Windows XP and the Microsoft agenda - can it get worse?

[Korpo]

RPM-dependancy hell?

If you miss a library in Windows, you need to get it. Same thing as on Linux. If you don´t want that under Linux, you need to install it as bloated as XP is. Simply do a full install on Linux with 4 GB or more, and you get a full OS with all the libraries and some 1000 apps. You can waste away some GB with XP and get a OS, and some very basic apps....

Package systems are more advanced than all the crap bloated Windows XP is using. You can of course overcome library dependencies and download only static versions of packages, bloating the size of your packages as average Windows programs are anyway. Average Linux user doesn´t need to compile anything anymore anyway (triple a!). .DEB and .RPM are getting more automated every day anyway...

Linux is a niche OS, but will not stay one.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Korpo
RPM-dependancy hell?

You obviously haven't used RPMs very much if you've no clue what I'm talking about.

If you miss a library in Windows, you need to get it. Same thing as on Linux. If you don´t want that under Linux, you need to install it as bloated as XP is. Simply do a full install on Linux with 4 GB or more, and you get a full OS with all the libraries and some 1000 apps. You can waste away some GB with XP and get a OS, and some very basic apps....

You again completely missed my point. *WHOOSH*
How often do you have to download the source for something on Linux, configure it and compile it?
How often do you ahve to do that for Windows?

Package systems are more advanced than all the crap bloated Windows XP is using. You can of course overcome library dependencies and download only static versions of packages, bloating the size of your packages as average Windows programs are anyway. Average Linux user doesn´t need to compile anything anymore anyway (triple a!). .DEB and .RPM are getting more automated every day anyway...

Dear lord, I can't believe somebody actually said that.
You actually think the concept of packages is more advanced than having a stable codebase (XP) with a scripted installer like the Windows Installer? Jesus christ man, do some research. Use both. RPMs and DEB are completely and utterly ancient in comparison.

Linux is a niche OS, but will not stay one.

You're welcome to believe that. But you know as well as I Microsoft is here to stay. The world revolves around money, my friend. Microsoft has $36B, Linux has...humm. Not $36B. Microsoft's OS is familiar to the vast majority of end users...Linux is...well, it's not. Microsoft's OS has real hardware support...Linux...does not.

You say it's going to change, but it's been like this for years, and it's not changing. I STILL can't hear sound in Linux! My 3D card drivers are woefully obsolete in Linux, XWindows crashes once or twice a week. XP has only crashed (during beta 1) when I fed it a faulty driver.

You are obviously someone who actually doesn't know just how advanced XP (and especially the XP kernel) is. Linux's kernel is completely basic in comparison.

[Korpo]

You again completely missed my point. *WHOOSH* How often do you have to download the source for something on Linux, configure it and compile it? How often do you ahve to do that for Windows?

I never download source tarballs except for getting developer versions of programs, or for the newest versions of developer tools. Since Windows is closed-source, as is most of the software for it, I don´t have the choice there....
I´m actually using Debian, with .DEB-packages which always worked, and are well-maintained! Besides, I used SuSE-Linux, and its .RPM worked fine for me. Of course if you want to blame it on a Redhat distribution, it´s again your fault. You have the choice to switch.
Besides, as I said: If you want to completely avoid .RPM dependancy problems you can still get static builds, that have no library depencies. This so-called "dependancy hell" saves disk space en masse!

You're welcome to believe that. But you know as well as I Microsoft is here to stay. The world revolves around money, my friend. Microsoft has $36B, Linux has...humm. Not $36B. Microsoft's OS is familiar to the vast majority of end users...Linux is...well, it's not. Microsoft's OS has real hardware support...Linux...does not. You say it's going to change, but it's been like this for years, and it's not changing. I STILL can't hear sound in Linux! My 3D card drivers are woefully obsolete in Linux, XWindows crashes once or twice a week. XP has only crashed (during beta 1) when I fed it a faulty driver.

1) MS got that much dough because of its biz practices, not because of quality software (the reason we started this discussion thread). Linux doesn´t exactly need a big amount of money, the lot of free work invested in it you haven´t considered at all. Besides corporations as IBM or Sun and other big software and system vendors are pushing it, so the "world revolves around money" - any money, not only that of MS.

2) If Linux makes it into enterprises, users will get used to it. Workless people seldom have computers.. It´s the same thing as with MS Office: Most people use it because they know from office. So they don´t consider alternatives as Corel or Staroffice. But if the company they work for changes, it is getting more likely the people change. Especially if the Office suite from Sun is for free... same with Linux.

3) Your specific problems with Linux seem to be your main argument against Linux. On the average, and a well-maintained system, Linux doesn´t crash anywhere as much as Windows does. Ask insurance companies, ask Sysops, ask the statistics. I know of people that had Windows XP crash during bootup and during bootdown (and in between). They are starting to think the blue screen of death is a vital part of Windows... No OS developer can adress ALL possible combinations of PC-style hardware, so you are out of luck.

[Korpo]

This article is an older one, but it is fitting!

MS-built UK 'Government Gateway' locks out non-MS browsers

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Asher

You say it's going to change, but it's been like this for years, and it's not changing. I STILL can't hear sound in Linux! My 3D card drivers are woefully obsolete in Linux, XWindows crashes once or twice a week. XP has only crashed (during beta 1) when I fed it a faulty driver.



You are obviously someone who actually doesn't know just how advanced XP (and especially the XP kernel) is. Linux's kernel is completely basic in comparison.

Linux progs have been, and are making great progress all the time:
Examples of progs that IMO have made huge leaps in quality and usability the last year:
- StarOffice/OpenOffice
- Evolution
- Mozilla
- KDE
- Gnome
- The kernel itself

What soundcard do you have?

Are you implying that it's unsupported in linux, or that you have been unable to make it work?

If it is the latter, that really isn't a good argument against hardware support in linux.

The nvidia 3D-driver in linux is _very_ fast, not trailing far behind the windows driver. I have explained what you have to do too make 3D and your X to work, so that is a user-problem not a problem with linux. Linux have excellent hardware support, and will support anything but the most obscure hardware. If you buy bleeding edge hardware though, you might have to wait a short while before it gets supported. However, for popular hardware support gets added quite fast. You might also have to compile the driver yourself. It's not that scary you know
Just unpack it, type:
./configure
make
make install

and you're done


The linux kernel is IMO far from basic in comparison to XP. What is your comparison criteria? stability?, scalability?, hardware support?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
You obviously haven't used RPMs very much if you've no clue what I'm talking about.

RPM = RedHat Packaging Manager. Not every distro uses it, and not everybody uses distros.

Originally posted by Asher
You again completely missed my point. *WHOOSH*
How often do you have to download the source for something on Linux, configure it and compile it?
How often do you ahve to do that for Windows?

That of course is a loaded question.

A better question is, "Can you do that for Windoze?"

The answer is no, because users cannot get the source for any version of Windoze. Full stop.

Having the source allows a user to tweak the OS to the greatest extent possible. Unlike *nix, Windoze binds users in a straitjacket, which gets progessively worse as new versions are released.

Originally posted by Asher
Dear lord, I can't believe somebody actually said that.
You actually think the concept of packages is more advanced than having a stable codebase (XP) with a scripted installer like the Windows Installer? Jesus christ man, do some research. Use both. RPMs and DEB are completely and utterly ancient in comparison.

You are clearly utterly wrong. All ancient OSes are monolithic, just like Windoze. Components is a much more modern concept. Ask your Computer Science professor, kid.

Originally posted by Asher
You're welcome to believe that. But you know as well as I Microsoft is here to stay. The world revolves around money, my friend. Microsoft has $36B, Linux has...humm. Not $36B.

In 1981 M$ was a nobody. They can be a nobody again in 2011. Read Bill Parish's website for financial crap that M$ is pulling, and weep.

Originally posted by Asher
Microsoft's OS is familiar to the vast majority of end users...Linux is...well, it's not.

Wrong. The Windoze UI may be familar to many users.

Originally posted by Asher
Microsoft's OS has real hardware support...Linux...does not.

The old FUD at work again.

Originally posted by Asher
You say it's going to change, but it's been like this for years, and it's not changing. I STILL can't hear sound in Linux! My 3D card drivers are woefully obsolete in Linux, XWindows crashes once or twice a week. XP has only crashed (during beta 1) when I fed it a faulty driver.

Speaking of XP, it won't let you use any drivers other than the ones authorised by M$. Is that my computer, or is that Billg's?

Originally posted by Asher
You are obviously someone who actually doesn't know just how advanced XP (and especially the XP kernel) is. Linux's kernel is completely basic in comparison.

Enlighten us oh great god of IT

[Urban Ranger]

Korpo,

Make no mistake. Glonk (Asher) is a Wintel apologist.

[Asher]

Korpo:

Originally posted by Korpo
2) If Linux makes it into enterprises, users will get used to it. Workless people seldom have computers.. It´s the same thing as with MS Office: Most people use it because they know from office. So they don´t consider alternatives as Corel or Staroffice. But if the company they work for changes, it is getting more likely the people change. Especially if the Office suite from Sun is for free... same with Linux.

You seem to think there's a good deal of Linux workstations out there in comparison to Windows ones?
The only inroads Linux is making in the "enterprise" scene is with servers. More power to them. But because a server runs on Linux doesn't mean desktops will be too for users.

3) Your specific problems with Linux seem to be your main argument against Linux. On the average, and a well-maintained system, Linux doesn´t crash anywhere as much as Windows does. Ask insurance companies, ask Sysops, ask the statistics. I know of people that had Windows XP crash during bootup and during bootdown (and in between). They are starting to think the blue screen of death is a vital part of Windows... No OS developer can adress ALL possible combinations of PC-style hardware, so you are out of luck.

My problems with Linux are what I don't like Linux (intuitive for you?). I honestly see no advantages to it for the average user anymore other than cost, but I can see a whole wad of disadvantages. Tell me, why should I download Linux instead of a pirated version of Windows XP? Windows XP has no stability issue, it has real hardware support, it has real software support. Why should I switch to an OS which is uglier in general (God those fonts are awful, even with Gnome's AA), with buggier programs in general, with less programs in general?

[Asher]

Yog-Sothoth:

Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth
What soundcard do you have?

Are you implying that it's unsupported in linux, or that you have been unable to make it work?

SoundBlaster Audigy. It is unsupported in linux, and that nobody has been able to make it work.

The nvidia 3D-driver in linux is _very_ fast, not trailing far behind the windows driver. I have explained what you have to do too make 3D and your X to work, so that is a user-problem not a problem with linux. Linux have excellent hardware support, and will support anything but the most obscure hardware. If you buy bleeding edge hardware though, you might have to wait a short while before it gets supported. However, for popular hardware support gets added quite fast. You might also have to compile the driver yourself. It's not that scary you know
Just unpack it, type:
./configure
make
make install

and you're done

Thanks for the damning evidence on why Linux is not going to make it into the mainstream.

The linux kernel is IMO far from basic in comparison to XP. What is your comparison criteria? stability?, scalability?, hardware support?

Design in general. Especially with regards to multimedia IO.

Urban Ranger:

That of course is a loaded question.

A better question is, "Can you do that for Windoze?"

The answer is no, because users cannot get the source for any version of Windoze. Full stop.

Having the source allows a user to tweak the OS to the greatest extent possible. Unlike *nix, Windoze binds users in a straitjacket, which gets progessively worse as new versions are released.

You called MY question a loaded question?
You're not even dealing with the issue of compiling third party programs, but instead tried to shift it to how somehow it's so much better than the average user is able to recompile the kernel. While nice, the feature is overrated. Did you know that the WinXP kernel is only about 500KB or so? The rest are things you can cut out and modify yourself.

But again, your point is moot. I'm talking about the average computer user, someone who has no idea what a kernel is let alone recompile it. That's why I said Linux is great for power users, you see.

You are clearly utterly wrong. All ancient OSes are monolithic, just like Windoze. Components is a much more modern concept. Ask your Computer Science professor, kid.

Did you even read the comment?
I'm talking about the structure between the Windows Installer versus DEB or RPM packages, and you go on a rant about 'monolithic' terminology?

In 1981 M$ was a nobody. They can be a nobody again in 2011. Read Bill Parish's website for financial crap that M$ is pulling, and weep.

Is that why their revenues keep increasing year after year, even after Linux puts up a great fight?
In 1981, MS was just getting started. You're a fool if you think the fact that they've got an established market share and $36B is not going to help them stay at the top for a LONG while. Especially when it comes to the OS. If you honestly believe Linux will force the average consumer to ditch Windows and load up a totally new OS in 10 years, you've really got to spend less time on Slashdot.

Wrong. The Windoze UI may be familar to many users.

Jesus you're dense. Of course that's what I meant! DUH!
You think I'd say the sourcecode to the kernel is familiar to users?
Users are used to how Windows works. Having a drive C:, having drive D:, opening Windows Explorer to do filehandling, having a start menu with Word on it, plus the GUI and taskbar. Even the little things as having backslashes instead of fore-slashes (do not go on your little rant, boy). And, of course, the GUI. I do realize lots of this is being attempted to be emulated, but they're still not the same.

The old FUD at work again.

You're right, UR, it is FUD. All hardware that works in Windows will also work perfectly fine in Linux.

Speaking of XP, it won't let you use any drivers other than the ones authorised by M$. Is that my computer, or is that Billg's?

Err...so that's why you're so ignorant about XP. You've never used it.
You can use whatever drivers you want (provided they're designed for 2K or XP). Whether they're signed by MS or authorized by MS doesn't matter. If they're not signed, it'll tell you (unless you disable this), that it's not a signed driver and to proceed with caution. You can feed it whatever the hell you want.

Korpo,

Make no mistake. Glonk (Asher) is a Wintel apologist.

For the last ****ing time I'm not a Wintel apologist. Each OS has its own strongpoints, and currently Linux's isn't the desktop. I don't see much happening to try to change that.

I'm a Wintel apologist with a dualboot system and somebody that concedes that MS needs to revamp their business tactics?

If there's any namecalling to be said here, UR, it'd be against you. You tried to justify AMD when they said they were going to completely hide clockspeeds of processors from the users (they've backed off), and you also seem to think Linux is the answer for everyone. The term here is 'zealot'.

[Garth Vader]

Asher, you concede that MS should change it's business practices but is there any chance that they will change if people continue to support and defend them as vehemently as you do?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
Asher, you concede that MS should change it's business practices but is there any chance that they will change if people continue to support and defend them as vehemently as you do?

I defend some products, because contrary to what the zealots like to think, they're not bad at all.

Windows 2000 and XP are great, the people who troll and bash them without even trying them (as Urban Ranger just demonstrated) piss me off to no end.

I don't defend their business practices, I defend choice products. That's all. You may argue that by using the products I back their business practices, but I'll have you know I usually don't buy Microsoft software.

[Yog-Sothoth]

Re: Yog-Sothoth:

Originally posted by Asher

Thanks for the damning evidence on why Linux is not going to make it into the mainstream.

hehe

I see what you mean.

I have greater hope in the average user however, that they one day will se the light

One drunk geek signing of for the evening.

[Korpo]

Well, MS being anywhere near safe or secure? I challenge it, again!

Another Gaping Microsoft Security Hole Goes Unpatched features the new MAJOR bug of ALL MS systems, including XP, that feature an integrated MSIE.

If the average Windows user is as lazy and narrowminded (or is it: brand-aware?) as Asher believes them to be and seems to be - partially at least - himself, this is a major security leak on 90% of all Windows computers, more exactly all Windows computers that use MSIE (any integrated version) as their default browser.. Why? Because MS´ messing with the MIME/Content-Type, and their ancient file-extension scheme, MSIE can be convinced (without remedy) to launch executables, that were incorrectly labeled with text/html as mime (so the browser should handle them).

Now, as we all now, what such apps would be: malware!

Why could this happen ? Perhaps because MS used its OS monopoly to illegaly push its own browser product, which it integrated into the system? May it be because of all that sheer monopolistic pressure, that made it the browser choice of the majority of people? Is that a well-designed system, that doesn´t properly separate software components that belong to different services, and doesn´t implement a clear and homogenic solution for file-type handling?

I find it funny and amusing, that people that went the easy and lazy, or as I called it, the "Asher way of security awareness", and used that (non-standard-conformant) MSIE browser, instead of trying Netscape or Opera, or switching to a Linux/Unix solution, are now target of a MAJOR security hole, which there is no patch for, nor a way to easily find a solution!!!

TRIPLE BWAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!

Besides, your nice Office XP products are easy targets of Macro viruses, Asher. They reworked the security of MS Word because of Macro viruses, but a late test of XP showed, that they forgot often used Excel and Powerpoint are absolutely defenseless against most Macro viruses... That´s really not what I call farsighted software design.

Boo!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Korpo
Well, MS being anywhere near safe or secure? I challenge it, again!

Another Gaping Microsoft Security Hole Goes Unpatched features the new MAJOR bug of ALL MS systems, including XP, that feature an integrated MSIE.

...which was fully patched 2 days after its discovery (Dec 13th MS released a patch).

I find it funny and amusing, that people that went the easy and lazy, or as I called it, the "Asher way of security awareness", and used that (non-standard-conformant) MSIE browser, instead of trying Netscape or Opera, or switching to a Linux/Unix solution, are now target of a MAJOR security hole, which there is no patch for, nor a way to easily find a solution!!!

TRIPLE BWAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!

I find it funny and amusing that you used out of date information as a basis for your entire troll, while major exploits like the Solaris/AIX login one are still unpatched.

Besides, your nice Office XP products are easy targets of Macro viruses, Asher. They reworked the security of MS Word because of Macro viruses, but a late test of XP showed, that they forgot often used Excel and Powerpoint are absolutely defenseless against most Macro viruses... That´s really not what I call farsighted software design.

Is that so? Where did you pull that out of?
Excel and Powerpoint are also protected by it. Do you even *USE* Office XP?
Although I disable Macros so it's all the same to me.

Boo!

Boo is right, Unix/Linux-specific security exploits make up 4 of the 10 'Top10 threats to internet security' according to SANS, while Windows exploits make up a whopping 1 out of 10. See my thread on it for further analysis.

You should get your facts straight before arguing.

[Garth Vader]

About that MSIE bug, I might as well ask here. That uber patch from the Slashdot link said it just affected 5.5 and 6, but I have seen some reports talking about problems with 5. Which is it?