Because Shiny Things Are Fun - The New New Windows v Linux Thread

I'm actually planning on building my next computer myself- and that way, I don't have to pay [via the built-in cost of Windows which comes on most new computers) for something which I would just delete.

I have no problem with proprietary codecs. It would be nice if enough people switched to the free alternatives so as to make the proprietary ones unnecessary- but until and if that happens, the people who developed products which we use with the intent of making a profit deserve to make a profit if we use the fruits of their labor.

I mean, it's just like hardware. No one expects their hardware to be free...right?

it sucks that i'm now curious what was so bad about that post that you deleted it :-\
edit:this is @sigterm

My real concern is not for the open source community but for Microsoft's programmers. Sure, they're earning ~$6000 a month for doing tedious programming, but Steve Ballmer is earning 10 million dollars a month for merely bossing them around. For me just a waste of valuable labor and a robber-baron-like selfish greedy person who is exploiting that labor for his own pocket.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn My real concern is not for the open source community but for Microsoft's programmers. Sure, they're earning ~$6000 a month for doing tedious programming,

It was their choice to take this job, and they are free to quit if they don't like it. Besides, in certain regions/countries $6000 per month is a huge amount of money.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn but Steve Ballmer is earning 10 million dollars a month for merely bossing them around.

Your numbers are off, and he does not earn 10000000 per month as CEO. Besides, the dude is responsible for microsoft well-being, keeps company afloat (takes experience/skill), and cannot be easily replaced, so his salary may be justified.

Microsoft does not belong to Ballmer. It belongs to shareholders (shareholder can work at company, though, but anybody can be shareholder). As a CEO, ballmer merely controls the company (airplane pilot does not own the plane, but only controls it).
Even if you're a company's CEO, company does not belong to you (read about IPO and stock market) - company is entrusted to you, and you can't dig into company assets when you want. In the same way, company profit doesn't belong to you either.

About company owners. According to yahoo finance, microsoft has 8.4 billion shares total, gates controls 590974696 (only 7%), and Ballmer controls 333252990 (only 3.9%) of shares. The rest of company belongs to people ("institutional and mutual fund owners" - i.e. if company falls, they'll be one hurt first). Via stock market everybody - including you - can buy shares of microsoft, and if you find enough cash (which is unlikely), you may be able to acquire some degree of control over it (to know exact amount of control, you need to research USA laws).

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn For me just a waste of valuable labor and a robber-baron-like selfish greedy person who is exploiting that labor for his own pocket.

As I understand it, employees of the company willingly (they weren't forced to) agreed to work for Microsoft, on Microsoft's terms. Even if you think it isn't right, it was their will to do so. Another thing is, that Ballmer most likely can be removed/fired from the company.

Your numbers are off, and he does not earn 10000000 per month as CEO. Besides, the dude is responsible for microsoft well-being, keeps company afloat (takes experience/skill), and cannot be easily be replaced. Trained monkeys could replace any of these bozos !

No I'm not a trained monkey ,but a Neanderthal!!!!!

Hopefully Android and Chrome OS can also tip the tables. Sure, they're Linux distros from Google, that privacy-hogging corporation, but they're still Linux, still open source, and still easy to use.

Case in point: the Cr-48. After testing the Cr-48 that I applied for before Christmas (it arrived today, and I'm posting from it) for the first time, I have found it incredibly easy to use. It starts booting the minute you open it, even if completely shut down, and boots in less than 10 seconds. As soon as you log in, your settings, apps, and themes are synced to the Chrome notebook immediately, even from the Chrome browser on a standard computer. Contrary to myths that you can only use Web apps in Chrome OS, some apps also install as Chrome extensions, still in seconds. The laptop is hard-wired for ease of use: The touchpad is oversized to allow easy clicking (and it's multitouch), the keyboard has many shortcuts that allow the user to accomplish many tasks with the stroke of just a few keys (including taking screenshots and other things), and many main buttons (like the power button) have been integrated into the keyboard to avoid user confusion.

Other Google open source projects can also tip the tables, such as Android for instance. It already has incredible user demand (almost as much as that of Apple iOS), and it also is on so many smartphone models that its diversity could almost certainly dwarf that of Apple's philosophy of locked hardware. Android 3.0 tablets could also pretty much kill the iPad's market share as well. Chrome OS could do the same, because it is so easy for newbies to use.

loads of fun

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Hopefully Android and Chrome OS can also tip the tables. Sure, they're Linux distros from Google, that privacy-hogging corporation, but they're still Linux, still open source, and still easy to use. Case in point: the Cr-48. After testing the Cr-48 that I applied for before Christmas (it arrived today, and I'm posting from it) for the first time, I have found it incredibly easy to use. It starts booting the minute you open it, even if completely shut down, and boots in less than 10 seconds. As soon as you log in, your settings, apps, and themes are synced to the Chrome notebook immediately, even from the Chrome browser on a standard computer. Contrary to myths that you can only use Web apps in Chrome OS, some apps also install as Chrome extensions, still in seconds. The laptop is hard-wired for ease of use: The touchpad is oversized to allow easy clicking (and it's multitouch), the keyboard has many shortcuts that allow the user to accomplish many tasks with the stroke of just a few keys (including taking screenshots and other things), and many main buttons (like the power button) have been integrated into the keyboard to avoid user confusion. Other Google open source projects can also tip the tables, such as Android for instance. It already has incredible user demand (almost as much as that of Apple iOS), and it also is on so many smartphone models that its diversity could almost certainly dwarf that of Apple's philosophy of locked hardware. Android 3.0 tablets could also pretty much kill the iPad's market share as well. Chrome OS could do the same, because it is so easy for newbies to use.

But can it operate the home systems???

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Hopefully Android and Chrome OS can also tip the tables.

To me it looks like you're avoiding counterarguments, as usual.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn The laptop is hard-wired for ease of use: The touchpad is oversized to allow easy clicking (and it's multitouch), the keyboard has many shortcuts that allow the user to accomplish many tasks with the stroke of just a few keys (including taking screenshots and other things), and many main buttons (like the power button) have been integrated into the keyboard to avoid user confusion.

This is hardware design and has nothing to do with operating systems.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Chrome OS could do the same, because it is so easy for newbies to use.

And what about professionals/developers? If the chrome is web oriented, then it has limited number of uses. Sure, it'll find its users, but I see no reason to switch from whatever I'm using now to chrome.

Kenny, your priorities look weird and don't make such sense to me. It looks like that if product is opensource and/or is linux, you authomatically think it is "good", want to promote it, no matter what, just because it is opensource and/or linux. If product is proprietary, then it looks like you automatically think it is "evil" (not "bad", but "evil") you want to "kill" it no matter what, just because it is proprietary. Where the heck is logic in this? Linux is not the end of software evolution, and opensource model is not the ideal one. I believe that all modern operating systems should (and probably will) eventually die and get replaced with something better, but concentrating only on linux/opensource will not make it happen faster. You're also always talking about "greedy corporations", "robber barons" and implying that "proprietary is evil". Is this supposed to be the only reasons for people to use linux? IMO the quality of tool and user experience is much more important than underlying ideology and software license.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Other Google open source projects can also tip the tables, such as Android for instance. It already has incredible user demand (almost as much as that of Apple iOS), and it also is on so many smartphone models that its diversity could almost certainly dwarf that of Apple's philosophy of locked hardware. Android 3.0 tablets could also pretty much kill the iPad's market share as well. Chrome OS could do the same, because it is so easy for newbies to use.

Problem is, that most consumers don't care if they are using open source or a locked iAnything. They buy their phones/music players/web-pads/laptops by design, or because they have seen it by a friend or co-worker. They don't care about the OS on it. I bet, that at least the half the people with an Android-powered phone don't even know the name of their OS.

What cell phones use Linux? I have a Motorola and a old Samsung. What about LG and some others? I'm just curious? I know my LG TV runs Linux. It says so in the back of the book. That was a treat to see. o_O

Originally Posted by dalek What cell phones use Linux?

Andriod is Linux.

Originally Posted by SigTerm To me it looks like you're avoiding counterarguments, as usual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Originally Posted by MTK358 Andriod is Linux.

AFAIK, Android uses modified Linux kernel, but it is not GNU/Linux operating system.
Some slides about android..., and info on wikipedia.

Kenny, you need to stop thinking about ways that FOSS can be forced upon people and rather how the general population should be educated about the values of openness and "computational freedom". If you manage to educate people about the importance of being able to modify their own software/hardware (even if that means they have to hire someone else to do it) then the rest will follow. Trying to force ideals on someone will only create more resistance and harden a population's conviction to not adopt a certain ideology.
I hate it when people "evangelize" Linux or FOSS because that implies some form of irrational or religious support, not something well thought out and based on facts.

Google's android or chrome OS won't be the thing that "tips the tables", it will be a change in mentality by the general population. This is something not likely to happen in our generation unfortunately, so don't be harsh about it. Simply try to explain to people why you consider GNU/Linux to be the better choice for yourself and why others also think it's better. If your arguments don't sway your audience then tough luck...it's not something that can be forced.