Oh boy, a chance to stir the Windows/Linux pot!

But seriously:

We use both Linux and Windows 9X, 2K.  Linux is used so far only as the LAN
server/gateway.  All of the desktop work is done on Windows.  Linux is a
great server OS, but still needs a lot of GUI and API work before it can be
a Windows desktop replacement.  Windows is easy to configure, not flexible,
and difficult to troubleshoot.  Linux is difficult to configure, very
flexible, and easy to troubleshoot.  Windows is the "one size fits all, if
we don't have it, you don't need it" philosophy.  Linux is the "swiss army
knife, custom built with the blades/tools you want" philosophy.

Microsoft was finally getting its act together with W2K.  It's very stable
(compared to previous versions) and I like it.  Unfortunately, M$ got too
greedy and decided to put activation in their new releases.  This is the
straw that breaks this camel's back.  I refuse to embrace XP products
because of the activation issue.  Where does M$ get the idea that they are
being ripped off?  Every PC is bundled with a licensed copy of Windows when
it's sold as new.  So where's the ripoff?  If your PC dies, you wipe the
hard drive, and install a copy of the same version of Windows from another
CD other than the one that came with that PC, it still is not a ripoff,
because the original CD doesn't become "unbought".  No real theft (monetary
loss) has occurred.

Where does M$ get off charging ever more money for their products in the
middle of cash crunches and recession?  They need to get with the austerity
plan just like everyone else is right now.

If M$ doesn't listen to public outcry against activation and get rid of it,
we will have no choice but to protest by ceasing to buy new M$ products.
This means adopting Linux on the desktop.  Unfortunately, there are still
big barriers to overcome before Linux can replace Windows.  The biggest
problem I see is getting developers to write for Linux.  As far as I know
there is no Visual Studio equivalent for Linux.  And those developers have
spent a lot of time learning the Win32 API.  They won't want to learn some
other API.  What is needed is a Win32 API shell for Linux.  WINE is supposed
to be that, but of course, since there are undocumented Win32 API calls, how
complete can it be?  Hopefully, the DOJ ruling will force M$ to document
their undocumented API calls.  Wanna bet?

My interest in having Protel available on Linux has been lukewarm up to this
point.  Now that the Redmond Nazis are searching and seizing everyone they
can, I am very much more interested in Protel on Linux.  This shouldn't be
too difficult for Protel, since Protel is written in Delphi, and Borland
Kylix is essentially Delphi on Linux.

Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website:  www.bagotronix.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "robi artwork" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:29 AM
Subject: [PEDA] MS versus Linux

> Talking about Operating Systems !!!!!
> To my knowledge -
> Linux is a much-much faster and a lot-lot more stable Operating System as
> any of Microsofts Op's will ever be.
> Simply said - it's a much better Platform.
> Talking to Protel about a year ago, why "Protel-Tools" aren't  available
> operate under Linux-Operation System.
> The answer I was give - " We don't have that many customers requesting
it -
> should more customer asking for this, we may consider it".
> Well well well -
> Maybe the time has come to ask Altium to get  "Protel running under
> I specifically  posted this mail, to this forum, to attract not only your
> but also Altiums, Protels attention and thoughts.
> Robi

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to