@divyashree

Do not post a duplicate reply to fix spelling errors. Use the edit feature.

Hi,

It's called free choice!
If someone you support has M$ and that same person requests support. Do you say 'No', use GNU/Linux. That person would then find someone else to repair or correct the situation. So to choose to use that tool in order to satisfy the customer is just that, a tool to service the need is a smart thing for the person who is in a service business.

Not everyone wishes to use a Free operating system in their business. One thing, most of the associative business use M$ therefore the exchange or flow of information in the business person's mind would be to choose a simple choice. Sure FOSS has similar applications but the cost to exchange or even just changeover out lays a 'free' perspective. Since the cost to re-train and provide continuity between the bases will cause additional costs to that business.

There's nothing wrong with 'propriety', from a business standpoint it is the common choice. Most business will not want to interrupt their information flow in order to utilize 'free' software. The masses do dictate the use of M$.

It's your 'free' choice to ignore or utilize M$.

No, the image says "I Hate Oracle.ODT Club". Despite the confusing dot, Googling reveals ODT in this case refers to Oracle Developer Tools, which are I believe for working with Oracle Databases from Visual Studio.

Anyway, the OpenOffice in Ubuntu's repos is in fact the Go-oo variant/fork (sources http://go-oo.org/download/ and https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...829/comments/5 )

Agreed. But it should be an informed choice. People need to be informed about the advantages of Free Software. Cost isn't the only consideration. How about being able to deploy a server immediately instead of waiting for the license to be sorted out? How about installing a program now, and knowing that in X years' time you can easily and lawfully install the same version on additional computers. (Not the case with Microsoft Office notably).

Hi,

That's a gimme!

Everyone should be informed before making choices. Most business will not change just to get a 'free' option. Not to say the 'free' option is wrong but that to remove oneself from the norm is potential risk(s) that could cause loss. Cost is the bottom line for business. I'm not saying your perspective is not viable but the business person is going to look at it from that bottom line. Sure, to install and maintain a GNU/Linux based server is done all the time but you have to remember most small business don't have IT departments. Most have the owner as the IT and some don't have the time to learn thus maintain let alone get into another arena that may not work in the manner their accustomed to.

I've got users who are still on 2002 and haven't upgraded. Their choice not mine. XP works for them and no upgrades warranted. I'm not a M$ salesperson nor affiliated but just someone who makes a buck or two from their mistakes.

Yes MTK , double check the posts,thats not me,thats aries

I just wanted to make a comment about the free as in freedom, not free as in beer. The vast majority of Linux distros can be acquired for free, I don't get why people always argue that it is not "free as in beer", because, it actually is in most circumstances, Sure, there are a few exceptions.

We actaully argue the opposite, that they ARE free as in beer but not free as in speech.

Some distros, ecspecially those that are advertised as being "easy to use" include non-open source firmware. Therefore they are NOT truly completely free as in speech, but are still free as in beer.

Some also contain proprietary drivers (nvidia and ati being the most prevelant) or software that while freely provided, are not open source.

While I don't discriminate between my clients and their OS, this is however now the "Linux vs. Windows Super Mega Thread". As such I feel the arguments against MS's ethics/morals are warrneted. Part of the ideal as I see it behind the theme of this thread is complete disclosure so one has the ability to make an informed decision after reading all this (some of it garbage some not).

I can not rely on the court system to make moral decisions, just "legal" ones. If you are saying Onebuck that what is said to be legal is automatically made moral then I will have to give you that even if I completely disagree with you (also I could see that as the source of our disagreement earlier then).

Hi,
No, I'm not saying anything of the sort about legality value for moralities. Our morals & ethics have setup the legal system to hopefully keep things in a proper set. Sure, some can find loop holes in present legal system but in time things do get worked out.

The comparison of some people to M$ as evil, wrong doers is itself assessments that are not always valued or weighted against proper or valid information. I've been in this industry a long time, I can remember the issues that some have presented misaligned or innuendo to suit their argument.

Their HATE has blinded their observation of how things actually were. Sure M$ has done some corporate misdeeds but overall M$ has brought the Desktop PC to lot of people. Evil corporations is a liberal view and not a capitalist point of gain for a gainful society.

Initially M$ with aid from IBM's association the PC architecture and software was opened to the populace, plus M$ didn't want the openness. This action lead to the PC market that we now know. IBM & M$ are now more distant from each other but the fact is their interactive cooperation created a industry that has evolved to a even broader industry.

My point is that the tools are there for us to choose for use. You and anyone else has the choice to decide to work with the type of tool to get a particular job done. My preferences are UNIX, GNU/Linux then M$ but if someone (client(s)) does ask for references, I'll weight the answer to their experience(s) and resource(s). I do choose GNU/Linux for the freedom of choice since UNIX would not be a practical choice. BSDs' would suit but I prefer Slackware since I've used it from day one.

I'm not trying to persuade someone to use or not use M$. Just stating the facts from a practical users point. I've been using M$ for a long time, from early days of Basic to DOS, Xenix and Win. Thankfully most was provided by the University so my investment was minimal until my private use. Now I only purchase to suit my usage for Client support. I don't need Office or any other M$ product for support, I leave that to clients expense or charge. Still purchased but by the client charge.

My UNIX was donated to the University and license(s) allowed usage on my equipment via extension license(S). Once I retired that license was restricted. So I continued by using Slackware that meets the needs.

I don't feel the arguments are valid since not all the facts are presented true-fully but in the form of innuendo to suit their argument. Facts are fact, not mangled information.

Wisdom is only found in truth."-Goethe

Enough said!

This is windows-vs-linux of Borg. Your thread has been assimilated.

my answers are bolded.

Onebuck, other that the way those facts are perceived I see no real argument with what you have stated. My problem is with MS for the most part and not Windows. If for example MS actually cared for their customer the OS would also be better in a a few obvious ways. For example MS hiding the fact that they left a huge hole in Internet explorer for years on end with out fixing it. Or the fact that not allot of attention has been given to make sure Windows does not have leaky memory holes thus inviting virus attack and instability. I didn't get started with computers as early as you but I did get to experience things from MS-DOS 3 up. Never used Windows till Win95 and was completely ticked that half my dos utilities were maimed or crippled. Win95 was also buggy as all get out and it took them 4 or 5 releases to get it right (Win95/Win95a/b/c/d). My DOS programs never had those problems once I learned how to allocate RAM for them.

As far as IBM and MS... Yep, that is pretty much where MS started screwing the pooch (as it is said). Unless you care to enlighten my aging memory, MS messed over IBM with OS2, took the ideas, reneged on the contract with IBM and started Windows. IBM contracted with MS over DOS not Win. Also the reason MS even had the contract is because IBM couldn't get a hold of the DR-DOS folks. Memory good enough for you?

M$ bottom line is always MONEY!!! They don't care about you. All they care about is how much money they can squeeze out of you with licensees and more upgrade licensees.

As for M$ being a monopoly, why doesn't Apple have a competitive market share like M$. Why couldn't it be M$ with 50% and Apple with 40% while the remaining 10% be for alternative operating systems.

You think M$ is going to give Apple or others a chance, NO WAY!!!

I sometimes wonder what deals or bribery M$ made to retailers and computer manufacturers in the past that put M$ where they are today.

Why coundn't it be "alternative" operating systems with 50%?