OSS on Windows the Next Big Thing? 351
Lam1969 writes "Linux geeks and Microsoft have similar interests, says Computerworld: They both are interested in seeing open-source software succeed. Linux geeks admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications, and Microsoft recognizes that many of its customers are using open-source applications, and doesn't want to alienate them." From the article: "Faced with the allure of inexpensive open-source applications among its core customer base of small to midsize businesses, Microsoft has toned down its rhetoric. 'It's a myth that open-source and Windows can't work together. Customers just aren't religious about these things,' said Ryan Gavin, a director of platform strategy for Microsoft."
MS Grasping for Straws (Score:4, Insightful)
So far today, I've used WinCVS, Notepad2, Firefox, PDFCreator, numerous Apache development tools and 7-zip all on Win XP. Looks like I'm well aware of the power of OSS on Windows. I'm not even talking about the tons of other apps I have on Windows that are OSS (Gimp, OpenOffice, Thunderbird, Gaim, Nvu, etc.).
If they're supporting it now, it's only because they're grasping at straws and reasons for people to continue to buy Windows instead of x86 OSX. "Look, if you buy Windows, you can go download The OpenCD [slashdot.org] and just go to town on free software." I know there's plenty of OSS going on for OSX and it's even got the bash kernel so you can compile pre-existing OSS apps that were written for it but man these Windows OSS programs are slick and super easy to install.
Saying that they're promoting it now will not make it the next big thing either. They'd have to open up some information about how to write apps on top of their OS or at least design some API's with the open source developer in mind. You know, if they made their platform a little less proprietary and gave the OSS developers a little more freedom, that would be a sign of OSS support.
Talk is cheap.
Perhaps we'll start to see some adolescent tendencies take hold in the open source community? Maybe the only reason OSS has been developed for Windows was to slap William Gates in the face? If so, it's now helping Microsoft and at least a few workers are promoting it.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:4, Insightful)
BASH is a shell, not a kernel. Having it installed won't help you compile anything.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:5, Informative)
No you don't, M$ does give away Visual Studio tools in fully functional and free Express versions like C# Express [microsoft.com]
Granted, that would not help you with connecting VB6 access applications to mySql ODBC source, but that kind of interoperability is a tall order on any platform.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I did that. Didn't help. Also, what if the project is done with mingw? Do I have to maintain both toolchains? Windows is quite OSS unfriendly. At least for any project that expects to get user supplied patches and other input.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:2)
Huhwha!?
Who the hell said open-source and proprietary are either/or?! There's so much OSS for Windows it's not just not funny, it's incredibly USEFUL.
An OSS OS v. proprietary isn't even either or. OS-X is a well-meshed mix between the two.
Someone's been FUDding this guy, and claiming to be an OSS advocate in the process.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been wishing and hoping for a long time that the OSS on windows movement would expand. I've also noticed a trend recently toward that very end. I'm holding my breath here.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I shouldn't say "silly little utility" - developers have a right to ask whatever they want for their stuff, and it's their own hard work that produced it. But as a user, it's sure nice to work on Linux without all those toll booths everywhere. You just say "apt-get install" or "emerge" or whatever and with any luck, you're done.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe you don't understand the difference between simplay changing partitions/creating a new filesystem and actually wiping the disk.
I already knew there was dd for Windows. But since you can't do something lke 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hdc' it doesn't help much in this (and many
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but so what? Most of the major OSS apps are available on both platforms at this point (or, more likely, many platforms beyond just those two).
Fine. So use the best tool for the job -- that's basically what the article is saying. As is the grandparent poster. As are you... I think. I'm not sure why you're taking issue with the GP for that matter -- you seem to be saying largely the same thing.
I use Windows at both work and home for my desktop, and Linux/Unix at both for servers. I develop C++ apps for *nix; at work our server code compiles under Windows for one and only one reason -- debugging. And it's a helluva lot easier to use Visual C++ for debugging than trying to beat TotalView into not crashing, or attempting to use gdb on AIX (pain... agony... coredumps).
Most of the apps I use on a daily basis (vim, putty, firefox, virtuawin, cygwin, numerous command line tools, tortoisecvs, and numerous others) are OSS and they or equivalents are available on both platforms. But other apps that I use are not free (in either sense), nor are the games that I like to play at home. And they're all Windows only. The availability of so much OSS software on Windows, however, means that I really can have the best of both worlds.
And for the rare stuff that's just better on *nix -- again, that's where putty and Cygwin come in. But, as you note, the need to run X apps is increasingly rare.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:3, Informative)
The bash *kernel*!? It's a shell, not a kernel. There is a world of difference.
I don't see OSS as a big thing on OS X, despite the fact many things can simply be recompiled for it, Mac zealots demand "native" (read: not using X11) ports of software, which is significantly more work than simply
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux people want native stuff too. Not only do they want linux ports of software, but some people even rewrite apps so that they integrate with gnome or KDE better. xine/gxine for instance. In fact, most of the extra open source software out there is just duplicates of what we already had. Aside from one gnu app, I don't know of a replacement for say quicken. I don't see lots of open source games. (this argument is starting to become untrue.. in time.)
Making a native port of an open source program for Windows is a lot of work too. What is the difference?
OSX has quite a bit of open source software for it. Aside from obvious things like bash, tcsh, vim, xorg, apache httpd, php, perl, there are also things that don't come with it!
Apple can never win. Its either criticism for using open source or now they don't have enough. If they had used x11 for everything it would be "why not use linux instead of the copy". Nothing is stopping you from using "Mac OS" with x11... its called gnustep + windowmaker. Try it sometime. Its only about a decade out of date.. but its there. (pronounced: nextstep)
Linux users, do me a favor. Only speak of positives of your OS of choice. Don't sit there and trash every other OS out there. End users don't like "Windows is shitty" as a reason to switch. Why? Most of them think Windows is good enough. That's why they have 90% marketshare. Convince people Linux has new exciting features they can't live without. Play the game the way apple and microsoft do. The real reason you don't do that is because linux doesn't have much to offer over any other OS. Sure there are isolated cases but on a desktop there isn't a single reason to switch for most people. This holds true with mac os, bsd, and other systems as well. In the case of mac os, apple has iApps which appeal to a few people. That's why their marketshare is going up. They still don't have a silver bullet to get windows users to switch. Listen to what people say about mac os! Most complaints that are rational typically mention games. Does linux have lots of game ports? No. (work on that) Give and take constructive criticism. Improve the software. Work with others.
My personal vision is that someday operating systems will be free that work for everyone. I want us to move beyond 100 different choices and get to a few good ones that the poor and rich can use together. Most people I know that have heard of linux think it costs money. Why? They goto best buy and see "linux" for 80 dollars. The windows upgrade is 99 right next to it. What does that tell them? Then they go down the next isle and see box after box of window software. They think.. gee i can't get any software for this "linux" thing. They also may think wow.. nothing for macs either. I guess I have to use windows.
In order to resolve these problems, someone needs to put Linux cds at stores like AOL does. Free disks.. ubuntu or whatever needs to do this. Next, distros need to advertise that the box contains a browser, word processor, and anything else they may want. Perhaps an open source games collection might help too. Remember how you picked your first pc when you were clueless. In my case, I couldn't afford a mac so i got a packard bell because it had more games and other software.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:2)
Bingo. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo. Right on.
What we are seeing now is the reality that the experts saw coming 6-7 years ago is finally seeping into mainstream. Shrinkwrap software only business is over. Win2k/XP is mostly just a driver layer and gaming bios these days. The OSS vendors like Novel/SuSE/RedHat have been screwing around to much, that's what's held Linux/OSS back the last few years. Now with Canonical/Ubuntu finally getting the obsticles out of the way (zero-fuss hardware compliance) things are finally picking up speed. I've even considerd going back to Non-Apple Hardware after 3 years of OS X just because of that. I definitely see Linux Desktops become mainstream real soon now.
Re:Bingo. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bingo. (Score:3)
We can hope. However, the article's focus was on the server end of things, not the desktop - and really, it doesn't make that much sense. Two points:
1) Mass Virtualization. Say you run lots of virtual machines on your server (for compartmentation security, reliability, and so forth). If all those virtual machines are Windows, you are carrying around an extra 100MB (+-) PER VIRTUAL MACHINE, for the pretty GUI. Whereas if they are Linux ser
Apache, PHP... sure. OOo, no way (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly, the article has PHP and Apache icons to define its category. Sure, Microsoft wants you to run your Apache and PHP applications on Windows. What choice do they have? If you're already building Apache/PHP apps, you're probably building them on Linux. Any move to Windows is a net gain for Microsoft, and a net loss for Linux.
But OOo. It'll be a cold day in Hell before Microsoft recommends that on Windows. Or Firefox, or Thunderbird or any of the other desktop apps listed here. Of course, most of them run great on Windows (in fact, often better than on Linux, but don't get me started there...), so if MS were really serious about encouraging OSS for Windows, they'd be on board with these apps too.
Anyway, if you've gotta run Windows, lots of OSS desktop apps are available, and you oughta use 'em. But, don't expect Microsoft to tell you that.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:3, Insightful)
As for competition from Macs. Maybe, but people still have their reasons to buy PCs. Granted, Macs are cheaper now, over what they used to be, OSX is nifty.
MS, I'm sure, has their reasons for opening some sort of diplomatic relations with OSS, but fear of collapse in anything resembling the near future isn't one of them.
Who would have thought (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm shocked. SHOCKED!
Heresy! (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, that's it. Turn your card in at the door. We never want to see you again.
Re:Heresy! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Heresy! (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, and please don't use the soft cushions!
Re:Heresy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heresy! (Score:2)
Please state the commands necessary for building a Bash shell from source.
Re:Heresy! (Score:2)
Isn't that more like 'the secret handshake?'
Re:Heresy! (Score:2)
Re:Heresy! (Score:2)
Re:Heresy! (Score:2)
emerge bash-completion
(Gentoo, obviously.)Re:Heresy! (Score:2)
Re:Heresy! (Score:3, Funny)
Bogus Statement (Score:3, Insightful)
OSS on windows is simply a way to survive being forced to use XP at work by corporate policy or critical applications (visio, WHY), or at home by games and educational software
Re:Heresy! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's pretty much what I was thinking. That was some highly unusual spin. That entire comment seems to be inspired solely by the following bit from near the top of the article:
Clearly the submitter has a reading comprehension problem. What Bob Hecht says there absolutely is not the same thing as saying that Linux is not a superior platform. What he said is that the application "doesn't necessarily run better under Linux." He doesn't share why this is true; the application could have been targeted so much toward Windows that optimizing for Linux would be difficult.
The article itself is pure garbage:
More complexity? MORE COMPLEXITY? Windows is known for needless complexity. Maybe they mean more complexity of management... but then all that proves is that they need a talented editor over at computerworld. Not that this is news.
Besides, managing LAMP is getting easier all the time, and while the tools are still harder to use than the IIS MMC snap-in, they also work on a reliable basis. I've had the IIS management tools screw themselves up - or perhaps screw IIS up? - to the point where I had to reinstall the system in order to use them. You simply don't run into a situation like that on Linux. At worst you wipe out some directories and reinstall the software, and that's only if you're excessively confused.
Computerword == suck.
Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that that's out of the way... we might be able to be serious
It's nice to see Microsoft easing up a bit. I think we will find that this will be the only way to possibly ensure their existence. Embrace and extend, without the extinguish, anyone?
On the other hand, they've promised many things over the years. Is this just another promise?
Sort of easing up. (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:2)
MS's efforts are decent in some ways, but I think they're going about it for exactly the wrong reasons. They're scared. This stuff should be open....because it should be
This is a promise! (Score:2)
Free Software jihad (Score:5, Funny)
Smells Like Astroturf (Score:5, Interesting)
What the article completely ignores is why geeks prefer Linux. It's not hard to understand. When you're setting up infrastructure, you want to plan for the long term. If you go with Microsoft there's really no telling what's in the pipeline--their whole marketing strategy is based on overpromising which renders their roadmaps useless. Linux and open source app development is more predictable. Even though Microsoft can push stuff out faster, everyone knows the ultimate goal is profits. That means they'll inevitably change things and add dubious features just to force upgrades. On the other hand open-source applications exist primarily to solve specific problems.
There are a ton of short-term reasons to go with Microsoft:
On the other hand, long-term all these reasons evaporate. Open source projects can fall into dis-repair too, but at least you know a project isn't going to be scrapped because it's not driving upgrades anymore.
Re:Smells Like Astroturf (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot reformatting (Score:2, Offtopic)
Long term, LaTeX and LyX (Score:2)
LaTeX is open. It uses text based files. It is stable (I can latex files from a decade ago).
I have been using LyX for nearly a decade as a LaTeX front end. Again, text file data format. They have conveerters that read the old stuff, and if they don't I can find an old copy of the LyX source if I really needed to.
I like tgif for vector graphics/ eps files. Again, open source software that
And so (Score:3, Funny)
Is OSS EEE Windows, though? (Score:2)
Re:And so (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And so (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. However, in this case it is Microsoft that is feeling the squeeze. In a lot of cases the Free Software that people want to run on Windows competes directly with software that Microsoft sells. Having this software available for Windows means that it is not necessary to have UNIX knowledge to deploy Free Software applications. However, once you are using Free Software applications on Windows it becomes trivial to migrate to some other platform. Not only does Free Software on Windows loosen Microsoft's grasp on customers, but it makes it much harder for Microsoft to use its market power to embrace and extend protocols.
Duh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, DUH! How many time did it take to understand that? It's not the code being open or closed, it's (mostly) not the fact if the software cost, or is it free as in beer. It's the software itself that matters.
Example, do you see designers complaining about photoshop? Or do you see system admins complaining about linux servers? Not really. And it's because of software that matters.
Re:Duh! (Score:2)
And I'm sure - no, certain - that there are admins out there who complain about their Linux servers, even though they're rediculously proud of them.
It's all about degree of irritation when it comes to computers. The right tool for the job is the one that lets you get the job done without pissing you off too much.
It seems completely upside down (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course people will run open source on Windows, but that will bring Microsoft no revenue and no lockin, since all open source products, almost by definition, cannot be locked down to a single platform. Even if the code can't be ported it'll be rewritten.
But I suspect the real reason for this statement is that corporate buyers are increasingly specifying an open source 'stack' as part of their purchasing reqirements. The operating system must be able to run (e.g.) the 'Apache stack' (whatever that means), so there is pressure coming from the market for such a statement.
Still, it's a half-assed approach that seems to be lacking in any kind of long-term strategy.
Re:It seems completely upside down (Score:3, Insightful)
If they had sold MSOffice at the Windows-version price, few would have bought. If they had sold it substantially lower, that would have motivated Windows users to look at Linux.
Re:It seems completely upside down (Score:2)
Not only that, it would kill Microsoft, because the Office tools are their largest source of revenue...
Re:It seems completely upside down (Score:2)
Of course, they're losing money hand over fist still with the xbox project, but don't let that confuse the issue
WTF? (Score:2)
Next we'll be seeing the alternate-universe Ballmer wearing a little goatee...
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Windows needs better acronyms (Score:5, Funny)
-Rick
Re:Windows needs better acronyms (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Windows needs better acronyms (Score:2)
Re:Windows needs better acronyms (Score:2)
Re:Windows needs better acronyms (Score:2)
-Rick
The Challenge For OSS On Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows + OSS is a good combination. The more people use OSS applications, the less tied they are to Microsoft and proprietary data formats. Advocates of OSS need to realize that many people will never switch their operating system to Linux or even OS X, and so trying to push Linux will meet much more resistance than saying "here, just install this application that's free and doesn't require you to change everything about how you use your computer."
The big challenge is making OSS apps better than their commercial counterparts. Some get this right - Audacity is a great app for sound editing that combines a relatively friendly UI with solid features. 7Zip is just as easy as WinZIP and less intrusive. But not all of them do - OpenOffice is great, but it's much slower than MS Office. Many OSS projects are much slower than normal Windows programs, and use toolkits like GTK which are nice for cross-platform development but look like canned ass on Windows. (And that's coming from someone who uses GTK all the time.)
Firefox got the balance of features and UI right - and that's why millions of people have Firefox as their first foray into the world of open source. The more people who see open source as a viable alternative, the more tractions it will get, and the more viable it will be for people to switch to Linux as their OS.
However, that's going to require OSS to start thinking about polish - making applications that Grandma can use. It's not impossible, but a lot of OSS projects need to concentrate on making applications that work well and look decent on Windows - even if we don't particularly care for the platform or the company that makes it.
Re:The Challenge For OSS On Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally don't think the OO.o speed is a problem. For me, buying MS Office is a problem because I don't think the lost seconds here and there waiting for OO.o don't add up to $300 in lost productivity. Maybe it does in a large business environment but for a small business, $300 per computer is far too great of an expense for me to justify.
Re:The Challenge For OSS On Windows (Score:2)
Use Qt for full apps, or FLTK for light apps with short time-to-market, or native code for things that MUST be hella-fast.
GTK, as far as I'm concerned is an addictive mistake.
Re:The Challenge For OSS On Windows (Score:3, Interesting)
Cheers to that. The Grandma test is pretty much what keeps people out of linux. I love firefox, but its not because its better than any other open source software package; its because o
Capturing Open Source Dollars (Score:4, Interesting)
A bad scenario for MS is some OSS company become big enough to compete for the PHB's attention with a bunch of lesser but valuable OSS applications. Which could lead to the nightmare scenario of the PHB walking away from the Active Directory/Exchange crack pipe.
OT:
I have to give them big-time credit for creating another crack house with Office and sharepoint. (or some other server CAL nightmare)
Re:Capturing Open Source Dollars (Score:2)
OpenOffice a Threat (Score:2)
I guess I'm not a Linux geek. (Score:2)
So I guess I'm not a Linux geek.
Re:I guess I'm not a Linux geek. (Score:2)
Useless media fuckers.
Oh brother (Score:2)
WTF? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Oh. You're one of those 'Security through Obscurity' fellows.
Run along then. Go play with the razors with all the other proprietary lackeys.
what's happening (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft will probably try to milk the OS, Office, and the dominance of IE for all they can get with the right hand, while pushing a full end open source service assult with the left. While this is nice, to me it's a day late, a dollar short. There are already companies deeply entrenched in this space who can provide for my needs far better. Also, it is a dangerous strategy. Not only is the company likely to go skitso as profit center butts heads against its service center. But they are also likely to reach a point where they can't increase their service core as fast as their licensing core is decreasing. When that happens they will likely go into panic mode and all freakin hell will break loose - making SCO look like the tooth fairy.
My messg to Microsoft. If you really want to play in our playground - open up your damn patents!
So ye (Score:2)
If anything, I would say that with WAMP, o
Pragmatism (Score:2)
A. No open source solution
B. The closed source solution works enough better to justify the cost.
Obviously open source software is cheaper and easier to modify than closed-source software. However, time is money- even halfway decent programmers make $20 an hour, so a week spent trying to get something to work properly (eith
Why is that? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've recently used Windows in a VM environment (thank you very much, I'm a Mac and Linux geek) and I was browsing for freeware software. Almost all of that software had malware bundled with it. Gosh, I'm so thankful that I'm not using Windows every day. It is hilarious! You can't trust any single piece of software.
So yes, people like OSS because you can trust OSS. You know what's in there and you know that it won't harm the system.
And plus, OSS software is mostly of greater quality than the usual freeware.
The ComputerWorld article is just pontification... (Score:2)
Abusers such as crack addicts and alcoholics and others will say anything whatsoever to get what they want. There may not be a shred of truth in what they say. What they say certainly is no guide to what they will do.
The Computerworld article is just ponti
Re:The ComputerWorld article is just pontification (Score:2)
aka Royalty free / license free software (Score:2)
Customers... (Score:2)
Having pointed that out, please let me have my troll: Putty indeed nearly makes XP usable. Nearly.
Someone remind me... (Score:2)
Oblig Ghandi... (Score:2)
The Next Big Thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
I do all my PHP development on WinXP - I have Apache2 with PHP and MySQL running perfectly together on my box. I use firefox and thunderbird. I use Tortise CVS to check code into our Linux Server - and yeah - putty gives me a nice command line terminal if necessary - and I can copy files through samba con
When love is gone... (Score:2)
When Office is gone,
There's always X-Box.
And when X-Box is gone,
There's always Windows (now with Open Source!)
And when Win-dows is gone,
There's always Zune!
And when Zune is gone,
There's always mom.
Hi mom!
Hmm, maybe this comment would be better in a thread on the situation in the mid-east.
Sod Windows: OSS on Mac is where it's at (Score:2)
looking for any excuse? (Score:2)
But that's not the "best of both worlds". Once you have gone to WAMP, there is little technical reason not to kick out the Windows kernel and admin tools as well. At this point
It's what made me switch to Linux. (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to use Windows (2000) just like most people. I programmed in Visual C++ and did a lot of audio work in Windows 3rd-party applications like SoundForge. I had installed RedHat 7 to check it out (partly because of some school-related reasons, wanting to understand some of this "Unix" stuff I'd read about in my operating systems classes). I found it cool, though it did take quite a lot of work to get it set up, especially since I was just learning it. I hated the RPM thing, and how I had to find dependancies manually. All in all it was a nice curiosity, but I kept using Windows. I did keep Linux around though, eventually upgrading to RedHat 9.
However, under Windows I was mostly using OSS programs like FireFox and Thunderbird, etc. I realized one day that in fact EVERYTHING I did on my computer, short of some audio applications, was in OSS programs, which were available just as easily under Linux. So I swtiched my email and web browsing over to Linux, and started programming in it.
This led to me spending a lot more time in Linux, and the more comfortable I got with it, the more I started to prefer it. I switched to Debian and enjoyed apt-get which solved the packaging problems (yes I know there are now solutions for RedHat too).. In short, I became a pretty hardcore Linux user, because I really started to like it more. These days, when I do have to use Windows, I still have FireFox and Cygwin installed and the only proprietary stuff I use is for my job, like Visual C++.
That's the thing -- i just don't NEED Windows. I don't need ANY proprietary stuff for my day to day computer usage. And OSS on Windows is what helped me realize that..
In short, I think probably the biggest advantage of opening the source code of an application is that, given sufficient community interest, it will likely be ported to other platforms. The more platforms that an application supports, the easier it is for the users to ween their dependancy on a specific OS. In this day and age, when there are multiple operating systems that provide essentially the same functionality (arguable some better or worse than others), users shouldn't _depend_ on any particular one of them to be able to work with their data. With so many API libraries available for developing cross-platform software, any barriers thrown up to stop applications from being ported are, essentially, artificial.
Re:It's what made me switch to Linux. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is one of the most important (and most forgotten) problems regarding the Linux OSS community. I hate to generalize, but I know there are a (not-insignificant) group of people who feel that OSS projects shouldn't be ported to Windows, and instead should be reserved as a "killer app" to convince others to migrate. While the logic is understandable, the issue is that most people aren't going to plunge into something as intensive as installing a completely foreign operating system for the
Re:Who are these non-named "linux geeks" (Score:2)
Re:Who are these non-named "linux geeks" (Score:2)
But right now, it's almost free. Sure, you pay for it when you buy a packaged PC but at a very, very low cost. With computers these days staying relevant for more then a year, you're going to look for OS upgrades more often then in the past. You won't just get the upgrade
Re:Who are these non-named "linux geeks" (Score:2)
It's a nasty bit of double-speak. Technically, the sentence means that Linux geeks don't think that Linux is automatically better at everything than Windows - which is a completely reasonable opinion. But it's worded to imply that Linux geeks think that Linux isn't ready for important applications.
Taken literally, it's true. The average person reading it without paying attention would reach a completely false conclusion though. You could consider it to be lying, but in a way that makes it very diffi
Re:Who are these non-named "linux geeks" (Score:2)
I don't agree with it at all. If you have a choice between an application on Windows or an application on GNU, I'd choose GNU any day of the week. Important applications are the ones that you SHOULD run open source, if possible, so that your documents and data is future-proof.
Re:Who are these non-named "linux geeks" (Score:2)
Yeah, I liked that too. "[...] the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications [...]" Implying, of course, that applications on Linux are necessarily unimportant. Now, if they'd phrased it "some important applications" I could agree with it. Then we'd just be down to quibbling about what applications are important to whom.
Desktop office apps? Windows. Games? Windows. Back-end server apps? Linux, or some other *nix variant. All IMHO, of course.
Re:Who are these non-named "linux geeks" (Score:3, Insightful)
When enough people are using OSS on Windows it will be possible to switch to Linux on the desktop and most people will barely notice and won't have as ma
Re:MS and OSS (Score:2)
Which they're not doing, of course. All this DRM and bad blood is killing their collective businesses. And without the record industry, we'll never see the next Britteny Spears.
[/the lines]
Re:OSS Developers against Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Shouldn't TRUE open source software allow you to port and run it on any OS?