Discussion on:
View:
Show:
As I understand things, O365 does more with IE than with other browsers, in large part because of ActiveX. This, of course, is an excellent reason to use a different browser with O365.
Jack, this goes way back, in the early days Linux was not user friendly, reliable, but not friendly. Widows did a lot of Fluff, and made the user feel good, the unreliablity was over looked. Linux never sought out what was needed to truly compete with Windows, or they didn't want to, I'm not sure.
I would put up a Linux box as a "SEE WHAT YOU THINK", put Netscape on it, the customer would use it for communications (DIAL UP, before the Internet), they could even communicate with our propriety Systems, they loved it, never went down, fast, BUT, could do nothing with the data, not compatable with rest of the office, etc. Without the GUI, only certain people had the will or the knowledge to go on the Linux box.
So this is a problem started day one.
Tom B
I would put up a Linux box as a "SEE WHAT YOU THINK", put Netscape on it, the customer would use it for communications (DIAL UP, before the Internet), they could even communicate with our propriety Systems, they loved it, never went down, fast, BUT, could do nothing with the data, not compatable with rest of the office, etc. Without the GUI, only certain people had the will or the knowledge to go on the Linux box.
So this is a problem started day one.
Tom B
If the distribution's focus is on the desktop and/or business users then the distribution needs to put that polish into the system. Some distributions are very well suited to there target customer.. other's not so much. Same with any product category really.
Linux is just choosy who its friends are.
Linux is like the virtual Studio 54, you're cool, you're not cool, move along. For the beautiful people the party never stops! The rest of you need not apply.
The velvet rope opens for all who have, "the will or the knowledge". Don't like the exclusiveness of it? Tough, that's life. Now get lost lusers. Cuz Tux don't need ya, neither do I.
Oh why am I here
I need to be me
'Cos you're all too clear
And I can see
There's something wrong with you
But what do you expect me to do?
At least I gotta know what I wanna be
Don't come to me if you need pity
--J. Rotten, P. Cook, S. Jones, G. Matlock
Ask not what Linux can do for you, but what you can do for Linux.
Linux is like the virtual Studio 54, you're cool, you're not cool, move along. For the beautiful people the party never stops! The rest of you need not apply.
The velvet rope opens for all who have, "the will or the knowledge". Don't like the exclusiveness of it? Tough, that's life. Now get lost lusers. Cuz Tux don't need ya, neither do I.
Oh why am I here
I need to be me
'Cos you're all too clear
And I can see
There's something wrong with you
But what do you expect me to do?
At least I gotta know what I wanna be
Don't come to me if you need pity
--J. Rotten, P. Cook, S. Jones, G. Matlock
Ask not what Linux can do for you, but what you can do for Linux.
QUOTE: Ask not what Linux can do for you, but what you can do for Linux.
Why should anyone do that? Software isn't a country; it's a toolset. I ask what my software can do for me all the time, and in my experience MS Windows can do less for me than just about anything else -- which is why it comes about dead last in my priority list of OSes.
I contribute to the open source communit(y|ies) a lot, but I don't do it because I'm a superpatriot who thinks he has to sacrifice his needs and desires to a golden idol of a wildebeest. I do it for my own reasons.
Why should anyone do that? Software isn't a country; it's a toolset. I ask what my software can do for me all the time, and in my experience MS Windows can do less for me than just about anything else -- which is why it comes about dead last in my priority list of OSes.
I contribute to the open source communit(y|ies) a lot, but I don't do it because I'm a superpatriot who thinks he has to sacrifice his needs and desires to a golden idol of a wildebeest. I do it for my own reasons.
To make it in business Linux needs a productivity suite like office pro plus that Just works and is compatible with office formats from excel, word, access, publisher, and outlook. Like jack says, "and not an extensive text base configuration" It has to "Just work" perhaps a firefox type of detection of your old office configuration and configure the closest compatibility possible. Why? Because office is the standard and unless business has a compelling reason to change, they won't.
I think Linux slowness in business world is that business people are still unaware how Linux functions, even though they have some ideas, Linux system is moving ahead but slowly and I am sure business people will soon start integrating this system into their lines. "Easy and Secure"
I do not deal with Quickbooks but as a Datacenter manager I am constantly using Outlook. As an old "nix" admin I would be elated to move off windows to Linux for the desktop but email is my most important tool. I would switch in a heartbeat if the right tool came along.
I have answered yes. I think the evolution issue is real and major. If time and effort were put into this to resolve the 'seamless compatibility' issue Jack mentions, a major obstacle to Linux desktop adoption would be removed. Insofar as quickbooks is concerned it has already moved beyond the desktop - into the cloud. Online accounting systems are becoming more prevalent. Monolithic software such as quickbooks will start to diminish as a full range of online capability becomes available. Support for quickbooks and its like in Linux is undoubtedly necessary now but will be less so in the future - it doesn't seem to be commercially sensible for current windows based accounting software providers to develop a Linux presence when the whole basis of their disc based software is under threat. (For the record, I have been involved in a number of online accounting systems)
Our state government department has rolled out Google Gmail. It really is good-bye OUTLOOK.
The edifice of the old school business pc is crumbling. What's next? Android?!
The edifice of the old school business pc is crumbling. What's next? Android?!
If Linux finds its way to develop something amazing like Outlook, it will be fantastic. Also able to integrate with Maxhire solutions.
So Linux isn't interested in finding its way to writing your fantastic applications for you. Although Linux will give you all the help you need in order to help yourself.
Here, I'll even help you get started, paste this into a terminal window:
vi MyFantasticApplication.c
Good luck!
Here, I'll even help you get started, paste this into a terminal window:
vi MyFantasticApplication.c
Good luck!
I think that quickbooks & outlook alone are not enough, because businesses require all sorts of different software when you start looking across all areas of the business... if you get outlook & quickbooks on linux, this will not do anything much for the graphic arts department, design & engineering, and many other parts of many businesses... and so for each other operating system required to get their specific software, you have an increasingly complex situation to manage for the IT department who naturally want to make their job easier. Expecting a graphic artist to switch to linux because the management say so & just telling them "Linux has GIMP", is not going to work... if you have ever dealt with people from the arts industry, they are attached to their platform of choice, and attached to their applications... they tend to use Mac OR Windows, and a handful use both, but only because they can get Adobe AND Corel on both platforms... but if they are in video-editing, and they use Final Cut Pro or some other packages, then Windows isnt even an option.
on top of this (if things weren't bad enough), then you have to deal with the resources of the business... small & medium sized businesses in many cases do not have their own IT department, and so as they have to outsource every time they want IT help, they are likely to want a situation they can manage themselves the vast majority of times without assistance, and this is going to be less easy to deliver with multiple operating systems in place... clearly what they want, is universality... and they cant have this in any other way than choosing the operating system which delivers ALL the applications they want (unless they have the time & motivation required to look at some kind of cloud/thin-client delivered system where the computer & OS isnt important as you get everything through a browser - and for SMEs I think this is something many of them just wont go for, because they simply dont have time - or at least feel they dont have time - to look at it, or because even considering it seems to complex for them).
So, until you can drive ALL app requirements for business from a single platform, you are unlikely to have dominance of that platform. You can do it with Mac, you can do it with PC, but as has been pointed out before, you cant get most proprietary software on Linux.
Part of the problem here is just one of perception, and in this case, the perception is that by developing for Linux, you will lose income, because more people will copy your code... but I am not sure this is actually true, because lets face it, if you want a crack of some software, it is not too hard to find one using a torrent client.
Some people use cracked software because they cant afford it, and hence there is no sale lost, and others do it despite the fact that they can... and so putting software on linux is unlikely to change that much if developers make a few adaptations to their products & sales to allow for it. First of all, they need to allow anyone to use their software, without time limit for free, on the proviso that if you are using it for business to make money, then you agree to pay... this alone would save a lot of time & effort in trying to secure the code against piracy, which fails anyway, and those efforts can go back into real development of the code... Secondly, they need to offer a lot of online additional content which is only available if the customer gives up their right to privacy in some respects, so that the developer can check to see whether you are lying about your ability to pay...
...think about it...
Imagine you can download & use any software in the world, and take as long as you want to experiment & trial it, but you wont get any of those product updates, add-ons, additional content, or customer support, unless you are paying for it... and the only thing you have to do to use this free software, is give up some small part of your privacy so that it does some kind of simple financial check, to see if you are above a minimum threshold in your finances, such that it would be hard to argue you cant afford it... there are plenty of businesses out there who make money hand over fist from commercial software without paying for the software, and this is basically dishonest... but there are others trying to start a business, who cant get a loan, who cant afford the software, so why not let them use it for free if they agree that as soon as they can afford it, they will pay & they are willing to be transparent about that?
with this measure, you not only solve a big part of piracy, but you also allow Linux to be a viable platform for ALL software.
...but that, is still not enough, because there is still another problem with Linux, and that is the user-friendliness of the man-pages, and I have had this argument many times with many people who are technically minded, and they just dont seem to get it... but here I go again anyway... the man pages are NOT user friendly in the slightest, unless you are an IT person already, or at least very technically minded... and before you disagree, hear me out... let me give you some examples: my mum for a start... she is a doctor, she is 71, and the last thing I can guarantee you that she will deal with in a computer in her surgery, which she needs for prescription writing software & so forth, is if she ever had to read something as cryptic as a man page... she doesnt have time, it is a foreign way of thinking to her, and her head is so full of all the things she has to do, that you would have a better chance of pushing a peanut up mount fuji with your nose than getting her to even consider it... and she is just one of MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of professional people from all over the world who will feel the same about this... and they are NOT stupid people like a lot of IT people seem to think, they are highly intelligent... they just havent got the time or inclination or motivation to keep learning more & more stuff just because an IT guy says it is easy, and so long as these man pages stay the way they are, and the Linux OS & applications so frequently require you to understand what is going on with some command line functions, Linux will keep failing as a desktop alternative... what needs to happen, is that those man pages for a start, are turned into nice graphical pages, with clear point by point explanations, hyperlinked to a glossary of terms etc etc... and without this, those professionals would need to change their IT support people just to suit Linux, which is again something they wont do... and particularly in my mums case (which again I am sure is true of a lot of other people) this is partly because she doesnt have time, but also because she remembers a thing called loyalty, and she is not going to sack a company that have done everything right by her so far in provision of IT services to the medical practice, just because someone else suggests that Linux could do the job... forget about it, she wont... for her, this would mean a lengthy discussion about the differences between windows & linux & convincing her that this is going to be ok, then that the applications she needs are going to look the same as what she is used to, etc etc etc...
I know there are plenty of businesses out there who are agile enough to make these changes, but they are NOT the majority, not by a long shot... and so until all these factors change, linux has a major challenge on its hands; one that i dont see it overcoming in the short term, so long as the attitude amongst the linux community seems to be to get defensive about me saying the man pages are not user friendly, instead of understanding that the simple thing here is that what they personally find user friendly, cannot be termed universal, unless the majority of people agree OUTSIDE of the IT profession, and I really doubt that is going to be the case... man pages are not nice & simple the way that a graphics window with text, images, videos, and hyperlinks can be, they are two completely different things
...and it will be a very difficult thing to get the software industry to agree to my first idea, because i think they will see it as such a big risk, that they wont even bother investigating it in the first place.
on top of this (if things weren't bad enough), then you have to deal with the resources of the business... small & medium sized businesses in many cases do not have their own IT department, and so as they have to outsource every time they want IT help, they are likely to want a situation they can manage themselves the vast majority of times without assistance, and this is going to be less easy to deliver with multiple operating systems in place... clearly what they want, is universality... and they cant have this in any other way than choosing the operating system which delivers ALL the applications they want (unless they have the time & motivation required to look at some kind of cloud/thin-client delivered system where the computer & OS isnt important as you get everything through a browser - and for SMEs I think this is something many of them just wont go for, because they simply dont have time - or at least feel they dont have time - to look at it, or because even considering it seems to complex for them).
So, until you can drive ALL app requirements for business from a single platform, you are unlikely to have dominance of that platform. You can do it with Mac, you can do it with PC, but as has been pointed out before, you cant get most proprietary software on Linux.
Part of the problem here is just one of perception, and in this case, the perception is that by developing for Linux, you will lose income, because more people will copy your code... but I am not sure this is actually true, because lets face it, if you want a crack of some software, it is not too hard to find one using a torrent client.
Some people use cracked software because they cant afford it, and hence there is no sale lost, and others do it despite the fact that they can... and so putting software on linux is unlikely to change that much if developers make a few adaptations to their products & sales to allow for it. First of all, they need to allow anyone to use their software, without time limit for free, on the proviso that if you are using it for business to make money, then you agree to pay... this alone would save a lot of time & effort in trying to secure the code against piracy, which fails anyway, and those efforts can go back into real development of the code... Secondly, they need to offer a lot of online additional content which is only available if the customer gives up their right to privacy in some respects, so that the developer can check to see whether you are lying about your ability to pay...
...think about it...
Imagine you can download & use any software in the world, and take as long as you want to experiment & trial it, but you wont get any of those product updates, add-ons, additional content, or customer support, unless you are paying for it... and the only thing you have to do to use this free software, is give up some small part of your privacy so that it does some kind of simple financial check, to see if you are above a minimum threshold in your finances, such that it would be hard to argue you cant afford it... there are plenty of businesses out there who make money hand over fist from commercial software without paying for the software, and this is basically dishonest... but there are others trying to start a business, who cant get a loan, who cant afford the software, so why not let them use it for free if they agree that as soon as they can afford it, they will pay & they are willing to be transparent about that?
with this measure, you not only solve a big part of piracy, but you also allow Linux to be a viable platform for ALL software.
...but that, is still not enough, because there is still another problem with Linux, and that is the user-friendliness of the man-pages, and I have had this argument many times with many people who are technically minded, and they just dont seem to get it... but here I go again anyway... the man pages are NOT user friendly in the slightest, unless you are an IT person already, or at least very technically minded... and before you disagree, hear me out... let me give you some examples: my mum for a start... she is a doctor, she is 71, and the last thing I can guarantee you that she will deal with in a computer in her surgery, which she needs for prescription writing software & so forth, is if she ever had to read something as cryptic as a man page... she doesnt have time, it is a foreign way of thinking to her, and her head is so full of all the things she has to do, that you would have a better chance of pushing a peanut up mount fuji with your nose than getting her to even consider it... and she is just one of MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of professional people from all over the world who will feel the same about this... and they are NOT stupid people like a lot of IT people seem to think, they are highly intelligent... they just havent got the time or inclination or motivation to keep learning more & more stuff just because an IT guy says it is easy, and so long as these man pages stay the way they are, and the Linux OS & applications so frequently require you to understand what is going on with some command line functions, Linux will keep failing as a desktop alternative... what needs to happen, is that those man pages for a start, are turned into nice graphical pages, with clear point by point explanations, hyperlinked to a glossary of terms etc etc... and without this, those professionals would need to change their IT support people just to suit Linux, which is again something they wont do... and particularly in my mums case (which again I am sure is true of a lot of other people) this is partly because she doesnt have time, but also because she remembers a thing called loyalty, and she is not going to sack a company that have done everything right by her so far in provision of IT services to the medical practice, just because someone else suggests that Linux could do the job... forget about it, she wont... for her, this would mean a lengthy discussion about the differences between windows & linux & convincing her that this is going to be ok, then that the applications she needs are going to look the same as what she is used to, etc etc etc...
I know there are plenty of businesses out there who are agile enough to make these changes, but they are NOT the majority, not by a long shot... and so until all these factors change, linux has a major challenge on its hands; one that i dont see it overcoming in the short term, so long as the attitude amongst the linux community seems to be to get defensive about me saying the man pages are not user friendly, instead of understanding that the simple thing here is that what they personally find user friendly, cannot be termed universal, unless the majority of people agree OUTSIDE of the IT profession, and I really doubt that is going to be the case... man pages are not nice & simple the way that a graphics window with text, images, videos, and hyperlinks can be, they are two completely different things
...and it will be a very difficult thing to get the software industry to agree to my first idea, because i think they will see it as such a big risk, that they wont even bother investigating it in the first place.
QuickBooks has a lame database that collapses under its own weight if it has too big a product catalog or too many historical transactions. For that they have QuickBooks Enterprise, which is expensive and uses a real database manager (from Sybase?) that runs on Windows or Linux. Perhaps allowing the Enterprise database to run on Linux is a foot in the door for a Linux client? Or do they think their web-based product is good?
For many Windows users AutoCAD and/or Adobe Creative Suite are required.
For many Windows users AutoCAD and/or Adobe Creative Suite are required.
other proprietary software that is designed specifically to work on Windows only.
Ever consider the idea that if enough people decided they wanted a version that works on Linux and told those companies that they would make a Linux version then. It has happened with some programs.
Also, with proprietary software designed for Windows only, every time Microsoft decide to change the command sets you have to go out and buy new copies of ALL your proprietary software to work with the new version of Windows, but the command sets for Linux and Unix stay the same, only adding new ones for new tech (such as USB etc) and thus the same copy of your software will work for a damn long time.
Ever consider the idea that if enough people decided they wanted a version that works on Linux and told those companies that they would make a Linux version then. It has happened with some programs.
Also, with proprietary software designed for Windows only, every time Microsoft decide to change the command sets you have to go out and buy new copies of ALL your proprietary software to work with the new version of Windows, but the command sets for Linux and Unix stay the same, only adding new ones for new tech (such as USB etc) and thus the same copy of your software will work for a damn long time.
If your proprietary binary commercial application is not linked against your distribution's libraries it will not run. What you say would only be true if the source code was distributed, unlikely with a commercial program.
Tried LinuxOS versions several times. Each time ended up by uninstalling it and returning to WinOS. Reason too much trouble getting it to fit in. Try installing a scanner for example or seeing and sharing files on the LAN. Too much time and effort when there are many other things on one's plate.
I pretty well understand all what you said. Linux has a long way to go to meet desktop users at the very point of their needs but frankly, Linux has come in long way in a short while in a most competitive market. I guess what is needed is for the users to understand that they can still use their windows program via wine and bam - problem solved.
Why bother running Windows applications under a Linux-based emulator? It does solve the problem of running Windows apps on Linux, but what's gained over staying on Windows, thus not creating the problem in the first place? What's gained besides saving the cost of Windows license, something that's invisible to most users since it's included in the price of the system?
- hardware Windows doesn't support;
- use Windows based software that won't work on the latest versions of Windows.
- use Windows based software that won't work on the latest versions of Windows.
I see you're asking a lot of questions, I've one for you. How many do you really want answers to? My bet is none. Consider this though, the visibility of anything to you, or most users for that matter has no bearing on its significance. I can't see freedom myself, but I sure miss it when it is gone!
QUOTE: How many do you really want answers to? My bet is none.
Unlike you, Palmetto doesn't have trollish instincts that crap all over the good points he makes. In fact, Deadly Earnest answered a question for Palmetto -- the core question of his comment -- and Palmetto thanked him for giving a good example.
If you tried communicating with people now and then, rather than denigrating them and picking fights with them, you might change more minds than the roughly zero minds you're likely to change now. You might even be changing a negative number of minds by either convincing people using Linux-based systems to stop just to avoid being associated with people like you, or by getting MS Windows users' hackles up so much that, though they might have originally been open to trying something new, have now decided that all users of open source OSes are probably like you and they don't want anything to do with it.
Unlike you, Palmetto doesn't have trollish instincts that crap all over the good points he makes. In fact, Deadly Earnest answered a question for Palmetto -- the core question of his comment -- and Palmetto thanked him for giving a good example.
If you tried communicating with people now and then, rather than denigrating them and picking fights with them, you might change more minds than the roughly zero minds you're likely to change now. You might even be changing a negative number of minds by either convincing people using Linux-based systems to stop just to avoid being associated with people like you, or by getting MS Windows users' hackles up so much that, though they might have originally been open to trying something new, have now decided that all users of open source OSes are probably like you and they don't want anything to do with it.
I've already pointed out that a less hostile approach would be more persuasive. As you've seen in the post linked below, he's spring-loaded in elitist mode.
http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-393325-3686644
He seems to know his stuff, but serving it under a load of digestive byproducts renders it inedible.
http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-393325-3686644
He seems to know his stuff, but serving it under a load of digestive byproducts renders it inedible.
I think he talks a good game. I'm not sure "knows his stuff" is an entirely accurate assessment, in the general case.
As many as possible. So far, I haven't received any. Why would I not want answers?
The cost of Windows on a new PC is no more an 'invisible tax' than the cost of tires on a new car is a 'hidden Goodyear tax'.
The cost of Windows on a new PC is no more an 'invisible tax' than the cost of tires on a new car is a 'hidden Goodyear tax'.
Linux has been around since 1991. Hardly a short while anymore. Why if instead of writing Linux Linus barreled up scotch everyone would love what he'd made by today! I mean who doesn't love 21 year old aged whiskey?
You can keep all of your free beer, and wine for that matter. I'll have my shots straight up thank you every much.
Competitive? What exactly is Linux competing for? What is needed is for users to understand Microsoft = bad and Linux = good. Bam! Problem solved.
Then again I wasn't aware that Linux had any problems now. Perhaps some misconception issues. But real problems? No, Linux seems OK to me. I'm sure Linux will be just fine 21 years from now too. I wonder how Microsoft will be doing then? Could Microsoft survive with the market share that Linux enjoys today? Well could it? Perhaps Microsoft could but would they have the same monopolistic influence they exert over the market today to prop up their criminal enterprise? Probably not.
FOSS has forever to bring down the beast, one day we will too. Time is on our side. Yes it is. I'm living for the day when this is a reality:
http://i.imgur.com/C7cFN.jpg
You can keep all of your free beer, and wine for that matter. I'll have my shots straight up thank you every much.
Competitive? What exactly is Linux competing for? What is needed is for users to understand Microsoft = bad and Linux = good. Bam! Problem solved.
Then again I wasn't aware that Linux had any problems now. Perhaps some misconception issues. But real problems? No, Linux seems OK to me. I'm sure Linux will be just fine 21 years from now too. I wonder how Microsoft will be doing then? Could Microsoft survive with the market share that Linux enjoys today? Well could it? Perhaps Microsoft could but would they have the same monopolistic influence they exert over the market today to prop up their criminal enterprise? Probably not.
FOSS has forever to bring down the beast, one day we will too. Time is on our side. Yes it is. I'm living for the day when this is a reality:
http://i.imgur.com/C7cFN.jpg
and compatible with it.
"Linux has been around since 1991. Hardly a short while anymore."
Which makes its limited progress look rather depressing, at least as far as the business desktop market goes.
"I mean who doesn't love 21 year old aged whiskey?"
I don't.
"Microsoft = bad and Linux = good. Bam! Problem solved."
The OS that best supports the applications necessary for the work I do is good. The OS that doesn't isn't necessarily bad by default; just because something doesn't fit my needs (or yours) doesn't mean it isn't good for someone else.
Why do you insist on discussing operating systems like they're religions, as if the choice is a 'zero sum' game? Why do you get so worked up over someone else's choice of OS?
Which makes its limited progress look rather depressing, at least as far as the business desktop market goes.
"I mean who doesn't love 21 year old aged whiskey?"
I don't.
"Microsoft = bad and Linux = good. Bam! Problem solved."
The OS that best supports the applications necessary for the work I do is good. The OS that doesn't isn't necessarily bad by default; just because something doesn't fit my needs (or yours) doesn't mean it isn't good for someone else.
Why do you insist on discussing operating systems like they're religions, as if the choice is a 'zero sum' game? Why do you get so worked up over someone else's choice of OS?
Charlie you said in another post you don't run Linux. So you're hardly in any position to gauge it's progress. Furthermore don't blame Linux for the failings of others. 21 year old whiskey is the nectar of the Gods whether you like it or not. But thanks for making my case for me. That trap I laid was a long shot but you certainly bumbled right into it. I thought it'd work ... you've no taste.
I can tell now you've zero appreciation for the finer things in life. Things like exquisitely engineered operating systems. Their manifold subtleties escape your crude comprehension. A shame really, but this again cannot be held against Linux.
You see Charlie Linux would be good for you, if only you were good enough for Linux. But alas, you are not. Why you insist on transferring your own inadequacies onto Linux is a matter I'll discuss no further here other than to simply bring it to light. I'll allow others to draw the obvious conclusions. Size matters.
Finally I hate to burst your bubble but it should be patently obvious to even the dimmest by now how little I care what others do. Unless that is their doings interfere with mine. Then I do become mildly concerned.
Believe it or not even though I do not use Windows myself its market dominance does have a negative impact upon my computing experience from time to time. This does irk me somewhat.
I know the answer is not convincing all Windows users to run Linux though. No, the answer is driving Microsoft out of business. Their greed shall be their downfall someday. Of that I am certain. You can't keep on doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons. So I believe the present circumstances are just anomalous. Balance will be restored.
Linux will have the last laugh someday, the only question that remains is when. For you see Charlie, Linux can afford to play a zero sum gain game forever, while the same is death for businesses that must show profits. That fact gives me a chuckle all the time.
P.S. it isn't anyone's OS choice that ever works me up, it is their ignorance that annoys me. A character flaw of mine, but no one is perfect. Unfortunately it usually means I only get along with one person in 100.
I can tell now you've zero appreciation for the finer things in life. Things like exquisitely engineered operating systems. Their manifold subtleties escape your crude comprehension. A shame really, but this again cannot be held against Linux.
You see Charlie Linux would be good for you, if only you were good enough for Linux. But alas, you are not. Why you insist on transferring your own inadequacies onto Linux is a matter I'll discuss no further here other than to simply bring it to light. I'll allow others to draw the obvious conclusions. Size matters.
Finally I hate to burst your bubble but it should be patently obvious to even the dimmest by now how little I care what others do. Unless that is their doings interfere with mine. Then I do become mildly concerned.
Believe it or not even though I do not use Windows myself its market dominance does have a negative impact upon my computing experience from time to time. This does irk me somewhat.
I know the answer is not convincing all Windows users to run Linux though. No, the answer is driving Microsoft out of business. Their greed shall be their downfall someday. Of that I am certain. You can't keep on doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons. So I believe the present circumstances are just anomalous. Balance will be restored.
Linux will have the last laugh someday, the only question that remains is when. For you see Charlie, Linux can afford to play a zero sum gain game forever, while the same is death for businesses that must show profits. That fact gives me a chuckle all the time.
P.S. it isn't anyone's OS choice that ever works me up, it is their ignorance that annoys me. A character flaw of mine, but no one is perfect. Unfortunately it usually means I only get along with one person in 100.
I don't have to run Linux to gauge it's market penetration, any more than driving a Ford would prevent me from looking at Chevy's sales numbers. Linux desktop installations have been stuck around 5% of the market for over a decade. We both know the method of distributing Linux prevents accurate estimates of the number of installations, but the numbers have at least been consistently inaccurate for too long. I used the word 'discouraging' deliberately. I'd like to see MS have a stronger competitor in this market, but IBM and Red Hat aren't making much progress.
It's not a question of Linux not being good enough for me. I give it a look every couple of years, but it doesn't fit my needs. Neither do a John Deere tractor, a waffle iron, or season tickets to an NBA team. That doesn't mean they aren't good products or that I think less of those who use or enjoy them.
"I know the answer is not convincing all Windows users to run Linux though. No, the answer is driving Microsoft out of business."
How do you propose to do that, as long as they still have paying customers? Sure, Linux can wait forever. In thirty years or so, I'll be beyond caring.
It's not a question of Linux not being good enough for me. I give it a look every couple of years, but it doesn't fit my needs. Neither do a John Deere tractor, a waffle iron, or season tickets to an NBA team. That doesn't mean they aren't good products or that I think less of those who use or enjoy them.
"I know the answer is not convincing all Windows users to run Linux though. No, the answer is driving Microsoft out of business."
How do you propose to do that, as long as they still have paying customers? Sure, Linux can wait forever. In thirty years or so, I'll be beyond caring.
When you said progress I thought you meant the technical ability of the OS itself. Not for a moment did I entertain the notion that you meant installed user base. This misunderstanding on my part highlights just how far apart we are. What matters to you I don't care about, and vice versa I'm sure.
I'd like you to see that Microsoft does have strong competitors, even if market numbers don't make it clear. Microsoft knows it, they've changed their tactics because of it as well. Why I can remember when Windows users chomped at the bit for new releases just to fix bugs that drove them crazy. Today Microsoft has to introduce incompatibilities, or drop vital support in order to goad their users to upgrade. They know full well their customers will no longer stand for poor quality, and will leave them if such fraud is used now to drive sales. Perhaps not progress, as the end results are the same, but a policy shift none the less that demonstrates competition has changed Microsoft.
As far as your looking at Linux goes Linux isn't a plant, you cannot idly look at it and expect it to grow. If you have needs then I suggest you meet those for yourself. Linux is a well appointed vehicle, but it is up to you to give it some impetus if you wish to get anywhere with it. I can only speculate that why you haven't figured this out on your own is due to your failure to understand the DIY nature of Linux. Linux is a kit, some assembly is required, although batteries are included.
Why you would single out land owners who enjoy hearty breakfasts and sporting events I've no idea. I'm sure the reasons are telling though.
I haven't proposed any activities, as I'm certain disruptive events will seal Microsoft's fate for them. Technology is a tightrope, Microsoft is an elephant navigating it, and there is no safety net. It is folly to assume their luck can hold out forever.
The old get old
and the young get stronger
may take a week
and it may take longer
they got the guns
but we got the numbers
gonna win, yeah
we're taking over
come on!
I'd like you to see that Microsoft does have strong competitors, even if market numbers don't make it clear. Microsoft knows it, they've changed their tactics because of it as well. Why I can remember when Windows users chomped at the bit for new releases just to fix bugs that drove them crazy. Today Microsoft has to introduce incompatibilities, or drop vital support in order to goad their users to upgrade. They know full well their customers will no longer stand for poor quality, and will leave them if such fraud is used now to drive sales. Perhaps not progress, as the end results are the same, but a policy shift none the less that demonstrates competition has changed Microsoft.
As far as your looking at Linux goes Linux isn't a plant, you cannot idly look at it and expect it to grow. If you have needs then I suggest you meet those for yourself. Linux is a well appointed vehicle, but it is up to you to give it some impetus if you wish to get anywhere with it. I can only speculate that why you haven't figured this out on your own is due to your failure to understand the DIY nature of Linux. Linux is a kit, some assembly is required, although batteries are included.
Why you would single out land owners who enjoy hearty breakfasts and sporting events I've no idea. I'm sure the reasons are telling though.
I haven't proposed any activities, as I'm certain disruptive events will seal Microsoft's fate for them. Technology is a tightrope, Microsoft is an elephant navigating it, and there is no safety net. It is folly to assume their luck can hold out forever.
The old get old
and the young get stronger
may take a week
and it may take longer
they got the guns
but we got the numbers
gonna win, yeah
we're taking over
come on!
Ah, but Windows is already meeting them to my expectation 
I wish Linux no ill-will but as I've told the Windows 8 advocates, if I don't foresee a need for an OS, personally or professionally, why learn it at the expense of other things I'd rather do with my time? (Nor OS X either.) I have the tools and ability to increase my admittedly limited knowledge of Linux, but no reasons to do so. Professionally I have other skills to improve that directly relate to my current work, and personally there's more to life than computers.
I wish Linux no ill-will but as I've told the Windows 8 advocates, if I don't foresee a need for an OS, personally or professionally, why learn it at the expense of other things I'd rather do with my time? (Nor OS X either.) I have the tools and ability to increase my admittedly limited knowledge of Linux, but no reasons to do so. Professionally I have other skills to improve that directly relate to my current work, and personally there's more to life than computers.
If you want to be disappointed over a lack of significant market share on the desktop, you should direct that to something like FreeBSD instead of any Linux distribution (or all Linux distributions put together, for that matter). FreeBSD provides many of the same benefits, is better at some of them, and doesn't come with some Newspeak-addled deceptive marketing BS about "freedom", suggesting it's "free as in speech" while imposing the kind of restrictions that come with the GPL.
Just sayin' . . .
Just sayin' . . .
and I don't even feel comfortable introducing it as a sidebar. I know even less about Unix than I do Linux, which I've at least loaded several times.
About 10 years ago deployed a very stripped down Linux image on recycled desktops to replace our 300+ green screens. The killer app was access to Groupwise via WebAccess, Fast forward a decade an now they need access to spreadsheets. Our currently deployed image is about 4 years old and only lets the user run Firefox so now we are in the process of rolling out a new image based on SLED 11 with LibreOffice Novell Edition (with vba support). The users like it so much that we are now being asked to replace Windows PCs with our new Linux image at a savings of about $1200 per pc to the business unit.
Mozilla Thunderbird is MUCH better than Evolution is and can do everything that Outlook can do - especially when coupled to a decent groupware server such as Citadel ( http://www.citadel.org/ ) or Zimbra (http://www.zimbra.com/ ). Thunderbird can do email, enterprise address books ( http://www.gargan.org/en/Mozilla_Extensions/SyncKol ) and calendaring ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/lightning/ ) like Outlook can and is quite polished enough for enterprise use.
For shared cashbooks and other functionality - there are plenty or excellent web based systems such as OpenERP ( http://www.openerp.com/ ) or NolaPro ( http://www.nolapro.com/ ). For tying everything together - look at Zentyal ( http://www.zentyal.com/ ) - now an Ubuntu partner.
Linux is plenty good enough for the Business - right now!
For shared cashbooks and other functionality - there are plenty or excellent web based systems such as OpenERP ( http://www.openerp.com/ ) or NolaPro ( http://www.nolapro.com/ ). For tying everything together - look at Zentyal ( http://www.zentyal.com/ ) - now an Ubuntu partner.
Linux is plenty good enough for the Business - right now!
I agree 150% with the problems you point to. I think a faster solution is to get outlook and quick books and other business killer apps working under WINE. then you can have a Linux desktop next to a win desktop running the same apps and not incur additional license costs for those large companies with enterprise licenses.
linux needs a version of microsoft office.....libreoffice sucks!!
Libre Office Writer does a few things NO Microsoft Office version can do - and the first one is to safely open and close older versions of Word documents. Libre Office meets all the set industry standards regarding document processing, something MSO does NOT do.
Oh, and which version of MSO are you talking about - MSO Starter, Student, Home, Business, Standard, Professional, or Professional Plus - they all have different application mixes. The only applications in all of them are MS Word and MS Excel, while most also include PowerPoint and OneNote. See the Comparison section of the wiki article on MSO 2010:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2010
The Calc program in Libre Office is not as strong as Excel, I'll give you that, but it does meet classic spreadsheet capabilities as it's not intended to do minor database type work that some people use Excel for.
The main thing any office product is used for is the word processor, and LO Writer leaves MS Word for dead for writing general documents and books. It's a damn sight easier to use than MS Word, and doesn't have the crappy ribbon.
Oh, and which version of MSO are you talking about - MSO Starter, Student, Home, Business, Standard, Professional, or Professional Plus - they all have different application mixes. The only applications in all of them are MS Word and MS Excel, while most also include PowerPoint and OneNote. See the Comparison section of the wiki article on MSO 2010:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2010
The Calc program in Libre Office is not as strong as Excel, I'll give you that, but it does meet classic spreadsheet capabilities as it's not intended to do minor database type work that some people use Excel for.
The main thing any office product is used for is the word processor, and LO Writer leaves MS Word for dead for writing general documents and books. It's a damn sight easier to use than MS Word, and doesn't have the crappy ribbon.
I, almost to exclusion, use linux. However, the most outstanding waste of time, effort, and production, for me, is in dealing with Windows generated pictures and videos. And since most email seems to call for a reply, or forwarding to Wx machines, things can become trickier. Copyrights !! BAH!
b-
b-
supportive of doing things by International and industry standards, sadly, I'm not in charge of any of the Microsoft technical decisions to have them go back to those standards. The problem you mention is the same one people get when they make things in a way that ignores the relevant standards.
edit to fix typo in title
edit to fix typo in title
QUOTE: as a writing, I'm all for copyrights
1. I take it you mean "as a writer".
2. As a writer (technical articles, instructional texts, documentation, fiction, political philosophy and ethical theory essays, RPG products, and software), I'm definitely not "all for copyrights". They cause much more harm than good.
Being a writer doesn't make one "all for copyrights". Being unwilling to notice that copyright is going to become irrelevant before much longer, and that business models strictly dependent on copyright are pretty much doomed, probably does make one "all for copyrights", though.
1. I take it you mean "as a writer".
2. As a writer (technical articles, instructional texts, documentation, fiction, political philosophy and ethical theory essays, RPG products, and software), I'm definitely not "all for copyrights". They cause much more harm than good.
Being a writer doesn't make one "all for copyrights". Being unwilling to notice that copyright is going to become irrelevant before much longer, and that business models strictly dependent on copyright are pretty much doomed, probably does make one "all for copyrights", though.
type it, thanks for noticing it - fixed now.
However, there are copyrights and there are US software litigation copyrights - and never the twain shall meet.
Copyright, as initially set out under the Berne convention is fairly standard and easy to use and protects people's IP rights of written words without trying to restrict the use of words or concepts. In short, copyright protects the EXACT set of words you write, if someone else says the same thing with a totally different set of words, then it's a different item and not yours. They do also protect a few unique aspects of what you write, such as names of people and places that aren't common and new concepts you introduce. An example of a protected name is Hogwarts - new and unique and protected, but names like Harry Potter are only protected if placed in the same environment as Rowling's series as her protection relates to a wizard of that name in that set up, thus I could write an action story with no magic or reference to her set up around a character called Harry Potter and still be legal.
For some strange reason the US law courts are extending the copyright laws well beyond what they were intended for with the way they're making decisions on some of the software code that's around. For some things there is only a few very obvious algorithms and the US lawmakers and judges are allowing people to copyright and patent them and laws of nature. There is a very finite way you can write an algorithm for two plus two equals four, yet the US systems allows someone do write the code to do that and then claim copyright and then litigate against anyone else who writes code to do that.
The copyright laws were originally intended to allow the creator the right to make money for themselves and their children off their ideas, thus the period of fifty years after their death as they figured their kids are adults and making their own life or dead by then. They were never intended to provide corporations with long term income, but that hasn't stopped the US lawmakers from changing the laws to help the companies out by making it 75 then 100 years after death.
It's the warping of the system to favour companies that's where and why the system is breaking down. And that's what should be dealt with and corrected, not the copyright concept itself.
However, there are copyrights and there are US software litigation copyrights - and never the twain shall meet.
Copyright, as initially set out under the Berne convention is fairly standard and easy to use and protects people's IP rights of written words without trying to restrict the use of words or concepts. In short, copyright protects the EXACT set of words you write, if someone else says the same thing with a totally different set of words, then it's a different item and not yours. They do also protect a few unique aspects of what you write, such as names of people and places that aren't common and new concepts you introduce. An example of a protected name is Hogwarts - new and unique and protected, but names like Harry Potter are only protected if placed in the same environment as Rowling's series as her protection relates to a wizard of that name in that set up, thus I could write an action story with no magic or reference to her set up around a character called Harry Potter and still be legal.
For some strange reason the US law courts are extending the copyright laws well beyond what they were intended for with the way they're making decisions on some of the software code that's around. For some things there is only a few very obvious algorithms and the US lawmakers and judges are allowing people to copyright and patent them and laws of nature. There is a very finite way you can write an algorithm for two plus two equals four, yet the US systems allows someone do write the code to do that and then claim copyright and then litigate against anyone else who writes code to do that.
The copyright laws were originally intended to allow the creator the right to make money for themselves and their children off their ideas, thus the period of fifty years after their death as they figured their kids are adults and making their own life or dead by then. They were never intended to provide corporations with long term income, but that hasn't stopped the US lawmakers from changing the laws to help the companies out by making it 75 then 100 years after death.
It's the warping of the system to favour companies that's where and why the system is breaking down. And that's what should be dealt with and corrected, not the copyright concept itself.
For the first time in a month or so, I forgot to save a copy of what I was writing before trying to post it when it was something long, and for the first time in a month or so TechRepublic ate the damned thing. My comment is gone. I'll probably come back to this and respond in full later -- if I remember to do so.
Short version: Trying to clear copyrights when building on the work of others is often nigh-impossible, as explained in an article to which I tried to link, which fell in my lap earlier today. It's literally illegal in the UK to browse the web right now, and parliament won't do anything about it until a case in courts right now is finally decided, as explained in another article to which I tried to link, which also fell in my lap earlier today. Stuff like this falls in my lap all the time. I'm quite tuned in to the atrocities of the copyright system, and I know a heck of a lot about it for someone who isn't a copyright lawyer, not just in the realm of software but in pretty much all areas. The very basic assumptions that underlie our modern (as of the vicinity of 1900) copyright system fundamentally encourage the kind of evolution you refer to as "warping" the system. The "warp" to which you refer is the warp and weft of the system, and not a twisting of it into some antithetical form; it is its natural face, following its conclusions to their logical ends.
It's completely screwed, and it hurts genuine content creators most of all.
Short version: Trying to clear copyrights when building on the work of others is often nigh-impossible, as explained in an article to which I tried to link, which fell in my lap earlier today. It's literally illegal in the UK to browse the web right now, and parliament won't do anything about it until a case in courts right now is finally decided, as explained in another article to which I tried to link, which also fell in my lap earlier today. Stuff like this falls in my lap all the time. I'm quite tuned in to the atrocities of the copyright system, and I know a heck of a lot about it for someone who isn't a copyright lawyer, not just in the realm of software but in pretty much all areas. The very basic assumptions that underlie our modern (as of the vicinity of 1900) copyright system fundamentally encourage the kind of evolution you refer to as "warping" the system. The "warp" to which you refer is the warp and weft of the system, and not a twisting of it into some antithetical form; it is its natural face, following its conclusions to their logical ends.
It's completely screwed, and it hurts genuine content creators most of all.
what should be a copyright and what should be a patent. It's the misunderstanding and misuse of the system that's causing the problems. Software code should be handled under the patents systems and not the copyright. For some odd reason someone in the lawmaking area a few decades ago felt computer software code should be copyright because it's words, but being words is NOT a criteria for copyright as copyright is also applied to paintings and designs.
In short, copyright is supposed to be applied to intellectual property of a completed item, not a part or component of another item; each variation created by change should be regarded as a totally different item - such as books in a series.
Computer algorithms and code should not be covered under copyright, they should be covered under patents, like any other engineering item. That system is set up for the easy expansion and incorporation of improvements and changes to the design by others.
However, the misuse over the last twenty or thirty years have created a whole lot of issues that are now threatening whole industries. Especially the way the laws in the US are at the moment.
In short, copyright is supposed to be applied to intellectual property of a completed item, not a part or component of another item; each variation created by change should be regarded as a totally different item - such as books in a series.
Computer algorithms and code should not be covered under copyright, they should be covered under patents, like any other engineering item. That system is set up for the easy expansion and incorporation of improvements and changes to the design by others.
However, the misuse over the last twenty or thirty years have created a whole lot of issues that are now threatening whole industries. Especially the way the laws in the US are at the moment.
QUOTE: It's the misunderstanding and misuse of the system that's causing the problems.
The system is designed as if intended to create that behavior in the first place. That makes it pretty difficult to call that "misuse". The system of which you speak is a system for using the law, backed by threat of violence, to create conditions of artificial scarcity so that some people can profit at others' expense as a matter of a protection racket rather than voluntary exchange. What you call "misuse" is just what happens when some people specialize in business models that make use of that system.
QUOTE: Software code should be handled under the patents systems and not the copyright.
That's *insane*. Patents are a bigger problem for software than copyrights -- much bigger.
QUOTE: Computer algorithms and code should not be covered under copyright, they should be covered under patents, like any other engineering item.
Algorithms are not covered under copyright, and definitely should not be covered under patents any more than the chemical properties of freon should be covered under patents, or any more than a mathematical expression describing the relationship between gravitational acceleration and the resistance of atmospheric friction should be covered under patents -- otherwise, every time you made a more aerodynamic car you'd have to pay someone licensing fees for the relevant patents, and every time you fell down you'd have to pay someone licensing fees for the relevant patents too (because that atmospheric friction helped slow your acceleration toward the ground, thus softening your landing a little bit).
QUOTE: However, the misuse over the last twenty or thirty years have created a whole lot of issues that are now threatening whole industries.
Copyright has been "misused" much longer than that, such as in the case of the Statute of Anne, which restricted the use of printing equipment to a selection of publishers who, in return, served as a censorship cartel for the Crown in England. That's all copyright enforcement really is, after all: censorship.
The system is designed as if intended to create that behavior in the first place. That makes it pretty difficult to call that "misuse". The system of which you speak is a system for using the law, backed by threat of violence, to create conditions of artificial scarcity so that some people can profit at others' expense as a matter of a protection racket rather than voluntary exchange. What you call "misuse" is just what happens when some people specialize in business models that make use of that system.
QUOTE: Software code should be handled under the patents systems and not the copyright.
That's *insane*. Patents are a bigger problem for software than copyrights -- much bigger.
QUOTE: Computer algorithms and code should not be covered under copyright, they should be covered under patents, like any other engineering item.
Algorithms are not covered under copyright, and definitely should not be covered under patents any more than the chemical properties of freon should be covered under patents, or any more than a mathematical expression describing the relationship between gravitational acceleration and the resistance of atmospheric friction should be covered under patents -- otherwise, every time you made a more aerodynamic car you'd have to pay someone licensing fees for the relevant patents, and every time you fell down you'd have to pay someone licensing fees for the relevant patents too (because that atmospheric friction helped slow your acceleration toward the ground, thus softening your landing a little bit).
QUOTE: However, the misuse over the last twenty or thirty years have created a whole lot of issues that are now threatening whole industries.
Copyright has been "misused" much longer than that, such as in the case of the Statute of Anne, which restricted the use of printing equipment to a selection of publishers who, in return, served as a censorship cartel for the Crown in England. That's all copyright enforcement really is, after all: censorship.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
