without microsoft's bullying who can say how the computer market would have ended up?
you cannot seriously tell me nothing would have filled the space that ended up being filled with microsoft's money oriented company churning our garbage and deliberately hindering smaller companies' development.

without microsoft i suspect that software development would be about 10 years further on than it is now (i don't mean years literally, i mean in terms of development).

but we're each entitled to our opinion.

Hmm, yeah, This is indeed an interesting point, some say that coumputing would be ten years ahead, while other's say it'd have been ten years behind for the same reason - M$.

I am more towards the ten years ahead end, and believe that without M$ monopolisation, the competition (commercial and open) would have pushed computing along much faster. Although I doubt it'd ammount to as much as ten years, remembering back to 1993, sitting in front of a 386 machine running DOS, while now I'm here in front of an XP2400 with mdk91...

-Taiyo

his bullying is in a sense genious. Beautiful marketing strategies. Windows is an awesome OS for most of the world because they choose not to think for themselves. So props to bill gates. He's my freakin hero. But I'm not just another peon out there. I don't want proprietary software to think for me. That is why I choose linux. I think that linux is a better OS for me, but for the desktop race, its windows hands down. I'm all up for bringin MS down. But linux has a LONG way to go. professional software company's software is far better in terms of ease of use. For the most part. But I believe that soon will change. The stronger linux gets, the more people we have contributing to its growth. So knock bill gates if you'll want. But you'd have done the same if you could have. Don't lie.

Answer is simple :
Windows is greed, linux is speed...

my windows box boots.... runs..... and shutsoff faster than linux... so i don't think you know what you're talking about.

I can't seriously tell you in the sense of some weird parallel worlds knowledge of what would have been and no, I'm not saying Bill Gates had any quality that did or anything or that DOS and Windows didn't suck. What I'm trying to say is that, as a matter of historical record, nobody was really pushing the PC concept beyond Radio Shack thinking they could sell stuff for more profits than radios. That IBM had the power and respect to push through such a crazy scheme as getting individuals to use something that had been the domain of MIT, NASA, and the DOD. That CP/M missed the boat. That MS bought/stole/patched a system that would run a PC and do so cheaply. The thing has nothing to do with quality or where the industry would be if somehow Linus would have been born earlier, the net would have been suitable earlier, and IBM had gone with a *very* cheap Linux OS to power their PCs. Sure, the computing industry would be a *hell* of a lot better then. But that just wasn't the case. MS was there then. And if they hadn't been, IBM might not have been able to find a cheap OS and definitely would never have made the investment to write their own at that time and the PC would have died, from IBM's standpoint, far faster than OS/2 and dozens of other IBM projects did. And then the industry most likely would have said, "See? No market - PCs will just never work on that level" and everybody would have nodded their heads wisely and bought more typewriters or signed up for more time on the mainframes. And then who would be around to populate the net and who would be around to use Linux?

The quality of the market may suck thanks to MS, but the *size* of the market and the fact that it's a market at all is due to IBM and MS. And even a crap market beats no market because it gives us these cheap knock-together PC clones to run our Linuxes on. And so it'll get better.

But yeah, it's just opinions. I just didn't see anything so offensive in the original comment.

It's the last paragraph I'd have taken issue with. I'd point sherifkhalifa to ESR's home page and some readings about the power of joy in programming regarding so-called 'amateurs' - the very distinction of amateur and pro, as opposed to lame coder and wizard - relies on proprietary concepts of software production. It's a false distinction.

I promote linux because of its potential, but lets not dwell in fantasy land. Linux has A LONG WAY TO GO!

that one's easy. windows is deliberately and painstakingly made to load and reload, boot and reboot in no time flat... why? because you have to do it all the time!!! they *know* that if it wasn't fast on the reboot, people would continue to complain and hate having to restart--- granted, 2K and XP make things more dynamic all around, and you can change an IP or workgroup name without rebooting (a la win98.) BUT it's still a pain. it still spends as much time loading on average in a week as a matching hardware lin box, trudging through a number of boots really fast is just like trudging through a few boots- a bit slower. 2 boots x 6 minutes = 6 boots x 2 minutes... and that's mighty generous of me saying only 6 boots in a week, and on top of that, a bloated XP (redundancy intended) will also take over 5 minutes to begin responding to clicks.

my lin boxes are slow on the startup and they stay up. they do it right once, and i reboot only to install new kernels or hard drives and sometimes make sure my adjusted init scripts are OK if, say, the power goes out and i'm far away when it comes back.

i am sure you have your reasons, but you certainly don't tell us what they are. if you can smugly say that with no justification behind it then i can just as smugly say "windows is insecure and prone to unfixable, unknown errors, linux isn't." and i might add "so suck it" towards those who have a kneejerk disagreement complex.

personally i think the rate of development and the stability of the software not to mention the solid development model that open source software benefits from are much more important than "my windoze box boots faster than my linux box*". personally i don't subscribe to the concept that immediate impressions are better than well thought out opinions.

i think that since windows has taken twenty years to get where it is now, and kde has already overtaken it in 7 years (with gnome closely on its heels, i suspect it'll take gnome 8 years overall to overtake windows), there's little to no contest over which has the future in its hands. and DOS was never a contender against even the most braindead of unix like systems. so what's left? only the sad whines of those frightened of learning new technology.



* "which i have never learned to edit the startup scripts of"

Perhaps you should read the POST I was replying to before you start talkin smack CALUM. My POST was in reference to the dude that said: "Answer is simple :
Windows is greed, linux is speed.." So before you flame me, at least try to find out what I was saying. And not take what I said out of context.

I'm sorry you feel that I have a "kneejerk disagreement complex", but I could have sworn this hole POST was asking for opinions. I gave my two cents, just like you. Read some of my other threads. I absolutely love linux. And it has its Potential. But in comparison for a desktop OS for the mass people, linux loses. Its not easy to use. Its hard. It takes time to learn. But it's that potential that keeps me involved. KDE and GNOME would not exist if not for everything windows has been. So putting them up side by side is not a very intelligent comparison. If you fail to see the dependencies, then I'm sorry, but if not for the success of MS, would there even be a linux? No... I think not. Keep linux close, but keep your enemies closer.

I cannot believe this thread is continually kept alive, 20 pages for me, but for those with less threads per page, it's gotta be at least 40..

Crazy!

Cool

"so what's left? only the sad whines of those frightened of learning new technology."

Its comming, new tech, integrated tech. If computers are not becomming more integrated in life users, than why is longhorn trying to create an "emotional" connection with it users?

I think, for the most part, it's good to be able to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using Linux software. When we do so with an objectve of expressing what we like, and also what we'd like to see improved, I think the conversation can be very constructive.

We've veered from that course a few times, but overall, I think many people have done a good job of explaining what they like about the freedom and flexibility they have in using Linux software and also some of the things they'd like to see changed and improved.

As long as we don't make personal attacks and nasty comments, this can be a great way to exchange opinions!

Incidentally, I've added two more distros to my personal repertoire this week, both LiveCD implementations, the second of which I've installed on my hard drive.

I installed a version of a SlackwareLive, an adaptation of Slackare 9, which I've already used. This one is a bit different than ZipSlack or one of the other cut down versions, and what made it extra nice was the easy way in which it helped automatically configure the GUI environment. livecd-2.9.0.21.iso is the name of the ISO image, and I got it from a link I found at DistroWatch.

Similarly, I was looking for a few Knoppix variations (Knoppix is a TERRIFIC Live CD implementation of Debian GNU/Linux soiftware that can also be installed to the hard disk). I've used Morphix, but I've had some disappointments with the 0.4 version, so I went looking forsomething else and came up with Mepis-2003.06.cd1.iso. Mepis is one of the niceest LiveCD implementations yet, and it has an equally easy install to disk implementation, plus, like Knoppix, it's all Debian, and it is ultra easy to upgrade and configure.

I recommend Mepis, and I'm using it right now, in fact.

So far, on my quest for LiveCD to hard disk implementations of Debian, either built off Knoppix or some other technology base, I've tried Knoppix, Morphix, and Mepis. Knoppix is the most complete, Mepis is the easiest, Morphix has several looks (and I really liked the 0.3.4 release, but the 0.4 release seems buggy).

If any of you know of any other Debian releases or other releases that are worth taking a good look at, mention them here. My every day Debian system is based on Libranet, which ranks as my #1 commercial Debian implementation.
I actually like LindowsOS and Xandros too, but for entirely different reasons. I think LindowsOS is terrific as an easy to install and update consumer grade system and Xandros makes a really solid, usable platform for anyone just needing a stable system that interoperates well with Windows.

i wasn't actually trying to flame you to be honest, i just think making offhand comments about how linux is obviously not as good as windows (which is how your comment comes across, since you didn't make it clear who you were rplying to or what the context was) are incorrect and that a statement like that should at least try to back itself up.

Quote:

I'm sorry you feel that I have a "kneejerk disagreement complex", but I could have sworn this hole POST was asking for opinions. I gave my two cents, just like you.

yes yes yes, and what makes you think i disagree with you on this? people who bring this up seem to overlook my right to continue to express my opinion. you have a right to reply as many times as you like and so do i, yes? so we don't have a problem, so long as we don't keep wasting inches talking about our right to talk!

Quote:

Read some of my other threads. I absolutely love linux.

this is in a way irrelevant. i am not here to agree with people who love linux and disagree with people who like windows, this is kind of what i meant about kneejerking, although to be honest i didn't mean that with reference to people who have formed an actual opinion based on their own thoughts, so no need to take it personally.

Quote:

And it has its Potential. But in comparison for a desktop OS for the mass people, linux loses. Its not easy to use. Its hard.

no it isn't. if you set it up and put kde on there, it's fine, for most people who use windows. we are talking about most people not being too comfortable with computers anyway, give them a working kde and they will find it at least as easy to use as windows, and other apps follow, konq, mozilla, kmail, gaim, xcdroast, openoffice.org are all as easy to use as their windows payfer counterparts, plus they are all free and are a lot more stable. The "linux is not there yet for desktops" attitude ONLY applies to people who already have learnt windows and are unwilling to invest the SAME amount of learning in using their interface of choice in linux. and if they really do find kde too hard, there's always icewm, windowmaker etc, i find them incredibly easy to use, and they consume a fraction of the overhead that windows does, i have yet to see windowmaker lock up, and surely this counts for something in our productivity driven world?

Quote:

It takes time to learn.

so does anything. how long did the average windoid take to get to their current level of understanding with windows? years? whatever, until they have put the same time and effort into linux, they are not qualified to claim that one is harder than the other. it is an unfair comparison.

Bottom line: linux *is* more than ready for the desktop however linux is *not* and hopefully never will be ready to be a *clone* of windows.

Quote:

But it's that potential that keeps me involved. KDE and GNOME would not exist if not for everything windows has been. So putting them up side by side is not a very intelligent comparison. If you fail to see the dependencies, then I'm sorry, but if not for the success of MS, would there even be a linux? No... I think not. Keep linux close, but keep your enemies closer.

your connection of kde and gnome with linux is understandable but not correct. linux would have started and continued to grow without mswindows, linux was in no way a reaction to microsoft windows or DOS, in fact it was a reaction to minix. i think you'll find also that mswindows is entirely based on macOS' user interface (which was of course copied off of the prototype UI at Xerox PARC), so even without microsoft, in an apple driven desktop market i suspect that kde and gnome would have been around at the same time or possibly even earlier, the reason i say is earlier is that i think the UI development would have got on a lot faster if MS hadn't glutted the market with cheap and nasty macOS clones and got into that stupid court battle over the UI.

and your patronising comments about how i can't see the dependencies are not welcome. it's evident that you don't see the minix/macOS connections i mention above, but i don't ram it down your throat, do i?

Calum, whether you feel linux is easy or hard to use is also irrelevent. Reread my last post. A desktop OS for the MASS people. Why don't you grab a prominent windows user and stick them in front of a shell prompt, and just look at the expression on their face. I did it to my mom. She said, and I quote: "Screw this crap." She promptly returned to the Windows enviornment. Or how about installing most RPMs. God forbid a new user runs into dependency problems. Or even when its done, you still gotta go find the actual link to run it. Can they not post a picture and a link on the kde menu? Geez.... (I know how to do all these things so don't assume that I don't. I'm referring to new linux users, porting from windows.) You really think people are going to start using Linux as a general OS as a replacement to Windows, when its not actually a replacement at all? Linux as it is needs alot of work. If it didn't, it would be even bigger than it already is. People sometimes don't take the time to think that most of the world is not as computer savvy as them. The boom with computers happened because of windows. Because they made it mad easy to work with. The reason so many households in america even have a computer is because of windows. So if you care to not see the dependencies then so be it, but it doesn't mean its not there. I crave the day Linux enjoys that same kind of success as windows. But it has a long way to go. And I am fully aware of the connections you listed above. I am talking about the connection between the Windows enviornment, and kde/gnome. If you fail to see the influence then I'm sorry. People always cry about how they don't want linux to be another windows clone. A clone? Its not about being more like windows. Its about being more user friendly. Gui's for everything. But leave a way for the more advanced, experienced people to still take control if they want. If you want to play on a command prompt all day, fine. But GUIs do make it easier on new users. You'll never convince me that Linux can be a desktop OS, when you still are required to deal with a shell prompt. For system admins, I agree that they should learn how to use the shell and how to mess with the config files, but try teaching that to my grandmother. Good Luck.