On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 04:48, Solver wrote:
> I love Microsoft. I respect Bill Gates. Not only they ain't my
> enemies - they are my friends. Yes, I like Linux, it's enhanced
> functionality and especially stability, but Microsoft were the first
> to do it.
Since when was Windows stable? And even if it is, were they really the
"first to do it"? As a former Windows-user (yes, I've even used
Win2K), I can say that Windows is the most crash-prone OS I've ever
come across. If it wern't for the lack of applications, I would've
stayed with OS/2 and DOS instead of switching to WIndows.
> I believe that they're doing everything the right way.
> Also, the monopoly situation is very good for users. You can put
> your file on a disk, go to a friend being sure you'll find the same
> Windows and Word there. The worst I could imagine is this:
> Windows - 40%
> Linux - 30%
> MacOS - 10%
> BeOS - 5%
> Solaris - 5%
> Other - 5%
This will never happen. Windows, GNU/Linux and MacOS will dominate.
BeOS and Solaris, while being excellent OSs, will not survive on the
desktop. Solaris still has a lot of life on the server, though.
> Then you would be usnure as to what will you find there. If Linux
> user, you had to save both for Linux and Windows formats, and Mac
> doesn't read these disks. So, you would need to know specifically
> where are you going, and what the PCs are there. Each time I go to
> repair a PC, I'm almost sure what I'll see there.
Microsoft love to create a "lock-in", or "venus flytrap" situation.
They entice you to use their products, and make it very difficult for
you to leave. MS Word's (before XP) file format deliberately contains
a lot of binary code, making it difficult for a competitor to make an
import/export filter for it, and hence locking people into MS Word.
Internet Explorer accepts a twisted, proprietary form of HTML, foring
web designers to make pages that only work best in IE (since it is the
most widely used browser). Since pages look best in IE, more people
use it, creating a viscous cycle.
Open standards and open file formats like W3C HTML and other XML-based
formats (e.g. the new OpenOffice and Office XP formats) are what
encourage innovation in the industry, since they are fully open to
everyone. The StarOffice (now OpenOffice) people have done a wonderful
job at reverse-engineering the binary MS Office formats. Parsing the
Office XP formats, being XML-based, has been much easier for them, and
has made them more competitive. With open formats like this, it
doesn't matter what programme you use, or what platform you use.
OpenOffice is shaping up to be a real MS Office-killer, and it is
available on a multitude of platforms, including GNU/Linux and WIndows.
> Microsoft are responsible for what they release. They provide the
> product to you, and given you buy it legally, they also provide you
> with support, updates, etc.
Like these?
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092434,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2772328,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092585,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092661,00.html
This is a danger with closed-source software: you have no idea what's
inside. For all we know, everyone's passwords are probably being
forwarded to Microsoft.
> You can register at Linux Counter and
> others, but they won't give you that support, even though bug
> reporting is awesome.
You can buy support from distro vendors (Mandrake, Red Hat, etc.) This
is just like any other software. You get what you pay for. GNU/Linux
is free, and you get free support in the form of neewsgroups and
mailing lists. If you want official support, you have to pay. It still
works out cheaper than paying for propritary software, since you're
paying purely for support, not for the software. You can't expect
something for nothing.
> And, another thing I love in Linux are the
> penguins. I love that they're everywhere, and one of my
> recompilation jobs will be to put even more penguins on their work
> at Linux desktop and applications. They just look cool - nice
> animals.
Tux rulez :-)
> Also, I'd like to add that I hate to buy PC with preinstalled
> software. When I got one with preinstalled Windows (what I used
> then), the first thing I done was formatting C: and installing it
> myself. Now I use dual-boot W98, and Linux Mandrake. If I bought a
> PC with this dual boot, I'd still run Partition Magic and wipe it
> all, to install myself. I don't love when something is preinstalled.
> As a PC expert, I want to install everything myself - even if this
> is something I never installed. Yes, I did feel unsure installing
> Windows for the first time, as I also did installing Linux and BeOS
> for the first time. It all passes.
If you buy a new PC, chances are it'll have WIndows pre-installed.
Whether you actually use that or something else doesn't matter, you
are paying MS for it. Buying a system without Windows can considerably
lower the cost of a PC (I think it is somewhere in the order of 10%).
It seems to me like you're simply believing all the FUD vomited out by
those at Microsoft and their allies (e.g. ZDNet). There is more than
one side to the coin.
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan.
"There are two major products that come from Berkeley:
LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
-- Jeremy S. Anderson
