well i meant free in it's more true sense of "freedom". it's a bit difficult to tell what a person means since the two meanings are covered by the same word in english.

here's an entire book explaining the difference! no honestly, and it's a good read too, i recommend it. what's more the whole book is available online for... FREE! :-D
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/

Ok, I have it bookmarked to read. I don't mind furthering my knowledge of such things.

Thank you.

Some of these posts are absolutely ridiculous. LInuxquestions.org is not a forum for you to stroke your own ego. No one here cares what acheivements you've made. We only care about getting our questions answered and helping others out. Sign on to yahoo messenger to gloat, cuz I for one don't want to hear any longer. And just so you know THELL... Its never what you know. Or even where you learned it. Its what you do with what you know. If you've learned everything you just listed.... Then you wouldn't be stroking your own ego. Thanks and peace.... By the way, perhaps you should learn something with a better brighter future than just windows proprietary crap. When you do, gloat about that... then i'll be impressed.

Yeah! Gloating about windoze poo is what fat, lifeless, case-modded game freaks do.

windoze lusers who gloat to me get a slap, at least when someone gloats about doing something open-source, however big or small, can at least be gloating about making a proper contribution to computing, and not just a contribution to the M$ marketing machine.

-Taiyo

Being a windows user once, I can identify if a user doesnt want to learn how things work, it kinda brings the questions, if a user doesnt care, then why are they talking here in the first place?

Its not so much that windows doesnt work, and its crappy, but if a user doesnt want to find out what else is out there, then windows perfectly suits them. Its a tottaly different story if user comes here complaining about how much crap windows is. Then they deserved to get flammed and ridiculed. I have a friend who complains about MS and what they do, and how windows crashes, and that you dont "really" know what MS is doing. This same person gets mad at linux because they dont take the time to learn it. He wants to just "clikety clikety click click"

Take me for example, I run Mandrake 9.1, it may not be the best linux distro out there, but I think its a good place to start. Now I have a working modem, sound card and everything else. When I first installed it, nothing worked except the monitor. A week or two later, I searched for answers, tweaked with things and now Linux is my predominate OS. Yes I have windows still installed, but I use it strictly "just incase" purposes. After all I am still a newbie and things still go wrong in linux for me.

Its all about how deep you want to dive, some users dont care. Its to bad that MS preys on them. I believe windows should be the alternative in the OS family. Linux is growing, I mean I would rather have the suppert of a world than a company, thats just me. Well there is my two cents, I hope we can get a good discussion out of this.

Well played, Diode! Spot on.

I still need Windows for a few things Linux doesn't (yet) do. I stick with Win98 because I can customize it and control it to a point. That's why I didn't upgrade, even before I tried Linux.

I don't blame Windows users necessarily. You buy a computer and it probably has Windows on it. Maybe you just want to browse the internet, do e-mails, write/print letters or such. It don't sound much, but that it what loads of computer users do. They are nervous about mail order, they get preyed on by salesmen in shops who will try to sell them things they don't need.

IMHO, what you need to spend good money on is a Monitor. Even a superior keyboard/mouse doesn't break the bank. You don't need a Pentium 3000, you don't need 120Gb drives, and you don't need Windows XP nor Office XP for that.

You need a base unit with 20Gb HDD, you do need a CDRW for backup, get a nice cheap Duron 1300 on a PC Chips board, seriously, what's it gonna cost? Add Mandrake 9.1 (Download) and the latest OpenOffice.org, for (almost) free. Why spend money you don't need to spend?

If your needs are greater, then of course you should look into compatibility, what various OS's can and can't do (in fact what software is written for them) scale up your hardware requirements accordingly. If you want to play fast-moving action games, you may well need the fastest Pentium with Windows XP. But you may find that a cheaper model (say XP2200) with Linux and a few free downloads might be enough for what you actually NEED.

If people took that mature attitude, then they'd save a lot of cash, and Linux would be more popular.

As for being easier to set up, how many Windows users did set it up? And how many know what to do if it goes pear shaped?

DAVE

Dave, good points. I really think that companies like Mandrake, SuSE, Lindows.com, and Lycoris are really going to be making a difference in the market as more and more systems come preinstalled with various versions of Linux software.

In the past year, we've seen Lindows.com's LindowsOS installed on systems from Microtel and Tiger Direct, and we've also seen Lycoris do similar things, first selling inexpensive, refurbished computers from HP and IBM, then selling inexpensive systems from Microtel at Wal-Mart, and now building tablet PC systems and notebook systems in collaboration with Toshiba. We also see SuSE working with Microtel and Mandrake working with Hewlett-Packard to make desktop systems available.

All of this is really good, but when I can go to Best Buy, Circuit City, Sears, or any computer retailer and get a simple, easy to use, preinstalled version of Linux sottware, I think that will be the real identifying event that spells success.

I'm really pleased with what I've seen so far, but I guess I'm also a bit dismayed that it's taken so long and even now, it's only a trend that has barely begun.

I think that when consumer grade systems that just work are more readily available, you'll see many more ISVs write software for Linuxd systems and you'll see many more hardware vendors add their support, too. Compared to where things were five years ago, great progress has been made, but at the same time, these areas continue to lag the market leader, and frankly, they're likely to continue to lag the leader.

Nevertheless, I love using GNU software myself, and I love running it in various Linux distributions, and I do so as much as I can and prefer it over anything else. Right now, I'm using a brand new test desktop manager (XFCE 4), which is still in a release candidate stage, and I'm using a beta version of the Mozilla browser suite. Even though neither of these tools is anywhere near final production quality, they provide me with a usable desktop environment, one that's also backed by more stable versions of each of these tools.

How could I have such a flexible environment so easily on any of the mainstream desktop platforms? I'm using a commercial implementation of Libranet, a Debian GNU/Linux system, which I've significantly modified for my own use.

I also run some much simpler consumer grade systems, in particular Lycoris Desktop/LX, and I'm quite satisfied with it as a plain desktop system.

I ask you, how else could I have so many choices?

I'm also a big BSD fan, but even there, while that's probably the premiere development and server environment of all, I still find more, and simpler, ways of using GNU/Linux software on the desktop, and so I use GNU/Linux software on a daily basis for my own desktop computing needs.

It is nice to have a choice of OSes, but to grab a chunk of that marketshare away from microsoft, the Linux community will have to work together. Standardization is the key. It'll be a beautiful day when any disto's RPM will work with any linux distro. Linux sure needs to be more user friendly, for a general desktop OS. In a sense it needs to be more like windows. But on the flip side, it needs to continue to be what it is. Or at least offer the user the opportunity to interact with a shell. And have control of his/her OS.
No secret ultra hidden files..... and defenitely no plans to take over the world.

I agree with you on this. On one hand, developers will avoid turning Linux systems into what they loathe, personally, a simple, easy to use desktop system that can be run easily by anyone. On the other hand, that's precisely what's needed to satisfy consumers.

That's where companies like Lindows.com and Lycoris fit into the overall picture, and even more general purpose desktop vendors like Mandrake and SuSE. These companies have the opportunity to package and simplify the presentation of Linux software.

Personally, I want to see BOTH - simple, flexible desktop software, and that's why I promote Lycoris, in particular. I also still enjoy the ultimate in flexible systems, and that's why I also promote Libranet. Each of them are great examples of the flexibility that's available in Linux software and what packaging creativity can do. I'm also very glad to see Lindows.com drawing attention to this business, and in a twisted kind of a way, I also think that SCO's negative attention is going to benefit Linux software in the long run.

Its nice to see some good conversation got sparked. I like talking about this topic because its so vast, and it wont get boring.

I would love to see smart computers users, even if it means cracking open a shell. I would like to see users that can fix their own computers, to an extent. Windows gives these users a reason not to learn more, simply because they dont have to. I mean I would like to see my mom actually know what she's doing, when she works. When I first got linux working, she needed to borrow my pc to revamp her resume. Linux turnt on and I could see the expression on her face. "Wheres 'My Computer' ", it was almost like she was having a panic attack. I dont like to see things like that because if things dont change, as in user knowledge, then windows will continue to rule until the whole state of washington blows up. Its like only partially knowing how to initialize some of the most basic skills, like driving.

I had this theory that computers are not really widley excepted by the general population. Sure there is a internet, sure corps use them extensivly, but I am talking about the John Q. Public, the avergae day to day life user. If something goes wrong with Johns computer, the general reaction would be to just turn it off, that it is just a metal box. I am not saying that computers should be a lifestyle, far from that. Just think in 50 years, it will be innevitable for you not to use computers, especially with products like the 150$ lindows box. If grand ma's and grand pa's knew how to work their machine, then they wouldnt get virues and junk mail. Its just sad that there are virus's out there that infect millions of computers, and all they had to do is not download the attachment. Some buisnesess just think that the magic computer repair person is going to take care of everything, no need to worry.

Imagine with me for a second that you owned a buisness. Any kind of buisness of any size. Being a buisness person you are going to make absolutly sure you take care of certain things, like bills, saleries, how could you buisness exsist with out it? I believe computers should be treated the same way. All to often a owner just hires a tech and lets them deal with everything, having no idea what the ideal cost is and how much the tech is asking. Ive seens tech where the owner calls them , and the tech doesnt show up for three whole days later, I dont know about you, but my opinion is that I would fire the shit out of him. Its like people who dont take care of their cars, like checking oils, fluids and stuff like that, and when the car breaks, they get mad, because they think the cars not doing the job right. If you dont learn computers, and how to fix them, hey are going to break.

I think smarter users is the key.

I dunno man, computers can't be an area that everyone goes into. The more we know and the less they know, the more we're worth. I've made thousands this year because people had problems with their pc and I fixed it. there should be a simple to use linux OS, but still provide advacned things like the shell and other similar things so that the people that choose not to be ignorant to computers, can take control. knowledge has a price. and that price is the constant learning and the long nights we spend tweaking our brains.

i agree more with rico than diode on this one.

diode i think is being very unrealistic.

something that is VITAL to the whole growth of computing from being an academic/hobbyist domain to - you guessed it, a computer one every desk and in every home - is microsoft. like it or not, its the truth.

i know that windoze is a poor excuse for a decent OS - although w2k is stable enough for most user's needs and office has been great for productivity/communication - but it meets the needs of the masses. whether we like it or not, it has been the single most important factor in creating an industry that without which many of us tecchies would not bedoing what we enjoy.

sure the corporate world has taken/is taking over but that is inevitable in a capitalist society. the OS community, however, is something that will remain. some things really are best lef tin their status quo.

proprietry software is bad because it preaches to us that 'this is how software engineering should be'. Open Sauce teaches us about choice does it not. the people that want to 'not bother with their computer bar what they really need' or to use it just like they do a tv/microwave/mobile phone should also be allowed their choice too should they not??

i also believe that Open Source's natural role is just behind proprietry software in terms of innovation. amateurs are never as advanced as professionals in any avenue of life. thats just the way it is.

justify yourself... if you can. this sounds like the claptrap i suspect it is going to turn out to be.

interesting point, however this boils down to one thing - the de facto standard. microsoft's software is shit but they have aggressively saturated the market with it so it is the "standard", and you "must" use it to communicate with other people, unless you are willing to put a bit of thought into how to download mozilla, openoffice etc. most users don't want to think that far, as you imply.

the open source community is now working hand in pocket with the corporate world. get out of 1997.

and those people should SHUT UP when they start whining about worms, viruses, crashes and other things that could have been worked out if they had been using open source software. it's the same as my idea about how if people don't vote they should SHUT UP about politics. seems logical enough to me.

sorry, but this is a complete lie. who is paying you to say this? give me a single example of this being true. In all cases proprietary software usually has a head start and open source software usually overtakes it, with a rate of growth faster at all times than the development of the closed source product was at any time. And because of the extensive peer review model, open source software is more stable and secure in the process. you might not like it but that adds up to open source software being better, cheaper, and more useful.

Not meaning to step on sherifkhalifa's toes but what justification does this 'claptrap' need? That Unix was a grotequely expensive closed-source system that made Apples look affordable while Microsoft's DOS was dirt cheap and, thus, was chosen to ship with IBM PCs (an alternative or two existed but everyone chose DOS because it was cheaper) and then moved easily to IBM clones and 95% of the computing world started out either using DOS or, if they're young, Windows? The fact that Unix required a university or corporation with a bofh for people to login to do some timesharing vs. an appliance they could plug in, turn on, and run in their own homes? The fact that people's grandmother's do point-and-click with Windows? The fact that the same evil empire's marketing practices which enabled them to monopolize the world also convinced everyone computers were actually *necessary* when 95% of those 95% *don't* need computers?

When people make such neutral and apparent observations and then basically get attacked for it and challenged on it... IBM, Microsoft, clone-makers. Maybe you could subtract clone makers, I dunno. But subtract either of the other two elements from computing history and you've got nothing but Unix mainframes and hobbyist's kits.

Look at the DVD player. When it first debuted, people where saying "what the hell is this" "its to expensive" "I allready have a VCR" "The discs scratch" Now look you can not walk into a movie rental shop and not have less than 3/4 of everything DVD. DvD was way unrealistic when it came out, we are talking 300-400$ for a player. The point is that everything changes so fast. The vcr gave the user the chance not to learn what else is out there. Dvd Players really didnt become a hit out of choice, the industry demanded that you have one. If you like to watch rentals our purchase your own, you are going to have a dvd player, the industry demands it.

Soon the industry is going to demand that it be taken to a broader spectrum. My idea was that computers arent accepted, that its just a hobby of geeks, like it or not the poor alike will be surfing the net. In the future every man woman and dog that has a job will have a computer. I mean look, we are moving into the era of using data sticks instead of using that ancient printer. Being pretty young I am growing up with all this technology, I think one idea is that some of the older citizens didnt use this technology, so integrating it into life is hard. The next generation life users will have technology so embedded into their life. You have to remember that computers are still new, they have only been around for, what like 70 some odd years (just a round guess)?

I realize why Bill Gates has his monopoly is because even though his products are crap, they work enough for users to get the work done, they are so simply designed any pin head could operate it. His products are so easy buisness's turn to them because its dark and scary from under Bills arms. To a buisness's computers are no more than "tools", tools to work.

Tech is comming, no matter if any one likes it or not, just like how dvd players are going to be on every one's entertainment systems in less than 10 years.

For now.