Ex-MSFT Employee: Microsoft Should Run Linux

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
micro$uxx' accounts are bursting, but if the profits are lowering a bit, due to different reasons, the first measure is to fire employees en masse.
Really compassionate... greedy moron.
Click to expand...

A Business is also not obligated to hold on to every employee without regard to competence. Some people need to be fired. Sometimes economic downturns provide sufficient reason to get rid of the dead weight. running a business is a constant excercise in tearing down and rebuilding. Those businesses that do not practice this are doomed to fail through bloated payroll and poor performance, a la government organizations and the Auto Industry. When employees run the show, the cook is using a recipe for failure. Naive and obtuse Chucklehead.
 
@rooket,

I have no idea what you are talking about. A Shell and Desktop environment are two very different things. Computer systems exist as a series of layers. If you can't differnentiate between a shell and a desktop environment, I'm not sure what to say to you. It is not snoby of someone to differntiate between the two, it is correct. If a linux guru really wanted to piss you off, they would point out the difference between a window manager and a desktop. I have never heard any knowledgable person refer to their desktop as their shell.

For the record, I don't run Fedora because it is free, I run Fedora because it can do things that Windows or OSX simply can't. Yes, my setup took time to get up and running, but now it does everything I want, securely, and with out maintenance.

Clearly Linux is not for everyone. However, Keith Curtis is not suggesting to make Windows like some ghetto non supprorted linux distro. he is suggesting to use the worlds most stable kernel to build a windows desktop on top of. All of these comments about "Linux is too hard to use, so this is a bad idea" are completely missing the point.

Building on top of an existing kernel is exactly what Microsoft needs to do. This will, however, never happen because they are so invested in their current design.


 
He can't have been much of a researcher because he lacks common sense and fundamental analytical skills. Even if Microsoft was willing to use Linux, what about all those applications that are wedded to the Windows API? They can't just switch over.

Then there is Linux, which has had a consistent market share of something like 1% for over a decade. It hardly looks inevitable that Linux is going anywhere at all.

If Microsoft were to switch to Linux, the likely result would be the cloning and continuation of Windows by another company and the disappearance of Microsoft.
 
And if Linux replaced Windows, then Linux would become the target of all the hackers. You're "improved" security is nothing more than an illusion.
 
[citation] Yummy boy, that's not the way to get popular with wintarded m$ fankiddies...[/citation]

Once again, if you would actually grow up and state your beliefs in a proper manor and not use this ridiculous way of typing out your thoughts, people may actually take you seriously and not look at you some hyped up 15 year old who heard that linux is cool from the internet. I still dont see why you take the time to stalk Tom's to make fun of every person who doesn't agree that Microsoft is an "evil empire" and is forcing the 95% of the O/S market to use it's software. If there was a viable O/S that people would be able to use as easily as Windows, I'm sure it would be a very popular product.
And your arguments about GUI's and what not being dumbed down are completely unfounded. The average person in a day to day basis cannot figure out how to program their TV's, use a cell phone, or even follow simple things that have been around for years, like traffic rules. So you want to give these people an O/S that requires more thought then a basic click of a button to check their email? The world as we know it would NOT be anywhere near as far as we are in respect to commerce, communication, and shared knowledge without Microsoft making Windows as it is today.
 
I don't see Linux taking over but this idea does have its merits. It would help Microsoft cut costs as most of the work on the core OS would be free, offloaded to Linus and others. Then Microsoft could focus most of its work on its Windows GUI system, MS Office and Programming tools.

On the other hand keeping Windows separate from Linux forces many businesses to deploy Windows servers and technology in order to support a single Microsoft app. If Windows was integrated with Linux, it would likely allow just the purchase of the Microsoft app without a Windows OS.
 
I think Windows Linux would be an interesting idea but don't know how it would pan out. One idea could be to basically leave Windows as-is and then to create wrapper libraries so that a Linux application/extention/etc. would be able to run without modification. The other idea is the exact oppisite which is to create a Linux distro and to create wrapper libraries so that a Windows application/extention/etc. would be able to run without modification.
 
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom][citation] Yummy boy, that's not the way to get popular with wintarded m$ fankiddies...[/citation]Once again, if you would actually grow up and state your beliefs in a proper manor [SIC] and not use this ridiculous way of typing out your thoughts, people may actually take you seriously and not look at you [as] some hyped up 15 year old who heard that linux is cool from the internet. I still dont [SIC] see why you take the time to stalk Tom's to make fun of every person who doesn't agree that Microsoft is an "evil empire" and is forcing the [SIC] 95% of the O/S [SIC] market to use it's software.[/citation]
The cited part characterizes exactly the kind of vocal windblows luser which blindly believes in whatever it's god m$, and it's evangelist marketingdroids, pushes as "absolute truth" through the corporate sites, media, and other means. He is incapable of independent thinking, and, according to it's corporate master's indoctrination, perceives anything anti-, or non-m$, as a personal threat. Being inoculated daily for years by TH with m$ propaganda, and m$ appraising articles, he presents an adverse reaction at everything critical to m$'s failures or non-m$ (the rotten fruit, or some birds, come to mind), and is impervious to any reasoning.
A typical example is just below you... Sadly, it's not at all an exception.
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom]If there was a viable O/S that people would be able to use as easily as Windows, I'm sure it would be a very popular product. And your arguments about GUI's and what not being dumbed down are completely unfounded.[/citation]
Firstly, don't confound popularity, or quantity, with quality, or even "viability". As, opposed to the "any trained monkey, capable to push buttons, can use it" over-bloated approach used by m$, linux was based on the KISS principle. Everything can be done at console level, the GUI being just an interface to the lower level of command building blocks. At the command level, there is no limited functionality - as imposed by the inflexibility of the severely limited possibilities of a GUI, which can offer just the most often used options for (a) certain command(s) - a knowledgeable user being capable to use all parameters, and switches, at his own will and necessities.
OTOH, to facilitate usage by less knowledgeable persons, the GUI was introduced, to offer a simplified and (hopefully) intuitive interface.
Using such a layered approach, to fulfill the necessities of a very large portion of users, from beginners to experts, linux is a quite viable alternative - permitting you to keep just the really needed ballast.
m$'s windblows is just an inflexible monolithic behemoth, with an astounding complexity - which is the main cause of it's failures, apart from those induced by limitless greed.
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom]The average person in a day to day basis cannot figure out how to program their TV's, use a cell phone, or even follow simple things that have been around for years, like traffic rules.[/citation]
That's exactly the problem which plagues the "modern" consumerist society, favoring the mindless, and uneducated crowds of individuals, incapable of own thinking, but easy to manipulate by greedy corporations and politicians - m$ is the foremost runner doing it in the IT world.
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom]So you want to give these people an O/S that requires more thought then a basic click of a button to check their email?[/citation]
Not necessarily, but I would like people capable of (much) more than a mindless click of a button...
The role of an OS is not to "check e-mail". There seems to be an unfortunate confusion in your mind (as in many others, too), of what an OS, (G)UI, or application is for.
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom] The world as we know it would NOT be anywhere near as far as we are in respect to commerce, communication, and shared knowledge without Microsoft making Windows as it is today.[/citation]
Here I must partially agree with you, but in the negative sense, the most damning effect being the creation of the irresponsible, ignorant, button pushing luser, without any clue of the effects of his actions.
m$ is one of the prime architects of the idiocracy, in which our world transforms. I can just hope, that it wakes up (the world, not greedy m$), before transformation, and damages, are irreversible.

"The Internet? We are not interested in it"
Bill Gates, 1993

"There is a fantasy in Redmond that Microsoft products are innovative, but this is based entirely on a peculiar confusion of the words "innovative" and "successful." Microsoft products are successful -- they make a lot of money -- but that doesn't make them innovative, or even particularly good."
Robert X. Cringley

"Microsoft's biggest and most dangerous contribution to the software industry may be the degree to which it has lowered user expectations."
Esther Schindler, OS/2 Magazine
 
Prior to using Linux, I was the typical diehard Windows (95, XP, Vista) user and fan for over 14 years. This year (2009), I gave the 'Arch Linux' distribution a serious, objective look. As my GUI (graphical user interface) I chose to use KDE. After several months using Linux with Free and Open Source software (FOSS), I am amazed of the speed, security, stability, appearance, graphics, technology, functionality, choice of software, ease of use, and point-and-click capabilities. All the FOSS I use on Linux is either an equal or better substitute for proprietary software made for Microsoft. One can easily run an entire typical office (Finance, engineering, graphics, etc. and any type of business) with Linux and FOSS, it's that good. Another big plus is the fact the Linux Kernel is under constant development, and both a stable and RC version is publicly released every several weeks. It's quite easy to update your Linux system, simply download the kernel source, compile, and install it. Your system is then updated instantly, with with the latest drivers and fixes. No need to wait for a fully new proprietary operating system to be released by a major software vendor. You update your kernel in Linux when you feel like it, and when it's released. In updating your kernel (for either Linux or Windows), it's like having a new operating system, only with Linux, it's free and works well.

I'm so impressed using Linux that I never turned back to Windows again. Linux is NOT all command line (CLI) as some people believe, but it IS a quite powerful tool to assist in getting the job done with great results. The point-and-click capabilities and graphical user interface is on par or even better than its Windows counterpart these days. Recently, the latest Xorg server was released and now fully eliminates any need for a configuration file (such as xorg.conf) to adjust manually. Just install your favorite Linux distribution and GUI, and you're off. Linux is now something to seriously look at. Microsoft and Apple have already taken notice of the maturity of Linux.
 
[citation][nom]etichi[/nom]further you insult Linux users as losers you are truly one of the people that loves there 800 pound gorilla. You love him because you are a sheep. Baahhaaaa[/citation]
You should go back to your logic professor and ask for your money back. Not everyone who acts the same has the same motivation, which is the obvious flaw in this "counter argument."
 
[citation][nom]ejmarkow[/nom]Prior to using Linux, I was the typical diehard Windows (95, XP, Vista) user and fan for over 14 years. This year (2009), I gave the 'Arch Linux' distribution a serious, objective look. As my GUI (graphical user interface) I chose to use KDE. After several months using Linux with Free and Open Source software (FOSS), I am amazed of the speed, security, stability, appearance, graphics, technology, functionality, choice of software, ease of use, and point-and-click capabilities. All the FOSS I use on Linux is either an equal or better substitute for proprietary software made for Microsoft. One can easily run an entire typical office (Finance, engineering, graphics, etc. and any type of business) with Linux and FOSS, it's that good. Another big plus is the fact the Linux Kernel is under constant development, and both a stable and RC version is publicly released every several weeks. It's quite easy to update your Linux system, simply download the kernel source, compile, and install it. Your system is then updated instantly, with with the latest drivers and fixes. No need to wait for a fully new proprietary operating system to be released by a major software vendor. You update your kernel in Linux when you feel like it, and when it's released. In updating your kernel (for either Linux or Windows), it's like having a new operating system, only with Linux, it's free and works well.I'm so impressed using Linux that I never turned back to Windows again. Linux is NOT all command line (CLI) as some people believe, but it IS a quite powerful tool to assist in getting the job done with great results. The point-and-click capabilities and graphical user interface is on par or even better than its Windows counterpart these days. Recently, the latest Xorg server was released and now fully eliminates any need for a configuration file (such as xorg.conf) to adjust manually. Just install your favorite Linux distribution and GUI, and you're off. Linux is now something to seriously look at. Microsoft and Apple have already taken notice of the maturity of Linux.[/citation]
You reek of Linux Fanboy. First, how do you manage to compare "security" and "stability" in under a year. Do you sustain daily cyber attacks? The fact of the matter is that the biggest improvement an OS can make in its security level is to change its user. Dumb people do dumb things with computers which includes security issues.

If you want to do anything outside of the pre-prepared Linux environment (in cases of Ubuntu, that is their synaptic), you need to use a command line interface just about 1 to 1. Before Java was added to the synaptic, it was a pain to install. Now, it's just a pain to make it work with the default browser, firefox. (well, feel free to tell someone how to locate their firefox plugin directory, the jre plugin directory, and then to make a symbolic link from the JRE plugin directory of the program that runs applets to the firefox browser directory.) How is flash working on Linux? Last time I saw, it was running very poorly. Granted, this might have improved. Or just about any adobe product for that matter (granted, I don't think much of adobe on Windows either)

How is Open Office superior. First, unless you want to write something in Latex (which is f'ing awful), there is just about no way to effectively write anything that requires mathematical symbols in a "Word" document quickly and easily. That's at least one feature that isn't present in OOo. Contrary, I can't think of a single useful thing in OOo that isn't in MS Office.

Not to mention that the ribbon is very effective in organizing content to make it easily able to be found.

Updating the Kernel isn't exactly like having a new OS. When most people think of a new OS, they think of increased functionality. That level of functionality must be actually written in by someone. Simply getting a new kernel doesn't do that. Sure, your OS *could* do more, but until the OS engineers write the software to interface between the user and kernel, it doesn't mean much.

While on the topic of updating your kernel, you call it simple, yet how many command line steps will the user have to make? Is there a rapid and easy way to automate this process? You could do this in Windows too, but quite a few people don't bother because it's a real pain (and it really isn't all that popular...). It's simpler in Linux than in Windows because of the community that is working on it, but it is still not a simple process.

Linux users should get off their high horses. A lot of the free software is absolute garbage (a large amount of it is a high school project that got posted to the internet and isn't maintained all that well). Some of it does a decent job of competing with proprietary software, but with the exception of niche markets which will always be filled with niche software, there are very few "Linux programs" (developed by anyone) that outperform programs intended for Windows written by MS.
 
When an individual admires a given product which functions very well and has a valid reason for it, does this in itself earn that person 'fanboy' status? It's a typical cheapshot so please spare me with this card and try again. This is not 'fanboy' ranting, it's reality and objective opinion. Only 10 months ago, I was doubting (and literally laughing) at Linux as well, prior to thoroughly testing it out. I also wondered, how well does Linux really work, and how can it possibly compete with MS...can these so called Linux fanatics be serious? So, I gave it a try to answer these questions. For a project which is totally Open Source, first, it's impressive and functions extremely well. Yes, one can test stability and security under one year using the correct random testing methods and utilities. I do not personally sustain daily cyber attacks - I had specialized software to invoke them and there is plenty out there - custom built, proprietary, and open source. The Unix / Linux model is very secure one when you consider the unique permission implementation used for the entire filesystem, every file and directory (Read, Write, Execute), as well as the distinct separation of the 'user' and 'root'. Add a high quality open source firewall like 'iptables' (for which many GUI frontends are availabe) to it, and you have extra security. On top of that, one can optionally add encryption to the system.

'Flash' runs extremely well without any problem, and so does Firefox. No issues here. Coupled with a desktop like KDE 4.3.3, command line usage has been reduced to only if one feels like using it. I'm using 'Arch Linux'(not Ubuntu), and command line is only necessary to update my software using the 'pacman' package manager and to build my customized kernel. However, if necessary, one can easily implement a GUI frontend or script for this.

OpenOffice is the perfect substitute and replacement for MS Office and is sufficient for full office environment production. It's more than enough to be utilized in a small or large firm. If you wish to write something in Latex, simply download and install 'Lyx'. Excellent software for producing anything you desire in Latex. There is also open source software written in Java using 'javaTex', and also a 'jedit' plugin that can produce Latex results as well.

I've used and tested every category of software to replict a complete office environment for my comparison between open source and proprietary software, matching it one for one, with the Open Source software mostly written in C, C++, and Java using a GUI and not command line: Office (Spreadsheet, Word Processing, Relational Database, Presentation), Accounting / ERP, Latex, Mathematics, Statistics, Graphics (2D / 3D), Modelling, CAD, Instant messenger, Video conferencing, Emulation, PIM, Point of Sale, Inventory Management, Finance, Economics, Scientific, Sound Sampling / Conversion, Multimedia, Video editing, Photo editing, Graphing, Plotting, Language translation, Physics, Geography, and much more. It's all there, available to downloand and install, open source and free...and it all works smoothly, and accurately, all point and click in an elegant GUI environment.

The kernel IS the very heart and central processing of any system, and yes, it is indeed very simple to download, uncompress, compile, and install...all in under 45 minutes to update the most significant component of any operating system. With every major Linux kernel release (ex. from 2.6.30 to 2.6.31), there IS significant new funtionality, whether it be a new filesystem (ext4 and btrfs coming soon) or in wireless, or graphics (KMS), USB 3, etc. and numerous new drivers being added. This can be updated whenever a new kernel is released, and that is quite frequent, averaging every several weeks. No need to wait several years for a new OS to come out as in Microsoft's case. Not only that, but one can customize the kernel to fit your specific hardware during the 'make menuconfig' process. It's straightforward and not as complicated as you wish to believe.

Linux does currently have an enormous selection of high quality software available today, written in C / C++, Java, Python, etc. Most of the major software released are maintained well and updated constantly. Linux and FOSS on the desktop and server is ready, now, for complete use in any production environment.

Keith Curtis obviously isn't just some disgruntled former Microsoft employee. He seems to be an experienced individial and progammer, who has expressed a realistic and personal opinion based on the change he made from the Microsoft to the Linux / Unix / Office Source environment.
 
Really windows isn't that different from linux!
Both bare based on a kernel (hall in microsoft world) and a shell (explorer in microsoft world). Both have drivers that load in the kernel session, and shell + user applications that run in a different session. Both support heavy modification by the user, and both are poorly documented enough that the ordinary user rarely excercises those opportunities.

So they're quite the same already. Microsoft's hall is merely not supporting linux modules, and linux kernels aren't supporting microsoft ones. But they're the same. Just two different versions of the same.
 
Titanius 11/06/2009 4:17 AM Hide Insert quote. Report -20+
That's exactly the kind of thinking that got him laid off.
Click to expand...

Titanius 11/06/2009 4:17 AM Hide Insert quote. Report -20+
That's exactly the kind of thinking that got him [strike]laid off[/strike] fired.

-There, fixed it for ya.
 
@descendency said, "You could do this in Windows too [update the kernel]."

Really, since when can anyone using Windows - update, customize, and reinstall - the kernel? Tell me, where you can download the Microsoft Windows Kernel source code and customize it? How do you install it? You must know some secret that nobody else has ever discovered yet. You see, this can all be done in Linux very easily. But in MS Windows?? The only way to get a new kernel in Windows is to wait several years for a new OS to be released by Microsoft, or, if they release a pre-coded Microsoft 'update' via online.

@neiroatopelcc said, "Really windows isn't that different from linux!
Both bare based on a kernel (hall in microsoft world) and a shell (explorer in microsoft world). Both have drivers that load in the kernel session, and shell + user applications that run in a different session. Both support heavy modification by the user, and both are poorly documented enough that the ordinary user rarely excercises those opportunities. So they're quite the same already."

Linux and Windows are both VERY different! They both use different file systems, although Linux does support both NTFS and FAT, but Windows doesn't include any support for ext4, ext3, and the others. Their Kernels consist of different code (although some Unix code can still be found in the Microsoft kernel), with the Linux kernel supporting more hardware than Microsoft. Windows contains an outdated 'registry', while everything in Liinux is...a file!

Both do NOT support heavy modification! With Linux, you can customize everything from the source code to the kernel itself. You cannot do that with proprietary software such as Windows. It's illegal and licensed. And Linux documentation is excellent. There is a 'man' (manual) page for every function and command.

 
[citation][nom]ejmarkow[/nom]@descendency said, "You could do this in Windows too [update the kernel]."Really, since when can anyone using Windows - update, customize, and reinstall[/citation]
You can replace key shell components within Windows that will alter the behavior of the kernel basically.
 
[citation][nom]ejmarkow[/nom]
Linux and Windows are both VERY different! They both use different file systems, although Linux does support both NTFS and FAT, but Windows doesn't include any support for ext4, ext3, and the others. Their Kernels consist of different code (although some Unix code can still be found in the Microsoft kernel), with the Linux kernel supporting more hardware than Microsoft. Windows contains an outdated 'registry', while everything in Liinux is...a file!Both do NOT support heavy modification! With Linux, you can customize everything from the source code to the kernel itself. You cannot do that with proprietary software such as Windows. It's illegal and licensed. And Linux documentation is excellent. There is a 'man' (manual) page for every function and command.[/citation]
They're not different. They're based on the same principles. Sure windows doesn't have support for ext out of the box, but neither does linux. You still have to add the modules just like you have to with windows. In fact windows is a bit ahead there, as it does at least have built in support for the basic ntfs system that is installed on.

Ofcourse their kernels are different. That's what makes windows better than linux. If it was all the same, there'd be no reason to pick one over the other would there?

The registry might be outdated - can't tell. But the registry consists of a bunch of files (in %systemroot%\system32\config & %userprofile% & the default user profile) ; if you ask me having all of the configuration in just a few files in fixed locations beats having conf files all over the place hands down. But I suppose having a quick, simple and intuitive configuration database is too outdated an idea in a scatter-the-info-to-hell age.

As for heavy modification - yes you can. No you cannot alter the kernel itself - but you're free to replace it if you so desire. The beauty of proprietary software is that it works out the gate - cause someone is actually responsibile for it. So while you can't legally mod the kernel, it also ensures that the system at least boots. Which isn't a given for a selfmade linux kernel. Anyway, anything during install can be configured. Hell you can even decide to install windows without printing system or without support for internet explorer if you desire. *1

As for documentation - have you ever actually tried to use man pages? if you call that excellent documentation I wouldn't want to know what you consider incomplete or lacking documentation. I suppose finding a seashell in place of a manual would still be decent documentation in your world?

At least with microsoft you can look everything up in knowledge base articles, best practices articles or technical documentations - or technet/msdn web pages. And what's more - most of it is written in common english and likely without silly smilies and wannabe funny error messages ; all in all with a proper level of seriousity - unlike linux documentation.

Anyhow - what I said earlier still is what I mean. Linux and windows are basicly the same. Just two ways of doing the same. One needs only a handful versions, and the other hundreds to accomish the same workload - but still they're basicly the same.
 
... the part i find interesting is the part where it would cost them almost nothing to start ... $10 million in corporate terms is very, very small.

they wouldnt abandon theyre bread and butter, obviously.

they'd run it right alongside for a few years to see how it all panned out. that's what Mac did with BSD.

in fact, i wrote a little post in the BSD forum about why the BSD license would probably be preferred by MS over the GNU/Linux license -- it allows closing the source after modification.

anyway. MS should still keep it in mind because while Unix like systems may not be big news on the desktop they do rule the internet ... and have since they were open sourced.
 
[citation][nom]tanderskey[/nom]MS should still keep it in mind because while Unix like systems may not be big news on the desktop they do rule the internet ... and have since they were open sourced.[/citation]
True. Many a gateway or web server runs linux of some sort. But that's probably because those running them are hardcore nerds and happen to nkow their stuff. Microsoft's the friendly giant. Forefront is intuitive and a kind of click-and-play working system. iptables is a lot more complicated. as a consequence our company, roughly 450 employees and I would assume about 40.000 clients (no more than 2k at once), has had more breakdowns associated with the linux gateway (exterior gateway) than with any of the internal tng servers - and they're even running beta software!
 
[citation][nom]ossie[/nom]Once again, if you would actually grow up and state your beliefs in a proper manor [SIC] and not use this ridiculous way of typing out your thoughts, people may actually take you seriously and not look at you [as] some hyped up 15 year old who heard that linux is cool from the internet. I still dont [SIC] see why you take the time to stalk Tom's to make fun of every person who doesn't agree that Microsoft is an "evil empire" and is forcing the [SIC] 95% of the O/S [SIC] market to use it's software.[/citation]The cited part characterizes exactly the kind of vocal windblows luser which blindly believes in whatever it's god m$, and it's evangelist marketingdroids, pushes as "absolute truth" through the corporate sites, media, and other means. He is incapable of independent thinking, and, according to it's corporate master's indoctrination, perceives anything anti-, or non-m$, as a personal threat. Being inoculated daily for years by TH with m$ propaganda, and m$ appraising articles, he presents an adverse reaction at everything critical to m$'s failures or non-m$ (the rotten fruit, or some birds, come to mind), and is impervious to any reasoning.A typical example is just below you... Sadly, it's not at all an exception.Firstly, don't confound popularity, or quantity, with quality, or even "viability". As, opposed to the "any trained monkey, capable to push buttons, can use it" over-bloated approach used by m$, linux was based on the KISS principle. Everything can be done at console level, the GUI being just an interface to the lower level of command building blocks. At the command level, there is no limited functionality - as imposed by the inflexibility of the severely limited possibilities of a GUI, which can offer just the most often used options for (a) certain command(s) - a knowledgeable user being capable to use all parameters, and switches, at his own will and necessities.OTOH, to facilitate usage by less knowledgeable persons, the GUI was introduced, to offer a simplified and (hopefully) intuitive interface.Using such a layered approach, to fulfill the necessities of a very large portion of users, from beginners to experts, linux is a quite viable alternative - permitting you to keep just the really needed ballast.m$'s windblows is just an inflexible monolithic behemoth, with an astounding complexity - which is the main cause of it's failures, apart from those induced by limitless greed.That's exactly the problem which plagues the "modern" consumerist society, favoring the mindless, and uneducated crowds of individuals, incapable of own thinking, but easy to manipulate by greedy corporations and politicians - m$ is the foremost runner doing it in the IT world.Not necessarily, but I would like people capable of (much) more than a mindless click of a button...The role of an OS is not to "check e-mail". There seems to be an unfortunate confusion in your mind (as in many others, too), of what an OS, (G)UI, or application is for.Here I must partially agree with you, but in the negative sense, the most damning effect being the creation of the irresponsible, ignorant, button pushing luser, without any clue of the effects of his actions.m$ is one of the prime architects of the idiocracy, in which our world transforms. I can just hope, that it wakes up (the world, not greedy m$), before transformation, and damages, are irreversible."The Internet? We are not interested in it" Bill Gates, 1993"There is a fantasy in Redmond that Microsoft products are innovative, but this is based entirely on a peculiar confusion of the words "innovative" and "successful." Microsoft products are successful -- they make a lot of money -- but that doesn't make them innovative, or even particularly good." Robert X. Cringley"Microsoft's biggest and most dangerous contribution to the software industry may be the degree to which it has lowered user expectations." Esther Schindler, OS/2 Magazine[/citation]

You have to be the most hypocritical person here. You claim that I am scared of your "revelations" and am lashing out at you in response, yet this is all you do on this forum. In your first response, you call me out for being a "MS Fanboy", saying that I can't make my own thoughts, that I can't form my own opinions, and that I find you a personal threat. This is all untrue. Never once did I say that MS is infallible or that Windows doesn't have issues. Quite the opposite, in fact. Every large corporation in history has made mistakes and screwed things up. This is nothing new, since it's ran by people, which are not infallible. Being a PC technician for 10 years also puts me in a unique position to see Windows failures and flaws everyday. This does not mean that Microsoft is evil and should be shunned. We have several windows and linux servers here hosting hundreds of websites, so I have seen the intricacies of both. I still stand by my belief that an average user does not have the acumen to work a command line O/S. Period. This is not saying that the Linux UI is difficult or non-user friendly, but at this point in time it's pointless to argue that the massive amount of windows users should switch over. And regardless of what numbers you believe, you have to admit that there are more windows users than all linux and mac users combined.

"That's exactly the problem which plagues the "modern" consumerist society, favoring the mindless, and uneducated crowds of individuals, incapable of own thinking, but easy to manipulate by greedy corporations and politicians - m$ is the foremost runner doing it in the IT world."

Then, you start to argue about today's society and how people are, which is the same as whining about the economy or world hunger. You are pretty much arguing that MS made people complacent and stupid. So with that logic, the development of an automatic transmission and power steering also makes people complacent and stupid. You are arguing that advances in the way things work, things that have made things more stream lined are making people stupid. That is flawed logic.

"The role of an OS is not to "check e-mail". There seems to be an unfortunate confusion in your mind (as in many others, too), of what an OS, (G)UI, or application is for."

So, tell me what an O/S is for besides running applications of the user? It is a shell to start from, the base to run off of... I'm confused why you see people using an O/S to check email and socialize a problem.

And then you proceed to use several quotes out of context, including a Bill Gates quote that was never proved that he actually said it. Ooo, let me try...

"I have an ego the size of a small planet "
- Linus Torvalds, 2007

"My name is Linus Torvalds and I am your god."
- Linus Torvalds, 1998

You see what I did there?
 
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]True. Many a gateway or web server runs linux of some sort. But that's probably because those running them are hardcore nerds and happen to nkow their stuff. Microsoft's the friendly giant. Forefront is intuitive and a kind of click-and-play working system. iptables is a lot more complicated. as a consequence our company, roughly 450 employees and I would assume about 40.000 clients (no more than 2k at once), has had more breakdowns associated with the linux gateway (exterior gateway) than with any of the internal tng servers - and they're even running beta software![/citation]

Check out the top 40 best performing websites according to Netcraft:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/Hosters

6 are Windows. 1 is AIX.

The rest (including F5) are BSD or Linux.

My point is, hosting your website on something other than Windows can't really be that difficult if all those hosting companies are figuring it out and being rewarded with commendable performance.

And in case of BSD and Linux servers, you get none of that we're-not-supporting-that-anymore bs, no licensing fees, no must-upgrade-to-next-version-by-this-date fees, no if-you-want-to-use-this-tool-you-must-upgrade-and-relicense-these-other-three-dependencies fees that so many big-business software vendors still use.

Too boot you'd also get a really good peer-reviewed security model, time tested software architecture and better performance too.

But if you don't want to learn to ride a two-wheeler, nobody is going to force you. 😉
 
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom]You have to be the most hypocritical person here. You claim that I am scared of your "revelations" and am lashing out at you in response, yet this is all you do on this forum. In your first response, you call me out for being a "MS Fanboy", saying that I can't make my own thoughts, that I can't form my own opinions, and that I find you a personal threat. This is all untrue. Never once did I say that MS is infallible or that Windows doesn't have issues. Quite the opposite, in fact. Every large corporation in history has made mistakes and screwed things up. This is nothing new, since it's ran by people, which are not infallible.[/citation]
Either your english skills are lacking big time, to comprehend at what/who the comment referred to, or you're a deluded paranoiac.
To clarify it (should I draw it for you?):
- you cited a part, addressed to yummy boy, of my comment, making a blurb about it's form, and it's writer
- I replied, about why "wintarded m$ fankiddies" is appropriately used, to describe a certain part of TH readers
Where was the reference to you? Maybe if you consider yourself being a member of it... I didn't until now, but reconsidering it.
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom]Being a PC technician for 10 years also puts me in a unique position to see Windows failures and flaws everyday. This does not mean that Microsoft is evil and should be shunned. We have several windows and linux servers here hosting hundreds of websites, so I have seen the intricacies of both.[/citation]
It's not evil in itself, to make a mistake, or two, but it really is to persist in doing it, and claim to be perfect.
Should I remind you who is the perpetrator of the dirty "get the facts" anti-linux campaign? Or who financed sco in it's legal crusade? Or who indoctrinates and pays retailers to disseminate outright lies?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/06/microsoft-indoctrinates-best-buy-workers-with-anti-linux-lies/
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom]I still stand by my belief that an average user does not have the acumen to work a command line O/S. Period. This is not saying that the Linux UI is difficult or non-user friendly, but at this point in time it's pointless to argue that the massive amount of windows users should switch over. And regardless of what numbers you believe, you have to admit that there are more windows users than all linux and mac users combined.[/citation]
Agreed, the average user must not dig in the console world, but he should at least have a clue about what he is doing.
A friendly GUI is not enough, to sustain switching over, there are much more important aspects to take into consideration.
I repeat it again, even if you're not capable to comprehend it: quantity does not equal quality. If you're content with herd mentality, go on.
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom]Then, you start to argue about today's society and how people are, which is the same as whining about the economy or world hunger. You are pretty much arguing that MS made people complacent and stupid. So with that logic, the development of an automatic transmission and power steering also makes people complacent and stupid. You are arguing that advances in the way things work, things that have made things more stream lined are making people stupid. That is flawed logic.[/citation]
I am not "whining", just stating a sad truth. And yes, so called "advances" like automatic transmission (it will never get to the level of flexibility, and performance of a manual one, but that would require a modicum of skill) are making people dumber, some even don't know how to change a tire - unfortunately there isn't yet a button to push for it...
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom]So, tell me what an O/S is for besides running applications of the user? It is a shell to start from, the base to run off of... I'm confused why you see people using an O/S to check email and socialize a problem.[/citation]
And you call yourself an PC technician?
OS = uniform interface between HW and apps
shell = UI on top of OS, actually another app
app = runs whatever the user needs to do
So, e-mail checking is actually an app, it has nothing to do with the OS, per se, nor is an OS responsible to offer such functionality.
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom]And then you proceed to use several quotes out of context, including a Bill Gates quote that was never proved that he actually said it.[/citation]
Should I remind you about:
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom]The world as we know it would NOT be anywhere near as far as we are in respect to commerce, communication, and shared knowledge without Microsoft making Windows as it is today.[/citation]?
"Sometimes we do get taken by surprise. For example, when the Internet came along, we had it as a fifth or sixth priority."
Bill Gates, Jul, 1998
"There won't be anything we won't say to people to try and convince
them that our way is the way to go."
Bill Gates
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good."
Bill Gates
"Microsoft programs are generally bug-free. If you visit the Microsoft
hotline, you'll literally have to wait weeks if not months until someone
calls in with a bug in one of our programs. 99.99% of calls turn out to
be user mistakes. [...] I know not a single less irrelevant reason for an update than bugfixes. The reasons for updates are to present more new features."
Bill Gates
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom]Ooo, let me try... "I have an ego the size of a small planet " - Linus Torvalds, 2007[/citation]
You forgot the context:
"The other problem is the "permission from maintainers" thing: I have an ego the size of a small planet, but I'm not _always_ right, and in that kind of situation it would be a total disaster if everybody had to ask for my permission to create a branch to do some re-architecting work."
http://lwn.net/Articles/246381/
[citation][nom]mitchmeister03[/nom]"My name is Linus Torvalds and I am your god."- Linus Torvalds, 1998 You see what I did there?[/citation]
Even if we would take his joke literally, at least Linus worked hard to create the linux kernel himself, billy boy just scammed SCP, for Tim Paterson's work, and IBM, being incapable to write an OS (it's more complicated than a BASIC interpreter).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom