infinitely superior job of stability IME.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Apple killed itself by producing most of the software for their OS and taking away big market share from other developers. Although they produced a greate soft, people started moving to Windows simply because they had greater choice there.Quote:
Ummm, the Apple II had games that FAR outclassed what was available on Windows boxes. And let us not speak of the Amiga or C64/128.
I won't say anything about Amigas, I never worked with them
I never had to learn much about using Windows as a simple user. It was mostly point and click, maybe double click, job for me. I still can not completely work out how to install things on Linux. Although I do manage to do it sometimes, more by luck then by knowlege. Linux is far easier to learn as a power user though. Once you've mastered the basics.Quote:
I'm not sure how experienced you are or knowledgeable you are about history, but at the time hardly anyone knew about linux, and the history doesn't matter. People will transition easily to Linux if they invested even HALF as much time as they did in learning Windows. The learning curve of Linux is nowhere near as steep as everyone seems to make it out to be.
That's my personal opinion.
Question.Quote:
I don't agree. People as a whole haven't been exposed to the alternatives.
Do they want to be?
I agree with you on everything, but how many employees like to have a little game at home? :)Quote:
Businesses generally don't like their employees wasting away the time playing Warcraft III (which by the way, works perfectly well under Linux :D). I think the markets need to learn that they can separate office work from home use. If Linux is to make inroads into the desktop, it will come in Business first IMO, apart from the growing portion of developers who are already using it over Windows.
Thanks. It's a good read :)Quote:
Originally posted here by |gridley|
The 'underground' book is released for free online:
Download it: http://www.underground-book.com/download.php3
or visit the main page http://www.underground-book.com/
The other book (cuckoo's egg) you would have to buy/get from library.
Have you really honestly ever tried ANY linux distribution? The amount of open source software that comes with your average Linux distribution puts what is available on Windows to shame, not to mention it's all free. :)Quote:
Originally posted here by nightcat
I do agree with these facts. But when I was building my PC, I had a choice of Windows or Linux. And Windows was far novice friendlier. As I said having tons of of the shelf software for Windows, made it more usable. And mostly people are bought PCs to play games, for kids.
As for people buying PCs to play games, IME that's highly incorrect. The large majority of PCs are productivity (Word, Excel, etc), e-mail & web surfing terminals, with gaming as a minor concern to the home market only. Again, you seem to be comparing Linux as a home OS vs Windows as a home OS, I'm saying if it's making inroads anywhere, it will be in business first.
I don't really see how either OS is more "internet dependant" than the other.Quote:
Windows was not depebdant on internet so much and the hardware could be upgraded far easier then in MAC. You don't get many of the shelf games for Linux even now, and you need to know enough about Linux and internet when upgrading your hardware, to get the right drivers and instal them.
[quot]e]Apple killed itself by producing most of the software for their OS and taking away big market share from other developers. Although they produced a greate soft, people started moving to Windows simply because they had greater choice there.[/quote]
Except Apple isn't dead...
It's generally the same or easier on linux, depending on your distribution.Quote:
I never had to learn much about using Windows as a simple user. It was mostly point and click, maybe double click, job for me. I still can not completely work out how to install things on Linux.
As with all things some do some don't.Quote:
Question.
Do they want to be?