blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]mariojp[/nom]Yet I heard that most is never enough. This is mid 2012 about to enter 2013 you would think by now Linux would be at 5%. Nope Apple about around there maybe even higher. I am also starting to wonder if Apple and MS go to bed together in some ways as i keep seeing Microsoft Office on the mac while Windows Get safari and itunes on windows. The point being is that these are real entities that makes people WANT to buy their products. Can't blame a company when you have followers feeding the problem not being the solution. Google in the other hand can give linux official support. But just like the rest Google has other matters to attend to such as staying afloat with their android devices.So tell me what does Linux really has to offer that OSX and Windows does not offer. Being free isn't one of them cuz people aint buying it lol. Being open source?? ok thats find but uh people don't really care. If people can endure Apple's closed eco-system what makes you think, just because linux is open source people are going to flock on over?.Lastly.."total control over my PC".. Tell me..what exactly does that mean by "total control"?? AFAIK both commercial Os's does not seem to get in the way of doing what you want other than getting official support. Nothing is stopping you from wiping the OS it is your computer. You can argue that Apple computers have more control and that you can only run OSX on them, but still you have control of what you want to do with it as far as usage goes.Is there any application that Linux offer that's not available on the other 2 platforms??. AFAIK.. Every time i go to sourceforge website. I see more and more Linux applications being ported to OSX and Windows. (There goes the marketshare lol). Gee i wish open source was exciting as standing in line for the next ipad/iphone. People don't care for free. If you can buy a mac or 2 plus and ipad they got $$$ to burn. See the issue at hand here??.[/citation]
What does any modern OS have to offer that the others don't have other than support of different applications? Linux is simply yet another option that most people can use. Heck, it's a better option in most cases (well, some distros of it, not all are capable in all situations) than OSX and oftentimes it can trade blows with Windows for different jobs. It has it's uses. For example, For a few months, I had a computer with no hard drive that I wanted to use for internet browsing through my WiFi router because my computer was two floors above the nearest Ethernet cable and I didn't feel like running a cable all the way up.
So, I went online, spent a few minutes looking up a few distros, and downloaded Xpud. I burned it to a CD and popped that CD into the tray of my hard drive-less laptop and booted. A few seconds after powering on, it had already booted and I then typed in my WiFi password and started up Firefox and got to web browsing. Full support for Java, Flash, and more, all without a hard drive and done in less than half an hour (that's including the time for finding the OS, downloading it, and burning it to the CD as well as popping it in and booting). If that's not convenient, then I don't know what is. I then decided that I wantd to do more with it.
Guess what? I downloaded VMWare, installed it, and started testing a variety of OSes and such on it after I put a hard drive in. After a while, I re-installed Windows because I needed to use a second WiFi adapter and it wasn't supported (turns out that it also didn't have a 64-bit compatible Windows Vista/7 driver either 🙁 ) and was to lazy to change it back, but I won't deny that I could do everything that I could do on Windows could be done on Xpud and on many other distros. Even Macs that I've worked with were less versatile than these free and arguably basic OSes, albeit they might sometimes need more work than some people are willing to put into it. The functionality is pretty much all there, all Linux needs is for it to be made easier to be done without sacrificing functionality in the process.
Total control refers to how other companies and groups don't have control of any part of your machine's functionality like MS and Apple have over their respective operating systems. The open source advantage isn't in openness or anything like that, it's that you can literally look at the code yourself and make sure that there's nothing bad in it. If MS puts in a back door, no one will know until it is discovered indirectly, assuming that it gets discovered at all. If someone puts a such vulnerability in a Linux system, then it's right there in plain sight. They'd need to be much more clever to hide it.
Yes, there are plenty of programs that are Linux-only, although it's not like there are no alternatives on Windows (might not always be on Mac, but there usually would be). However, Linux can run many (perhaps most) applications from Windows and Macs, so it doesn't necessarily need Linux-specific programs anyway. Linux just needs to be able to run apps, be they natively supported or through WINE or another such program, for any particular task. In this, Linux does exceptionally better than it is generally given credit for.
Anyone who doesn't care about free software and such yet uses a computer is a sheep when it comes to this. Paying for something that can be legally done for free or at least much cheaper is beyond ridiculous, especially with how high the prices can be.
What does any modern OS have to offer that the others don't have other than support of different applications? Linux is simply yet another option that most people can use. Heck, it's a better option in most cases (well, some distros of it, not all are capable in all situations) than OSX and oftentimes it can trade blows with Windows for different jobs. It has it's uses. For example, For a few months, I had a computer with no hard drive that I wanted to use for internet browsing through my WiFi router because my computer was two floors above the nearest Ethernet cable and I didn't feel like running a cable all the way up.
So, I went online, spent a few minutes looking up a few distros, and downloaded Xpud. I burned it to a CD and popped that CD into the tray of my hard drive-less laptop and booted. A few seconds after powering on, it had already booted and I then typed in my WiFi password and started up Firefox and got to web browsing. Full support for Java, Flash, and more, all without a hard drive and done in less than half an hour (that's including the time for finding the OS, downloading it, and burning it to the CD as well as popping it in and booting). If that's not convenient, then I don't know what is. I then decided that I wantd to do more with it.
Guess what? I downloaded VMWare, installed it, and started testing a variety of OSes and such on it after I put a hard drive in. After a while, I re-installed Windows because I needed to use a second WiFi adapter and it wasn't supported (turns out that it also didn't have a 64-bit compatible Windows Vista/7 driver either 🙁 ) and was to lazy to change it back, but I won't deny that I could do everything that I could do on Windows could be done on Xpud and on many other distros. Even Macs that I've worked with were less versatile than these free and arguably basic OSes, albeit they might sometimes need more work than some people are willing to put into it. The functionality is pretty much all there, all Linux needs is for it to be made easier to be done without sacrificing functionality in the process.
Total control refers to how other companies and groups don't have control of any part of your machine's functionality like MS and Apple have over their respective operating systems. The open source advantage isn't in openness or anything like that, it's that you can literally look at the code yourself and make sure that there's nothing bad in it. If MS puts in a back door, no one will know until it is discovered indirectly, assuming that it gets discovered at all. If someone puts a such vulnerability in a Linux system, then it's right there in plain sight. They'd need to be much more clever to hide it.
Yes, there are plenty of programs that are Linux-only, although it's not like there are no alternatives on Windows (might not always be on Mac, but there usually would be). However, Linux can run many (perhaps most) applications from Windows and Macs, so it doesn't necessarily need Linux-specific programs anyway. Linux just needs to be able to run apps, be they natively supported or through WINE or another such program, for any particular task. In this, Linux does exceptionally better than it is generally given credit for.
Anyone who doesn't care about free software and such yet uses a computer is a sheep when it comes to this. Paying for something that can be legally done for free or at least much cheaper is beyond ridiculous, especially with how high the prices can be.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram