Subj : Re: Open Source Leaving Microsoft Sitting on the Fence? To : comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux From : Juhan Leemet Date : Sun Jul 25 2004 05:14 am On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 04:59:57 +0000, Peter Lu wrote: > In article <58ZLc.305998$Gx4.162010@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > Nick Landsberg wrote: > >>GHZ machine, rather than run away. This puts >>even more money in M$'s pockets. Don't know how soon the tide >>will turn. Their licensing strategy may accelerate >>the trend but not for a while yet. Remember, the vast majority >>of the folks who use computers are not computer literate >>and will accept whatever spit is thrown at them because >>they don't know any better. > > To be fair, both M$'s business and Open source have advantages and > disadvantages. Because M$ has sole control over Windoze, it is > on average more stable, if at the expense of innovation. I'm > surprised by how so many binary distributions of Win32 applications > run across platforms. M$ makes sure that the external view of its > platform is one of stability and consistency, whether this is true That's the way it's supposed to be. What amazes me are the counter examples. I have had problems doing cut/paste between M$ products in the same version of M$ Office. That should NEVER happen! I remember back in OS/2 days when M$ would actually go out of its way to introduce inconsistencies and incompatibilities to make SURE applications would not work in WinOS2 (after they had a tiff with their partner IBM, or were they trying their usual tactic of using partners and then climbing over them?). Personally, I think that is the promise that M$ reneged on: Windoze was supposed to be the integration platform for desktop applications. Unfortunately, the only applications (maybe using some hidden? undocumented? Windoze API calls?) that work "just right" (well almost?) are M$ applications. In that respect, DOJ should have split M$ in half: an O/S vendor, playing on a level playing field with other O/S vendors, and an applications vendor again on a different level playing field (M$ Office on OS/2? M$ Office on Solaris? M$ Office on Linux? etc.). Unfortunately, M$ do NOT want this kind of scenario, because they can't use one product to prop up the other. Now if you want to run M$ Office you HAVE to run Windoze. If you run Windoze you pretty well have to run M$ Office. The only way to have another choice is to reject both. Oh, and then you have to extract your data from M$ non-standard proprietary file formats (which also change from version to version). It is the "tar baby" of IS/IT. What we have ended up with is the M$ Office-1-2-3-4-5-6 application (as a slight generalization of Lotus-1-2-3). We really don't have an O/S that provides stable, well documented APIs that other application vendors can use to provide good solutions. Every other application vendor other than M$ is working at a disadvantage, and their application will have some glitches and weird hangups and some stuff that just won't work. Seems M$ like it that way. If possible they'll use their own "inside information" to compete (unfairly) with those other vendors' applications, too. > internally or not. Linux stuff tends to be constantly changing, > which is probably the view internal to organizations. I used to > have some problems with .dll compatibilities but that's nothing DLL Hell on M$ Windoze is quite well known! At least Linux RPM can check dependencies and check for validity (is everything there OK). Why/how can one Windoze app vendor destroy Windoze functionality? Lack of standards? Note that this is different from mixing Linux distros. All Windoze apps are supposed to work together on the Windoze "integration platform". Linux distros are like different architectures, and in many cases they are: PPC, SPARC, Alpha, etc. You really can't expect to run SPARC code on PPC?!? > compared to the madness of Linux .so and package dependencies. So, stay within a distro and be happy. I will admit that there seems to be a problem with Linux developers trying to use the very latest features of every "bleeding edge" library. If you really want the latest "bleeding edge" version of every app, then it will be painful. Do you really need it? Sometimes. Else wait for distro update, and someone else will have done the integration for you. > M$ installation/uninstallaion used to be a fiasco, but it has > straightened out over the years. Linux installation remains highly I keep having problems with installations on M$ Windoze (of 3rd party apps). Some work. Others don't, or they "work funny". I've also seen installations that destroy other apps. Seems that "DLL Hell" isn't over. There is no recourse. Phone M$? Ha! One of their drones will say "reboot" and if/when that doesn't work "reinstall", then nothing useful. > iffy; one can't even decide whether source or binary distributions > make more sense. Really? If you're not sure what you want, maybe you shouldn't be "tinkering"? It's not that hard to decide. If the binary .rpm has been built for your specific distro version (and you trust the builder) then you can install the binary. Otherwise, rebuild binary from .src.rpm. > Because Linux is democratic, a user has to go all over the place to pick > up apps and libs. There are so many distributions and competing basic > packages that one has to wonder if that's necessary for getting things > done. How many window managers and desktops do we really need? There's You could stay with a single distro (hey, that's like staying with M$, running their products?!?). You could consider anything extra is a bonus. You don't have to run every possible application in the world. M$ doesn't provide you with every application either. What's the exact complaint? It's great to have a choice of window managers! Some big, some small, some that are available over a number of different O/S, or none at all. Can you run Windoze without a window manager? How many O/S can you find that run the Windoze window manager? Just one (with its own variants, which M$ constantly tries to make obsolete, so you have to upgrade, $$$). How many different window managers can you run on Windoze? None, er, 1? In Linux, choose the one you want/need/like and use that. What's the problem? If you have no idea, then use KDE (probably most common on Linux). Use Gnome if you want to run the same window manager on some other O/S. Whatever. > too much confusion. The various Linux distributions all require > different installation/maintenance procedures. M$ at least tried to > consolidate the configuration methods across the WinXX platforms. > M$ also does a better job of supporting its obsolesced products, such as > Win9x, whereas Linux bugs tend to linger because the Linux distributors > just move on to the next distribution. That is simply not true. Many (maybe even most?) Linux distros use RPM to manage software packages. They might provide some GUI wrapper(s) to make it more palatable to the pointy/clicky crowd. Why would you expect to jump around between distros anyway? Pick one based on features and stay in it. M$ does not support old Windoze packages well. They issue new "versions" that are rewrites and/or bug fix releases. What significant functionality did Win98 provide over Win95. What about WinME? OK 2000 was supposedly something bigger/better (with some components derived from NT, finally getting rid of the DOS pieces under the "O/S"). What does XP give you in addition? Windoze call home? Bloody hell, get that spyware OUT of my PC! If you're concerned about Linux bugs lingering, why don't you help out. Take the latest patches and "back port" them to previous Linux distro versions. Help out! Give back to the community! Do you just want to ride others' coattails like a parasite and complain about how it isn't as good as M$. Use M$ (live with the consequences) and stop bothering people. > On the bright side, Linux users do get to learn a lot if they are > willing to put in the time, because they get to see under the covers. > If they are patient enough, they could conceivably fix the world. > Linux offers variety, which is both a blessing/feature and a > curse/shortcoming. Yes, I like the transparency. You can dig as deep as you want in any of the software and read exactly what it does. There's no "trust Mr. Bill's minions" implied. It's more like "you can trust Linus because here's exactly what he's done, see for yourself!" Don't like it? Don't use it! > I suppose canned distributions of Linux, such as Lindows, may fare > better in terms of stability and support, because features are lot > more limited. Trying to pull it back to some flavour of Windoze again are we? Lindows is/was more of a "demo package" to be more familiar to Windoze users. Most suggest that users run a real Linux distro. There are even some demo distros that boot off CD and run in memory (don't need installation). BTW, I have been computing since '66 (uni student using mainframes). I have purchased Windoze about a half dozen times. I have always been disappointed. I will admit the disappointment was less and less with later versions of Windoze, but that might be because I expected so much less? That's been M$ contribution: they have trained users to _expect_ reboots?!? I had been using BSD from '82 to '84. I saw M$ Word at Comdex in '82 and it looked pretty interesting (but I didn't run a Mac). I was using SunOS with a GUI from '85 to '88. Sometime around '89 Windows286 was released. I purchased it with that nice M$ ergonomic mouse (contracted out to a design shop apparently). I thought, hey neat, must be something like SunOS? Not on your life! It would not even run M$ Paint correctly (crashed, trashed the simplest line drawings, etc.) Shelfware! So Windows 3.0 came out. I thought "hmm, up to 3.0" they must have it working by now?!? Barely. Program launcher with a cheezy GUI face. Windows 3.1 was actually useable (except for 8.3 names, and no industry standard networking). Finally, in Windows95 we got "long file names". About time! This was 10+ years after *nix had solved the problem. We still had hokey M$ proprietary networking stuff, refusing to play nice with standards. M$ insists on its "own proprietary de facto standards"?!? Hah! What a load. I upgraded a couple of machines, and bought another with W95 installed. I further purchased WinME, only because I couldn't purchase my PC without it (if I'm paying for it, I might as well take it). GRRR!!! Isn't that called unfair trade practices? I am not _allowed_ to buy a PC without Windoze (Mr. Bill's M$ tax!)? Then I hear that Windows2000 and/or WinXP insist on "calling home" to report/rat on you and the software (competitors?) that you're running. I don't like that idea. I don't trust them, after the dirty tricks they've used over the years. So, I've decided that I refuse to purchase another Windoze. I'm not masochistic. Now, that is not an absolute, I suppose. I'm a realist. If a client of mine asks really nicely, and buys me a machine with Windoze on it, I will use it to help them achieve their goals. I would rather do something else, like use Linux and/or Solaris. -- Juhan Leemet Logicognosis, Inc. .