What is the perpose and intent of Linux and its "community"?

OS/2 was the IBM operating system.

Microsoft is so pervasive that to many people the difference between Windows and computer is a nuance. It's not that people can't go with other operating systems, it's that through shady business practices Microsoft has a near monopoly. OS/2 failed in a large part due to the fact that Microsoft convinced people that its platform was the one to develop for, and a platform without software is useless.

As far as not forcing people to buy the software goes, Windows (until recently) has been packaged with pretty much all nonserver computers. So yes, the average person has been forced to buy Windows when they bought their computer, because not everybody builds their own.

But that's not the most important part in escaping Windows. Windows forces one style of doing things upon you. Sure you can change the look and feel of things, but it takes a lot to change anything more than superficially, and you cannot uninstall most Microsoft programs but merely remove their links. Now in Linux, you can modify the kernel yourself if you so choose. You can use proprietary or open source software (assuming it uses *nix system calls), you can change not only the look of your desktop environment, but the software that runs it. It's more a matter of choice and the freedom of choice than anything else.

Also, tink makes a good point about the changing standards. If you stick with Microsoft, you're subject to their whims. They won't do anything so bad as to alienate normal users, but ask anybody that has to deal with interversion Office documents about it.


One final note, to people that say M$ or Winblows, stop. It's annoying and reduces conversations to insults. And this comes from someone who cringes when he has to use a Windows machine and immediately downloads putty.

Originally posted by skiler89 If Linux is indeed what "we" as consummers want, then why is it that microsoft is on top of the computer software world?

Because of the inconvenience of the fact that Office uses a
proprietary format that one can't easily handle without their
products, particularly in a business environment?

I'm not using windows (or MS Office), btw, and sending
documents back and forth, and asking others to do a "Save As"
and select RTF, HTML or something the like is often tedious. And
you are likely to lose some formatting in the process.

Many M$ Office users aren't even AWARE of the fact that
there is such a thing as a different format (only if they take
stuff home from work and can't open it with their older
version they will notice ;}) ...

Somehow MS Office became the standard in many public schools as well. As a student I was tought MS Office and every presentation I have to do for a class is refered to my teachers as a Powerpoint Presentaton. My peers sometimes brag about there presentations being done with the latest PowerPoint or the Professional, and stare at me blankly or look at me as inferior when I tell them mine was done in OpenOffice, is fully compatible with MS Office, and didn't cost me $200. The aleternatives just ar'n't excepted once one program is learned.

The purpose and intent of Linux is to free your
index finger from the mouse long enough to be
able to scratch your itch...

The purpose of the community is to inform you
of such things, thereby sharing knowledge that
you had no way of obtaining from Micro$loth...

You heard it here first!

Originally posted by skiler89 I do not believe it is possible to force a sertain operating system on people. they always have the option of going with linux, unix, and whatever the IBM system is.

After being on list and forums for several years you start to get a bit cynical and think everything is a troll, esp this sort of post... But assuming you are serious you should look into the whole DOJ/monopoly thing and the history of MS...

For me, I want to own my own computer. I don't want it to belong to MS...

Also I recently worked out it would cost a minimum (just OS and Office stuff) of $10,000 to convert to a full legal MS household and have similar functionality for the BASICS ONLY... Wow. Scarey... And that doesn't cover anywhere near all the software I actually use... That would be another couple of thousand, no doubt...

I've been out of the loop too long. I run the whole house currently on a Mandrake CD set I picked up for $20...

(I have about 8 running PC's... I think... I'd have to count)

As far as I can tell, there are NO efforts to advertise or convince people to use linux instead of windows, and i think the reason for that lies in the fact that NO ONE benefits when a person switches to linux, no one gets paid, no one moves up the corprate ladder. So the problem i believe is that the software is free. If indeed one of your goals is to provide the world with an alternative to windows out of spite, then make people pay for it.

So, I guess my first thought was correct that your post looked like a troll and your only purpose is to promote MS and downplay Linux.
IMHO, the whole post belongs in the trash or at least down in General.

Originally posted by skiler89 As far as I can tell, there are NO efforts to advertise or convince people to use linux instead of windows, and i think the reason for that lies in the fact that NO ONE benefits when a person switches to linux, no one gets paid, no one moves up the corprate ladder. So the problem i believe is that the software is free. If indeed one of your goals is to provide the world with an alternative to windows out of spite, then make people pay for it.

People don't want it for free because no one tells them
about it, so make them pay? Huh?

Are you even reading what you're writing before you
post it?

And to prove you wrong: if you manage to find an easy
migration path for an organisation, guarantee that they
will be able to preserve their entire legacy documents,
saving them 1,000,000 in license cost towards M$ in
3 years I'm quite certain that you'll get a nice bonus,
or even a promotion. Not to speak of better future pro-
spects in other employments or in consultancy.

And I for one don't use Linux out of spite but because
it does what I need/want more effeciently than almost any
other OS around. I could use some BSD I suppose, or
other Unices, but the latter would cost lots ;)

And herewith I do move this thing to General, indeed.



Cheers,
Tink

amosf, I have to agree with you. My wife recently purchased a new laptop, to replace her 5-yr-old one. It came with MS XP Home, and MSWorks (whatever version it was). She immediately had me delete Works, and install the copy of Office2000 we had for her old laptop. Probably violates the EULA, but the old laptop is going into the trash, unless I can get a small Linx working correctly on it.

I hate to think what it would cost me to buy XP, new or upgrade, depending on the machine, and the associated software, for the 5 machines in my household. Currently only my wife's new laptop, and my daughter's desktop are running XP. *MY* box is pure Linux - Mdk10.1, but the grandkids' desktop is Windows, because of their games. (I still plan to put Mdk on it - dual-boot, and convince them that to play some of those games they have to "reboot". The oldest grandson has no problem using my machine for web-based school research. )

I also begin to agree that this sounds more and more like a troll...

Originally posted by skiler89 As far as I can tell, there are NO efforts to advertise or convince people to use linux instead of windows, and i think the reason for that lies in the fact that NO ONE benefits when a person switches to linux, no one gets paid, no one moves up the corprate ladder. So the problem i believe is that the software is free. If indeed one of your goals is to provide the world with an alternative to windows out of spite, then make people pay for it.

Spite?? You are the only one talking about spite. I have no problem with MS (to an extent) they did what they did to make money. They made some good business moves and got on top. (I know this is debatable) But I do not promote linux to spite MS. I promote it cause I feel it is a better OS. Sure it can be more difficult or harder to find things that run on linux. But it is the fact that I know what is going on in my computer that makes me happy.

And yes some people are forced to use MS. Large companies that have contracts with MS for example. If I were to work for that company I would be forced to use MS, and if I use MS at work I am most likely to use MS at home.

I have one question for you... Do you work for MS?

Also I think it is safe to say when using the word 'we' it refers to the members of this forum. I know people who like MS and prefer MS. True they have had little experience with Linux or Mac or any other OS but they are happy and don't want to change. It is their right.

In conclusion I think it is safe to say we don't want to spite MS or even bring and end to MS. But rather we want to promote the better OS. That is the goal and purpose to the Linux community.

Originally posted by skiler89 As far as I can tell, there are NO efforts to advertise or convince people to use linux instead of windows, and i think the reason for that lies in the fact that NO ONE benefits when a person switches to linux, no one gets paid, no one moves up the corprate ladder. So the problem i believe is that the software is free. If indeed one of your goals is to provide the world with an alternative to windows out of spite, then make people pay for it.

Linux was not created as an "alternative to windows", much less out of spite. It was created as an alternative to the expensive Unix systems, in order to be able to learn about, and use that technology (or rather, very similar technology). The Linux user base expands mostly due to word of mouth advertising. I have no need to "convince" anyone to use Linux over any other platform, if someone expresses interest I'll show them what they want to see, and help them however I can, but once the question comes out "How well will it run all my new games?" I quickly steer them back to their Windows box. If games is the highest priority need for someone, they really need to stick to Windows. If on the other hand the question "How do I handle my office documents on there?" is asked, I show them how well OO handles such things, with the disclaimer that nothing is 100% guaranteed, but likely everything they need will be able to be brought in (though on occasion some trickery there might be involved).

I have no desire to witness the masses of Windows users migrating to Linux (as most of them would be no better off because they would likely insist on running around loose as root.. that would be a mess... if unsecured windows boxen are such a bother don't even try to imagine the damage that a similar amount of rooted Linux boxen could do), but I am happy to see some honest to goodness competition going on at last, after MS has stifled innovation and competition for so long.

Oh, and if you really think nobody has ever been forced to buy Windows on their machine, you've not been around very long. That was what started the probs people had with MS to begin with. The term "Microsoft tax" wasn't coined by accident.

Maybe I should define the word FORCED for you kids, "The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain" NO ONE PHYSICALLY MADE PEOPLE BUY THE COMPUTERS WITH MICROSOFT ON THEM. They for 1 could have built their own, paid someone to build it for them, and iv hear it is possible to get a machine running linux strait from the box. NO ONE FORCED THEM

So drop the whole forced thing, Windows didnt get on top because they forced people with a gun. Their stuff works, and that is why Windows is on top and not Linux.

MS didn't force people to buy, with a gun, but they *did* force vendors, through a variety of illegal actions, to only sell machines with MS Windows as an OS. So if an average user wanted to buy a computer, he had to buy one with MS Windows on it. He didn't have any choice, unless he was technically savvy enough to build his own system.

So yes, users were "forced" to buy MS Windows.

Originally posted by skiler89 Maybe I should define the word FORCED for you kids, "The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain" NO ONE PHYSICALLY MADE PEOPLE BUY THE COMPUTERS WITH MICROSOFT ON THEM. They for 1 could have built their own, paid someone to build it for them, and iv hear it is possible to get a machine running linux strait from the box. NO ONE FORCED THEM

tr.v. forced, forc·ing, forc·es 1. To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job. 2. 1. To gain by the use of force or coercion: force a confession. 2. To move or effect against resistance or inertia: forced my foot into the shoe. 3. To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the group. 3. 1. To put undue strain on: She forced her voice despite being hoarse. 2. To increase or accelerate (a pace, for example) to the maximum. 3. To produce with effort and against one's will: force a laugh in spite of pain. 4. To use (language) with obvious lack of ease and naturalness. 4. 1. To move, open, or clear by force: forced our way through the crowd. 2. To break down or open by force: force a lock. 5. To rape. 6. Botany. To cause to grow or mature by artificially accelerating normal processes. 7. Baseball. 1. To put (a runner) out on a force play. 2. To allow (a run) to be scored by walking a batter when the bases are loaded. 8. Games. To cause an opponent to play (a particular card).

You're a real troll, eh? :)
Pick one aspect of a word (preferably from the realm of physics)
and apply it to other scenarios to prove your point ... not a dumb
move, may convince the odd simple minded person.

Looking at 2.3 you're trying to force us to believe a) that M$ is
good and b) it's products better than linux :D


Cheers,
Tink