Don't ask me. I don't make software. I'm just saying that clearly there are people who do care.

Many would disagree with you there. Well, of course, the software isn't going to compete with Windows. People write software with a purpose, though. And a lot of people work with Linux software to try to compete with Windows.

I would go with the Urban Dictionary definition:

Well, as far as "desktop" distros go, they'd have a hard time convincing me, maybe with enterprise versions, they might have more of a leg to stand on.

OK, but that's their agenda, it has nothing to do with Linux or FOSS. To say that Suse/Red Hat/etc should/must compete with Windows is one thing, but Linux/FOSS must compete... I don't think so.

Ah, there lies my difficulty in comprehending it, I don't regard programming as in the least bizarre and I don't understand the non-thinking of people who do. This is the 21st century, people, get with the program (no pun intended!).

By the way, Microsoft employees are known to eat babies.

(I kid, I kid. . . obviously. Well, Ballmer might eat babies. )

I think ioerror may have a point here.

The perspective that hasn't yet been picked up, afaik, is noting that while MS owns the greater market share in business and homes for the "average user" (which would need debating in itself), the competition itself is at the level of the game of appearance and alleged software interworking that MS itself has promoted, manipulated and locked down the codes for. It has obtained the market share through machiavellian deals with hardware manufacturers and retailers, thrown money at every developer and idea-smith that seemed to have got somewhere, and ran roughshod over any competition. For this, they held off a market monopoly, ensuring that the freedom to choose was denied to anyone who wanted to participate in the popularised cyber revolution by buying a new home PC or business machine.

Then compare the Linux kernel developed by an uber-hacker from Finland and developed across the Internet, wrapped with barrels of code united by commonalities of APIs, libraries and formats and the GPL which opened the door for all wannabe scripters to have a go in a wonderful orgy of creativity and let the market of ideas decide. Out of this primordial soup of applications and utilities emerged evolutionary advanced algorithms and POSIX standards ... spread by enthusiasts who carried this plethora of software, drivers, codecs, X-related GUIs, routines, etc. to reach the attention of a growing number of mainstream-raised-on-MS consumers: both business and homes. The perspective that is being lost here is that GNU/Linux is spreading like wildfire, and that is primarily by word of mouth and advertising by corporations with big bucks (e.g Red Hat and SUSE). There are very few GNU/Linux pre-installed boxes for new buyers, and none of the obfuscation, etc., that hallmarks some of MS's business practices. In terms of business models, the two concepts of GNU/Linux and MS are like chalk and cheese. The standards by which GNU/Linux is judged are shot through with the ramifications of MS's closed source business model. MS will deliberately and aggressively protect its codes, its drivers and its APIs. Remember the shock/horror when some code was released and the big bully response of MS to anyone caught using any of it.
GNU/Linux coders are therefore working from scratch, figuring out what MS is doing and what codecs are in use and much more besides. I'd say hats off to all those thousands of developers who have made any of this possible. My computing life is infinitely enhanced as a consequence.

Interestingly, when I am work I judge my MS NT4.0 service pack 6 machine by the standards set by my home machine running Slackware Linux 10.2 (2.4.31) XFce4.2.2 OOo2.0.2 ... and after Dr Watson, Windows Explorer crashes, inaccessible *.dat and cookie files, hung Word application, corrupt Excel files, Outlook crashes I say, let the MS users have MS. My system plays movie media files just fine. I can play CDs and mp3s smoothly, even while playing "Battle for Wesnoth", and I always have two email clients running, a konsole, KSCD or Xmms (or both), Firefox, and sometimes one or two other apps, including OOo. My system feels stable and responsive. Sometimes if a program does hang (which does happen once maybe in a week, if even then), its easy to swing into my konsole, enter and then kill the process. With MS, once the ctrl+alt+del invoked Task Manager to kill the hung app, but it has hung as well, the next best to do is to reboot. Because if you don't, then if the offending app is closed eventually, so have a number of other non-related programmes which can hamper the work one is doing, etc. So, reboot. How productive is that?

A spreadsheet or presentation or specially formatted document produced on OOo anywhere in the world (on a GNU/Linux box) will be reproduced, edited and reformatted precisely on a foreign machine as on the producing machine also running OOo on a GNU/Linux box. GNU/Linux boxes running OOo has fantastic inter-operability among other machines running it, just as MS Word is said to have (?!?) among MS-running boxes.

GNU/Linux is good enough to set its own standards. Inter-operability with MS is an add-on, a sop to that world that still uses MS and thinks that they are the way to go. So be it. MS is mostly flash. Personally, I'd rather go for substance than appearance. If Red Hat & Co want to secure the desktop market, that's up to Red Hat & Co. GNU/Linux is more than I could want from a computer just as it is ... in fact, it is me who has to catch up to its capacity and potential.

FIRST OF ALL!!! everybody should get their ideas straight!!! ppl are mixing their opinions about Windows with their opinion about Microsoft. For god's sakes, JUDGE THE OPERATING SYSTEM AND NOT THE CREATORS!!!

Dont compare Microsoft to linux ..what the hell will that accomplish??? nothing!

if you really wanna talk about windows vs linux then talk about their strengths and weaknesses. For example, windows is easier to install than linux (almost every newbie will agree!), windows is easier to configure hardware (cuz there's a vast array of support for them), but on the other side linux looks soo much cooler, more secure, more customizability, and is ever growing.

And i 100% agree with the notion that windows can learn from linux and linux can learn from windows, like linux should be MORE user (newbie) friendly, and windows should be MORE secure and customizable.

these are points which should be addressed, not about "open source" or "closed source". These are things what will probably NEVER change with windows, so LIVE WITH IT and STOP COMPLAINING, start being part of the solution!

That's because almost every newbie never had to install Windows. It came preinstalled. Using a "restore CD" is not "installing."

Nonsense. There has been discussion about the technical aspects of both, however there is much more to the "Windows/Linux" discussion than "one has a registry and the other uses config files." In such a discussion we are implicity discussing the situations which bring about both Windows and Linux, namely Microsoft and the F/OSS community.
Dont compare Microsoft to linux ..what the hell will that accomplish??? nothing!

No one is comparing "Microsoft to linux," the difference is subtle, but at the same time it's rather obvious.

Nonsense, those are unsupported blanket statements. Most "newbies" don't install Windows. If you think Windows is so easy to install then I invite to make a cursory study of the questions posted on various Usenet forums regarding the subject. There is another problem, in most instances where it is "hard" to install a Linux distro, it is usually because of vendor lockin practices by Microsoft. So your rosey, albeit absurdly naive view, that the "Windows/Linux" discussion must be done in a vacuum, is really disengenuous.

That's "We are the World" drivel. The only thing the Linux community can learn from "windows" is how to conduct itself in a questionable manner and institute vendor lockin practices.

That's kind of vacuous.

siq, Vagrant has refuted most of your drivelling, but I address this:

Do not say that linux "should" be this or that. That is not your right. Linux is Linux, linux developers do what _they_ want, they don't work for you and they don't develop software for _your_ benefit. If you don't like Linux, don't use it. If you can't use it, then learn or use something else. Telling volunteer developers what they "should" be doing is not acceptable behaviour.

I don't care whether windows changes or not, precisely because I DON'T have to live with it. As far as I'm concerned, windows is irrelevant. Oh, and by the way, open vs closed source is a rather major issue (maybe not on your planet...).

Thanks for the advice, but I already am part of the solution, it's called Linux.

While I agree that no one has a right to demand developers do this or that, not all developers are volunteers. A lot of them are paid employees of companies.

That said, I hardly think complaining on the forums that Linux should be more user-friendly actually makes Linux any more or less user-friendly. There are usually avenues for making change, and complaining on the forums is not one of them.

File bug reports.
Contribute code.
Donate money.
Write documentation.

Hmm...may be this is why linux doesnt dominate the desktop market. If really the developers dont care about what users want then why should anybody want to use linux as an everyday operating system? Isnt that what everybody wants ... is to have ppl get away from windows and enjoy linux? How would u expect to have that happen if the developers arent thinking about users' needs?

And i guess ppl "shouldnt" be telling Microsoft that they "should" make open source code or that windows "should" be more secure etc... I guess by your logic they dont have to listen to what you (everybody, the courts) say. And if linux developers arent making software for an average user's benefit then who are they making it for? I guess this is why marjor hardware companies dont make drivers or software (or at least good ones) for linux cuz its not intended to make the average users' life easier!

Im not saying i hate linux, i like linux. i aslo like windows. Both operating systems have their strenghts and weaknesses, whatever they are (im not allowed to say what they are cuz linux is linux and linux developers dont care what users want )

Actually, I think you'll find that a sub-theme of this "MegaSuperThread" involved someone bemoaning the lack of MS protocol supports found on a GNU/Linux machine, and that consequently, GNU/Linux was an inferior setup and should get up to speed to be more like MS-protocol machines.
My argument was that MS was able to secure a greater market share because they manipulated, side-swiped and otherwise cheated to get that share and NOT because MS is a better OS. The OS is what it is - buggy, insecure, and closed source as a direct consequence of its business model: appropriated code that no-one developer is allowed to see all of at any given time far less hack into shape, code released before it was bug checked in order to meet marketing deadlines, refusal to allow error audits or even to release its APIs - that is why it is nigh on impossible to consider MS and GNU/Linux without acknowledging how MS has gotten to where it is. Go back and read my original argument, I thought that I'd made it clear, but maybe not.


You almost made a point there, but blew it on some really lame comparison. This has already been addressed quite adequately, so I won't pick up on that except to say "too true!" - MS is a royal pain to install, and is unwieldy and monolithic!! As for the "balancing" comparison about GNU/Linux looking cooler, etc., this does raise the point that if you find GNU/Linux that much harder to install, does the pay offs you've listed compensate for the bit of learning work you might have to invest at the beginning? That's not the decision anyone but you can take, and it certainly isn't the responsibility of a computer kernel and software infrastructure. One of the first things you'll notice once you settle into using a GNU/Linux system is that by and large, most distributions won't try to think for you or treat you, the user, like an idiot ("Are you sure you want to send x to the recycle bin?" and "Are you sure you want to empty the recycle bin?"). Some distros will go more down this path than others, but that's not usually the programme's issue, but really more the packaging of that distro.

I think that you are missing the point here somewhere. What is it that you think GNU/Linux is going to learn from MS? For that matter, I'd be interested to hear what you think MS can learn from GNU/Linux? A couple of ideas please

Seriously though, I think that you'll find that if MS released its code, and if hardware vendors shipped their source code with their products then all that would be achieved is that MS-specific applications and formats would be able to run from GNU/Linux. But the point that I think you are missing/haven't considered is why on earth should the GNU/Linux developers judge their abilities on the strength of some interoperability with a largely technologically inferior OS, just so that someone can play MS games and media. GNU/Linux does a pretty damn good job of working with pretty much anything you throw at it - even arcane MS formats!! The rest is actually not even up to GNU/Linux - it is up to MS. Call on MS to open up their source code to provide better interoperability with GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux developers have done all they can, and anyway, you're paying for your MS box even if it came pre-installed. As a purchaser you have the right to demand a better product. God only knows, you need one if you're running an MS box!!

Again siq, you are just not getting it are you??? This is such a display of arrogance on your part, I will grant you that you don't really mean what you have said here. If you do, then let's just say this: the issue is not about GNU/Linux being part of any solution for you to be able to utilise MS products. The problem is the closed source business model of MS, because MS itself doesn't want to play ball with anyone else. As far as I know - the person who was originally complaining was someone who provided some kind of comparison between MS and a distro and listed recommendations. The complaint was - surprise, surprise - a Windows user who couldn't get his (her?) Windows toys to play on a GNU/Linux machine.
As I said: any Windows user that has a problem running something on a GNU/Linux machine should (a) find out if there is a locally known fix and if so apply it or (b) complain - as a paying customer - to MS about their lack of interoperability and compatability of MS products with other OS architectures.
In short: this ain't a GNU/Linux problem and we ain't complaining!!

There are few open source developers who care about "dominating" the desktop market. Developers want to write good code to the best of their ability. Few of them have any interest in comparing their code with shoddy, unstable, garbage like windows.

I don't know, I wouldn't presume to know what "everyone" wants.

They are making it for themselves. This is the fundamental point you are missing. On an open source operating system, the developers ARE the users (so of course they care what the users want!). A developer writes a program because _they_ need it. They then release the code so that other people can benefit from it, because in turn, they have benefited from other people's software.

Of course, there are a lot of non-developers who now use Linux, but so what? If they want to use Linux, that is their choice, and it's their responsibility to fit in, it is not the developers' responsibility to change Linux to accomodate people who don't understand it.

If you come along, install Linux, and start using some program, that's nice, but the developer doesn't derive any direct benefit from you using it, so you don't get to tell them what to do. Now, if you want to make suggestions in a courteous manner, no doubt they would be taken into consideration, but they are under no obligation to listen to you. If you make a stupid suggestion, or demand that something be done, then you will receive little or no attention.

Developers care about users who make some sort of effort to contribute, whether it's a patch, a bug report, or just a pat on the back and a few suggestions. "Hey, guys, this program you wrote is cool, but do you think it could do such and such?" is likely to receive more attention than whinging on a public forum (which the developer probably doesn't read anyway) "Waa! This program don't work like the one wot I 'ad on windows, why not? Make it work like that!"). Such snivelling is likely to be completely ignored.

First, you cannot compare Microsoft to open source developers. But, no, you are correct (for once), Microsoft do not have to listen to you. If you read your EULA carefully (yeah, right), you will see that they offer no guarantee that their software will be suitable for your purposes, they disclaim all warranties, and so on. So if it doesn't do what you want, or it fries your hard drive, you have little or no recourse. Windows' insecurity is an established fact, if you still choose to use it knowing that, then any compromise of your system is your responsibility.

I imagine that there are a number of reasons that many hardware manufacturers do not release drivers for non-Windows systems, probably something to do with Windows' 90% market share, as I believe someone has already pointed out.

Besides, hardware manufacturers do not make drivers for "the average user", they make drivers for people who buy their products. Since they aren't psychic, they can't know whether their customers are "average users" or not, they simply try (to varying degrees) to make their product work properly.

Hey guys! Scuze me if I write something that's allready written here before... I just don't have the time to read the other pages to... anyway here are my 2 cents:
I read before ppl saying that windowze it's easyer to instal (especially for the avarege user)...? Well that's far from be true because:
1. Those averege users NEVER install windows they call someone to install for them or they buy the pc pre installed with it... they don't even have a clue what's on OS is...
2. I installd many many windowses... and enogh linux (Mandriva only) to say that the main difference between those to are that Linux install is interacctive and you won't get borred or pissed of because windows won't let you change anything (almoast) from the default installation stuff...
Now as far as the to OS's works:
I start with windows, if I would use just one word I'll say: shit. I was using windows from the 3.1 version to the xp. I used original and pirated versions to and I can sy that some pirated versions work much better then the original one!!! just one example: I had a removable hdd with an original win2K anytime when I pluged it in or out windows froze!!! After a feew restarts I decidet to install a pirated version and it worked smothly!!! so as far as the windows "plug and play" abbility it would be better so: "plug and pray" The last time when I installd windows for myself it took me two and a half weeks of digging and changing in the registry to get it work in the way that I wanted to work in less then 10 minutes on the internet without the antivirus and firewall on and whole system was f*cked up by a virus..., any time when I get to a russian website with windows I was attact 180 times in 2 minutes according to Norton Internet Security 2005 with the latest updates! Configuring a firewall that is efficient enough and don't slows the system and the net down in windows is a real headacke!!! Many ppl also say that windows is good for games ... I better say that games are good for windows..
Now to Linux: ppl say that is hard to instal for newbies... not true... when i first tryed to install mandrake 10.2 from a non bootable DVD I installed it in 1 houre dualbooting it with xp without any help from nowere I did'nt even read the manuals... or howtos from the disk... and anything worked just fine media, internet my hardware was detected and configured smothly... no more viruses no more system crashes it does everything that I want in the way I want, it's fast relaible it looks great it's more eye candy than XP... I don't rebbot my pc for weeks... what else should I need... many thanks to the developers who made such a professional OS!!! As for "hard for newbies" I don't thinks so: I live in a small town in RO where I was the first Linux user a feew months ago and I strted to show my linux to other ppls from here... I installed it for many others, and guess what? total avarege users who can't even install XP told me that Linux it's much easyer and better for them... I even maintain their system until they not familiar enough to do it for themselfs but this was the same when they were using windows to... They don't f*ck up their system because they don't mess with the root acount... My opinion is that Linux has nothing to learn from windows...
Anyone whos got a little brain can easyly install and use linux!!!
Long live the penguin
This where my 2 cents thx for reading
(P.S. yes i hate windows because I got my reasons for it!!!!)

While I might not necessarily disagree with your statement that most new users will have a pre-installed system, I'd nevertheless encourage some caution as to who exactly constitutes the "average user", and that because they buy pre-installed systems does not automatically make them clueless about an OS or other techy-related info. You are running two arguments together here.

That's a fair comment. However, beyond that there are the issues of tracking down all those drivers off of all of those hardware and gadget CDs from however many months or years ago. I find that a royal pain in the arse, personally and is one of the things that makes me cringe when contemplating installing a MS system. The other is spending all of that time trying to get to the root "folders" which MS installs to, scattered across the C-drive, with all of their unrelated names and focus on extensions. All of this just to rid the MS system of all that MSN and Communication "Services" and all of the other commercially bundled garbage that comes with a typical MS full install that I have no interest in. This is the intro to an MS system?? Then there is all that additional software one has to load before one gets a system that is worth using, because MS only provides one with a bare bones, severely crippled scaffolding, upon which the user must hang utilities and applications.

GNU/Linux systems however bring the drivers with them, along with a whole bunch of software that, at the end of an installation, and before a configuration session, in the time it takes to load the MS computer skeleton, one can have a fully loaded GNU/Linux distro.

But I agree that, for the novice and uninitiated, installing either system can be tough, as is any task requiring any degree of technological experience: I can install GNU/Linux but I still have difficulties knowing what's going on with my cell-phone!!

Continue of the Ms Windows and Linux competition

Since I'm the person who insist want to compare in between linux and windows. So I try to bring back the direction. Increase Linux Market.
Why I have this dirrection? Easy, because I know majority of IT staff facing difficulty on get the IT budget. Standardize the desktop environment and etc. Using Linux is a cool solution I'm facing difficulty on train the user and no support from many enterprise software.

1st, I would like to suggest that we try to give more ideal in this forum to make Linux better. I think everybody know the difference (good or bad) in between Linux and Windows. Remember that if you are beginner you won't be here.

Personally, Linux is good, too good. It is a very-very big cake and nobody can finnish it So many distro in the world, same kind of application have much, kde and gnome, xine, vlc, mplayer and etc. So, the software/hardware vendor cannot support (event learn all of it) it. It's change too fast, like lightning. Once the vendor step in linux, they will facing a lot of difficulty in support. Who know what will happend at tommorrow.

I don't know whether everybody agree this issue or not. This is only an opinion.

1. Microsoft Windows and majority of software in windows is very user friendly, in a market full with prirated
software. Who care legal or not. Everybody will go to windows rather than linux. In this kind of market,
Microsoft, adobe, autodesk, macromedia all consider as "Free product". The will refuse to accept any software
which they found less user friendly or lack of function.

2. Software/Hardware vendor is lack of linux knowledge, how they supply linux solution. They know develop in linux
can reduce their selling price and bring them more money. But they don't dare to switch. In Malaysia (At least my
home town), I cannot find any vendor can supply me computer with preinstall (and configure) Linux. No one at all.
What I can see only a few 3rd party "Solution provider" but not hardware shop. Please remember that this kind of
shop play important role in desktop PC market.

3. Microsoft give sell their product with very-very cheap price to software/hardware shop (They cannot resell it).
Few hundred US you can get majority of hot microsoft product (include CAL) on hand. So do you think that
software/hardware vendor will deliver linux solution to us? They all already familiar in Windows and want to make
their live easy? Who care end user using how much money to purchase license?

This is only what I observe in Malaysia.
So, I plan to organize a cheap but long term training to my home town vendor. Linux Desktop total solution. However, I'm facing difficulty to solve few of major problem (Refer #65). Using this way I believe that within 1-2 year my home town will have litter bit changes? Any Malaysian/Singaporian want to join me? My address is

K. S. Tan
240, Jalan Kundang,
Taman Kota Jaya,
81900 Kota Tinggi
Johor,
Malaysia
Tel:+6012-7095123

So, can somebody give me solution?

Regards,
KS