"if you want Linux to continue to stagnate on the desktop and business levels, go ahead and fight for your distributions right to ONLY use proprietary software."
Did you mean OpenSource instead of proprietary there? Nobody's fighting for ONLY proprietary software. They're fighting for only open source software right?
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
The sentence only makes any sense to me if 'proprietary' is replaced by 'open source'.
Game devs are finally looking at Linux.
These open source zealots need to go hide in a cave and never be seen, they could ruin a good thing.
These open source zealots need to go hide in a cave and never be seen, they could ruin a good thing.
When I tried out Ubuntu back in 2008 it had some proprietary software and stuff you could buy as well as all the free stuff. For many years it's been possible to buy some proprietary software to run on Linux, like Cedega and Crossover, it's just Ubuntu made it available through their main repository control centre. Which made it easier to find and install, and also gives you a better feeling that it'll work properly or they wouldn't have it there.
There have been proprietry packages available in Linux distros for ages.
As long as they are optional and you don't lose expected functionality if you choose not to take up that option, no problem.
I've as much time for these burgers telling me what I can and can''t do with my machine as I have with Mr Shuttleworth doing so.
No having can't from them or must from anyone else. Linux is about options, if there's only one, it's not linux.
As long as they are optional and you don't lose expected functionality if you choose not to take up that option, no problem.
I've as much time for these burgers telling me what I can and can''t do with my machine as I have with Mr Shuttleworth doing so.
No having can't from them or must from anyone else. Linux is about options, if there's only one, it's not linux.
Shocking! People would like to be paid for their work. Shocking again! There are enough Linux users that commercial software is looking at us as a revenue stream not a bunch of geeky flakes. This ladies and gentlemen is acceptance at being a main stream player in computers.
Do you know what is next???? PhotoShop for Linux, Quiken for Linux, and... dare I say it... Word for Linux.
Do you know what is next???? PhotoShop for Linux, Quiken for Linux, and... dare I say it... Word for Linux.
Microsoft would take several years of living off it's savings before it would be pushed kicking and screaming to port Word to The Cancer OS (tm). Maybe IE so *nix users can get full functionality from there hosted services like Office 365 but then only if the IE/Windows bundling didn't maintain IE's market share.
Quick is more likely a candidate if enough accounts start asking Intuit for it though Intuit has it's own customer hostile issues. (weee what fun the last version update was) Intuit is more likely to push people to use the hosted service rather than local install version too though so half dozen of one, six the other..
Adobe could make a good go of Photoshop provided they do not repeat there last attempt where they price themselves out of the market then claimed no one would pay for software (no, people just wouldn't pay several hundred dollars when the product did not justify the price when compared to other options.)
Steam is very interesting given the number of "but it won't run my latest game title" complaints and gamers being a driving force in the market. I hope it drives nVidia to at least deliver an equivalent driver (what they give now is good but it's still missing functionality provided by the Windows driver version). The real issue is replacing DirectX though. I truly hope Steam can motivate developers to consolidate on a full-service OpenX stack (OpenGL + audio + inputs). Either way, Steam will be going on to my Debian desktop unless they limit it to a specific child distribution.
Quick is more likely a candidate if enough accounts start asking Intuit for it though Intuit has it's own customer hostile issues. (weee what fun the last version update was) Intuit is more likely to push people to use the hosted service rather than local install version too though so half dozen of one, six the other..
Adobe could make a good go of Photoshop provided they do not repeat there last attempt where they price themselves out of the market then claimed no one would pay for software (no, people just wouldn't pay several hundred dollars when the product did not justify the price when compared to other options.)
Steam is very interesting given the number of "but it won't run my latest game title" complaints and gamers being a driving force in the market. I hope it drives nVidia to at least deliver an equivalent driver (what they give now is good but it's still missing functionality provided by the Windows driver version). The real issue is replacing DirectX though. I truly hope Steam can motivate developers to consolidate on a full-service OpenX stack (OpenGL + audio + inputs). Either way, Steam will be going on to my Debian desktop unless they limit it to a specific child distribution.
nVidia has already pulled their **** together
steamforlinux . com/?q=en/node/127
And many popular engines are being ported or already are, such as Source and Unity
steamforlinux . com/?q=en/node/127
And many popular engines are being ported or already are, such as Source and Unity
That would be fantastic news if it's happened. Last I read the *nix driver build still lacked functionality present in the win driver build. What I got with the last update is very good but I've not seen another update since (I'm relying on the repository version though).
Personally, I'm fine with it being a closed binary blob provided nVidia can find bugs and deliver updates as fast as would be possible if opened to a community hoard. I just want functionally equality and well documented interfaces so third party devs can actually use the gpu functions to there fullest.
I still dream of the day when I don't have to kill all my running tasks just to reboot for a few hours of gaming in the evening.
Personally, I'm fine with it being a closed binary blob provided nVidia can find bugs and deliver updates as fast as would be possible if opened to a community hoard. I just want functionally equality and well documented interfaces so third party devs can actually use the gpu functions to there fullest.
I still dream of the day when I don't have to kill all my running tasks just to reboot for a few hours of gaming in the evening.
I'm waiting for it on the Windows side also. I'd be tickled to find out some of my CTDs and lockups are due to video driver issues. I'm pushing a freaking 560 GPU so I can't say the hardware isn't up to the task (my CPU.. that's another matter given how heavy Skyrim is on it).
For me, crashes that are hardware related are rare, usually the crash is from a bug in the game, usually during a save.
But other issues like, if anything modifies breezehome, then hearthfire causes your game to crash when you try to enter breezehome. Or if you try to save during the mission in that tower where you sent back in time after drinking that potion, the one to fix everyones dream problems. If you save after drinking the potion, your game will crash, but even the end of mission auto save will cause it, so you have to disable all auto saving as well.
My steam page if your interested.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/sinisterslay/screenshots/
I'm currently working through Super Skyrim Bros.
But other issues like, if anything modifies breezehome, then hearthfire causes your game to crash when you try to enter breezehome. Or if you try to save during the mission in that tower where you sent back in time after drinking that potion, the one to fix everyones dream problems. If you save after drinking the potion, your game will crash, but even the end of mission auto save will cause it, so you have to disable all auto saving as well.
My steam page if your interested.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/sinisterslay/screenshots/
I'm currently working through Super Skyrim Bros.
ha.. that's even better than the hundred foot tall My Little Pony you can ride around on
My own game is pretty much built around Better Vampires by Brehanin.. but Wars in Skyrim, Deadly Dragons, Immersive Patrols also fill it out. For me, the game is unplayable without at least those mods inplace (sadly, WIS died dramatically a while back so don't delete your copy if you have it)
My own game is pretty much built around Better Vampires by Brehanin.. but Wars in Skyrim, Deadly Dragons, Immersive Patrols also fill it out. For me, the game is unplayable without at least those mods inplace (sadly, WIS died dramatically a while back so don't delete your copy if you have it)
is steam for linux out of beta now? I thought the article even mentioned that the beta program was still on with the maximum 1000 "testers" leaving the rest of us to wait for the official release. Hm.. seems I have some reading to do this evening.
hm.. search field shows Skyrim as compatible with Linux though Bronze ranked.
"However, Bronze applications generally have enough bugs that we recommend that our customers use them with caution."
I love the game.. Christmas I'll be coming up on a year and still going strong. But wow is that a bit of an understatement. Two lockups last night in two hours of gaming.. but no CTDs so I guess that's something. Bless Bethesda for doing such a detailed open world.. just wish they'd designed the engine and mod interface to both fail gracefully.
"However, Bronze applications generally have enough bugs that we recommend that our customers use them with caution."
I love the game.. Christmas I'll be coming up on a year and still going strong. But wow is that a bit of an understatement. Two lockups last night in two hours of gaming.. but no CTDs so I guess that's something. Bless Bethesda for doing such a detailed open world.. just wish they'd designed the engine and mod interface to both fail gracefully.
It seems all their games have frequent lockup issues and poorly optimized code. Probably because they mostly just do console ports.
I know in Oblivion eventually people had modded the core of the engine to fix problems, I imagine eventually the same will happen to Skyrim.
I know in Oblivion eventually people had modded the core of the engine to fix problems, I imagine eventually the same will happen to Skyrim.
Yup, unofficial patches out for Skyrim, Dawngard DLC and Hearthfire DLC but I'm not sure they address anything more than the ESP/EMP database files. Here is hoping TES6 ships with better crash management.
I have been applying them as I find bugs, instead of the whole sale unofficial patch mods. Things like the gourmet fix.
I'd laugh if disabling an unofficial patch fixed the windmill outside whiterun; blades, mast and grinding stone are in the right place across from the meadery, roof and walls are shifted over closer to the city wall and floating about twenty feet up. That's probably related to the landscape patch if it's not a core engine issue though.
I've also learned to be very stingy with mods, avoid things I don't really need and update them one at a time so you can see which one causes issues.
Finally did my first hello-world mod with CK though so that's been a lot of fun the last while. Modified the Predator Vision mod, modified Vampire Lord form a little. Now if I could just figure out how to double or triple the experience per point for werewolf/vampirelord perk trees because you can max both those out in a single day easy at default.
I really should set up a page for my skyrim notes, mod list and personal tweaks. The thing I love about the game and it's plugin system; everybody's game can be a totally different experience.
I've also learned to be very stingy with mods, avoid things I don't really need and update them one at a time so you can see which one causes issues.
Finally did my first hello-world mod with CK though so that's been a lot of fun the last while. Modified the Predator Vision mod, modified Vampire Lord form a little. Now if I could just figure out how to double or triple the experience per point for werewolf/vampirelord perk trees because you can max both those out in a single day easy at default.
I really should set up a page for my skyrim notes, mod list and personal tweaks. The thing I love about the game and it's plugin system; everybody's game can be a totally different experience.
M$ seems to be pushing ahead with Office 365 and you already have Google Doc. While the current iterations isn't that exciting as long as they stick with open standards it will run fine with Firefox or the browser of you choice and the platform of your choice.
Without getting into semantics of what % of the desktop market Linux owns the bottom line is M$ makes the most profit from its Office product and would not turn away a fractional percent of new revenue if they could win on a new platform.
Without getting into semantics of what % of the desktop market Linux owns the bottom line is M$ makes the most profit from its Office product and would not turn away a fractional percent of new revenue if they could win on a new platform.
I was thinking local installs versus the hosted application but yeah, Office 365 behaving well with non-IE standards would open it up to other platforms.
Office is indeed on of the biggest cash cows they have but I think Balmer and the old boys club would have to be ousted before they'd get enough young blood to recognize the potential customer base on general purpose Linux based distributions. Right now they have a "cancer os" hostile management and strong motivation to keep Office primarily tied to the rest of the solutions they modern business has become addicted to. (and it is very much an addiction given the "withdrawl" of legacy documents, exchange data and user recognition; speaking as someone who keeps a "can my users switch to this" test rig updated.)
Office is indeed on of the biggest cash cows they have but I think Balmer and the old boys club would have to be ousted before they'd get enough young blood to recognize the potential customer base on general purpose Linux based distributions. Right now they have a "cancer os" hostile management and strong motivation to keep Office primarily tied to the rest of the solutions they modern business has become addicted to. (and it is very much an addiction given the "withdrawl" of legacy documents, exchange data and user recognition; speaking as someone who keeps a "can my users switch to this" test rig updated.)
Microsoft is clearly moving toward having more native apps be served by HTML5 in Windows 8, and they're moving to have it be fairly transparent to the end user that this is what is happening. You're in a web-app, just like Chrome - but you're seeing it the same way a native app would appear.
Microsoft realizes that SaaS built on HTML 5 micropurchases is an exponentially bigger revenue source than the "buy once, use until you upgrade" legacy model of their traditional desktop OS - and Windows 8 is an interim hybrid solution designed to deliver *both* experiences in one platform as the transition takes place. It seems like no one else gets that, and you would think that every tech blogger worth his or her salt would have realized this after just spending a short time with Windows 8. Instead, they're all too distracted comparing it to Android and iOS and picking apart how it isn't as good as a tablet OS as those platforms. That isn't the play Microsoft is running here. Windows 8 is competing with ChromeOS (and has a better plan for early adoption - Google would do well to integrate ChromeOS and Android into a single OS that supports mobile apps and native desktop apps to compete with Win 8).
Ubuntu is well placed strategically to be a player in this platform too, if they can get over their traditional ideological reluctance to make proprietary, closed-source pure distros their *default* install on end-user machines.
Microsoft realizes that SaaS built on HTML 5 micropurchases is an exponentially bigger revenue source than the "buy once, use until you upgrade" legacy model of their traditional desktop OS - and Windows 8 is an interim hybrid solution designed to deliver *both* experiences in one platform as the transition takes place. It seems like no one else gets that, and you would think that every tech blogger worth his or her salt would have realized this after just spending a short time with Windows 8. Instead, they're all too distracted comparing it to Android and iOS and picking apart how it isn't as good as a tablet OS as those platforms. That isn't the play Microsoft is running here. Windows 8 is competing with ChromeOS (and has a better plan for early adoption - Google would do well to integrate ChromeOS and Android into a single OS that supports mobile apps and native desktop apps to compete with Win 8).
Ubuntu is well placed strategically to be a player in this platform too, if they can get over their traditional ideological reluctance to make proprietary, closed-source pure distros their *default* install on end-user machines.
Personally I'm more in the wait and see camp for Windows 8. On tablets or low angle touch screens it could be very interesting. Granted, like most businesses just now getting Win7 in place, win8 will be the version skipped outside of what personal devices users try to bring in after Christmas.
For ChromeOS and Android, why even integrate them? What does ChromeOS provide that can't be provided under Android. 4.2 bring multiple user profiles so ChromeOS won't even have that. More likely, it'll simply be Chrome browser on top of Android OS. Heck Google has even finally started addressing the mass of vendor's child distributions based on Android.
Ubuntu is also a wait and see with the more recent focus on the proprietary repository but yeah, a default install with the expected proprietary titles may do well with consumers depending on price point (and there would have to be a retail cost to cover the proprietary licenses at least).
For ChromeOS and Android, why even integrate them? What does ChromeOS provide that can't be provided under Android. 4.2 bring multiple user profiles so ChromeOS won't even have that. More likely, it'll simply be Chrome browser on top of Android OS. Heck Google has even finally started addressing the mass of vendor's child distributions based on Android.
Ubuntu is also a wait and see with the more recent focus on the proprietary repository but yeah, a default install with the expected proprietary titles may do well with consumers depending on price point (and there would have to be a retail cost to cover the proprietary licenses at least).
I didn't see the nesting of this thread and misunderstood your point. You're right. I was evidently the guy standing at the corner having a heated debate with a traffic sign, this time. 
Have you tried recently?
I know in most other windows programs, you just run the setup.exe and it installs normally, you can't really tell the difference from a native program.
I know in most other windows programs, you just run the setup.exe and it installs normally, you can't really tell the difference from a native program.
It's supposed to run on OSX 10.6. I would think it would work in one or more of the BSDs. But when it comes to BSD, I'm just a noob, so what do I know?
It runs on OSX. It doesn't seem like it would be much work to get it running on BSD or *nix, but I'm neither a Linux user or a developer.
You have the BSD back end but you'll need the stuff in Apple's added layers and I'm not sure one can get that onto a BSD yet. Apple is opening the source of a lot of it's stuff but not sure about Carbon or whatever the new window dressing and makeup is called.
It really does. Check the autodesk website; you can download a free trial of the whole AutoCAD for Mac 2013.
On another note, have any of you checked the AWS (AutoCAD WS) extension for Chrome? It is not full AutoCAD but it lets you do lots of stuff right off the browser. Maybe in the future the underlying OS will be irrelevant.
Just a thought...
Thx
On another note, have any of you checked the AWS (AutoCAD WS) extension for Chrome? It is not full AutoCAD but it lets you do lots of stuff right off the browser. Maybe in the future the underlying OS will be irrelevant.
Just a thought...
Thx
Unfortunately the business world seems to have settled on .doc/.docx and other MS Office formats as the de facto standard. Libre Office can read them but there are problems. For Libre Office to be a truly adequate solution they would have to resolve the remaining issues in writing/modifying MS Office formats. As a college student I am required to turn in my papers as MS Word documents and I can't afford to have formatting issues show up because I used a program which interprets formatting differently than MS Office.
versions of MS Word as well as they aren't uniform across them either.
However, on the international stage (ie most of what's outside the USA) more and more business and government is moving to and requiring the use of the Open Document standards of .odt etc. It's because of the need for this on the International stage that the US gov't depts pressured MS into handling .odt etc some years back.
I did some tertiary studies a few years ago and one of the professors initially insisted that all assignments be handed in with certain format specs and stated we had to use MS Word 2007 to prepare them. I handed him a written request to supply said software at his expense. I got called into the faculty dean's office the next week and asked to explain. After I did the requirements for specified software and version specific format got dropped as they didn't like either having to supply the software out of their budget or having to refund the fees of several students due to them introducing special requirements for the course after it started. Sometimes the little guy does win.
However, on the international stage (ie most of what's outside the USA) more and more business and government is moving to and requiring the use of the Open Document standards of .odt etc. It's because of the need for this on the International stage that the US gov't depts pressured MS into handling .odt etc some years back.
I did some tertiary studies a few years ago and one of the professors initially insisted that all assignments be handed in with certain format specs and stated we had to use MS Word 2007 to prepare them. I handed him a written request to supply said software at his expense. I got called into the faculty dean's office the next week and asked to explain. After I did the requirements for specified software and version specific format got dropped as they didn't like either having to supply the software out of their budget or having to refund the fees of several students due to them introducing special requirements for the course after it started. Sometimes the little guy does win.
Ran into a problem with Office licensing on hosted servers. I won't go into details, but Microsoft's stand is that if any portion of Office code resides on a server and users potentially have access to that code - they have to pay a user license, even if the software is only there to export a flat file into an Office format that will be copied to a share somewhere that officially licensed Office users will access. Make sense? If even a single Office .dll is there, and you've got 100 users hitting that machine, each one requires a license. Trust me, we danced with Microsoft for weeks trying to find a solution to this.
We considered Libre Office and OpenOffice - and neither was an acceptable solution. They just don't work right in a Microsoft oriented corporate environment. They simply don't scale beyond small to *medium* business if you plan on having any interaction with the rest of the corporate world.
Ultimately, the licensing cost was prohibitive for the benefit gained and there was no FOSS or 3rd party alternative, so we had to drop the service being rendered for the time being. If *any* FOSS Office solution would have fixed my problem, I would have adopted it in a heartbeat.
We considered Libre Office and OpenOffice - and neither was an acceptable solution. They just don't work right in a Microsoft oriented corporate environment. They simply don't scale beyond small to *medium* business if you plan on having any interaction with the rest of the corporate world.
Ultimately, the licensing cost was prohibitive for the benefit gained and there was no FOSS or 3rd party alternative, so we had to drop the service being rendered for the time being. If *any* FOSS Office solution would have fixed my problem, I would have adopted it in a heartbeat.
"They just don't work right in a Microsoft oriented corporate environment."
This shows there are outside influences at play beyond the capabilities of the software itself.
I've seen this played out in other organisations - In one two Division Heads claimed Open Office (this was before Libre Office) just couldn't do what they wanted. Detailed investigation showed it could do exactly what they wanted - and they gave a long list. But it meant they had to recreate a few macros they used daily because the current macros used proprietary MS code that didn't work in OO - and they didn't want to spend time doing them. It took another member of staff a whole hour and a half to recreate the fifteen macros involved. The two heads just didn't want to do the work.
I have seen the same thing in another company and they had good reason to keep MS Office 97 on the system as the eighty-seven macros would NOT work in Office 2007. Since that one unit head was the only one using them and the others only needed basic word processing and spreadsheets the rest of the office switched over to OO and that guy stayed with MSO 97 but we all wondered how long we could keep his system going with XP and MSO 97 in light of hardware changes over the years that we can't get drivers for.
This shows there are outside influences at play beyond the capabilities of the software itself.
I've seen this played out in other organisations - In one two Division Heads claimed Open Office (this was before Libre Office) just couldn't do what they wanted. Detailed investigation showed it could do exactly what they wanted - and they gave a long list. But it meant they had to recreate a few macros they used daily because the current macros used proprietary MS code that didn't work in OO - and they didn't want to spend time doing them. It took another member of staff a whole hour and a half to recreate the fifteen macros involved. The two heads just didn't want to do the work.
I have seen the same thing in another company and they had good reason to keep MS Office 97 on the system as the eighty-seven macros would NOT work in Office 2007. Since that one unit head was the only one using them and the others only needed basic word processing and spreadsheets the rest of the office switched over to OO and that guy stayed with MSO 97 but we all wondered how long we could keep his system going with XP and MSO 97 in light of hardware changes over the years that we can't get drivers for.
Is formatting errors in opening Office documents in non-Office formats. This is code level translation problems - it comes from trying to reverse engineer a closed format into an open source application, and I don't see any fix for it.
We don't experience these issues going from one version of Office to another. We see it when we try to go from any version of Office to a non-Office alternative.
I mean, there were some bumps going to Office 2010 with .___x files, and that delayed adoption for us... but eventually, it just starts to occur in an organic manner with Office and now the majority of Office users are on 2010 and we don't need to worry about backwards compatibility as much. That doesn't sort itself out the same way with the FOSS alternatives - for whatever reason.
We don't experience these issues going from one version of Office to another. We see it when we try to go from any version of Office to a non-Office alternative.
I mean, there were some bumps going to Office 2010 with .___x files, and that delayed adoption for us... but eventually, it just starts to occur in an organic manner with Office and now the majority of Office users are on 2010 and we don't need to worry about backwards compatibility as much. That doesn't sort itself out the same way with the FOSS alternatives - for whatever reason.
issues with Microsoft Word 2003 NOT properly opening older Word documents, in most cases it not only screwed up the format it corrupted the files too - thank heavens for back up procedures. On trial and error investigation I found it could handle Word 95 and Word 97 and Word 2000 files, but nothing prior to that. Documents saved in Word 6, Word 2a, and earlier were destroyed by Word 2003. Later, a friend found that his Word 2007 did the same to his Word 95 files.
At the time I had a huge number of Word documents that I was legally required to keep in their original form for many years - contract negotiations that had to be kept for the life of the contract and 8 years after that. Some of the contract being ten years, some fifteen years. Most have now expired and I got rid of them, but it showed me how MS have changed the internal workings of MS Word format code and that stuff from different versions are NOT fully compatible with all the other versions.
I now use Libre Office and it gives me an option to save in a variety of MS Word formats, and when I do save in the one I know the other person uses they have reported no troubles using the document. And I've had no troubles with viewing and using what they send back, except for the Changes info from a person using Word 2010.
At the time I had a huge number of Word documents that I was legally required to keep in their original form for many years - contract negotiations that had to be kept for the life of the contract and 8 years after that. Some of the contract being ten years, some fifteen years. Most have now expired and I got rid of them, but it showed me how MS have changed the internal workings of MS Word format code and that stuff from different versions are NOT fully compatible with all the other versions.
I now use Libre Office and it gives me an option to save in a variety of MS Word formats, and when I do save in the one I know the other person uses they have reported no troubles using the document. And I've had no troubles with viewing and using what they send back, except for the Changes info from a person using Word 2010.
This is another case where you're talking about Office 97 and Office 2003 and I'm beta-testing Office 2013 Technet on a Windows 8 box and thinking... "how do these claims apply today?"
I mean, Windows 95/98 and XP and Office 97 and 2k3 were kind of the glory days of Linux and FOSS seeming like they might have had a shot - so I suppose it isn't surprising that we might see Linux users now pining for the good ol' days when Microsoft was the evil, insecure menace that required a clean install on every upgrade...
But it would be like me claiming that Linux suffers from difficult non-graphical installation processes that require users to know advanced *nix theory like using dpart to carve out slices on disks assigned strange and obscure names...
Or that wireless and sound support almost always requires you to add modules and manually compile your own kernel.
I mean, Windows 95/98 and XP and Office 97 and 2k3 were kind of the glory days of Linux and FOSS seeming like they might have had a shot - so I suppose it isn't surprising that we might see Linux users now pining for the good ol' days when Microsoft was the evil, insecure menace that required a clean install on every upgrade...
But it would be like me claiming that Linux suffers from difficult non-graphical installation processes that require users to know advanced *nix theory like using dpart to carve out slices on disks assigned strange and obscure names...
Or that wireless and sound support almost always requires you to add modules and manually compile your own kernel.
the lack of compatibility with the other MS Word document formats and the fact that the latest versions of MS Word do NOT open the earlier versions properly. Some will IF you find and download special add-in, but it should happen out of the box, and the only reason it doesn't happen is because Microsoft have deliberately introduced changes to stop it happening and to force software upgrades - ie for their profit and not customer usage.
Now, I don't know what it's like where you are, but in many industries legal contract often run for multiple years, seven or ten or fifteen years can be common. For other legal reasons all the documents involved in the contract negotiations etc need to be kept in their original format for the life of the contract and past the time of the final payment in which a challenge to a payment can be made - sometimes for seven years beyond that. It was document in this class that I was having an issue with.
Now, you seem to think Word 2010 and Word 2013 are perfect or close to it, try opening documents saved in Word 2a, Word 6, and Word 97 in these last two versions of Word and see if they open properly or not, and if they get changed by MS Word when they're closed. Word 2007 couldn't do it, and the few I tried in Word 2010 got screwed worse than in Word 2003.
It's this incompatibility that requires people to retain earlier versions of Word, and the differences in the way the latest versions look, feel, and are used upsets some users as well as most people are only happy and comfortable with what they're used to using. Which is why some companies don't like the ribbon format.
Edit - Oops, forgot to say:
The problem with not perfect format layout between MS Word and any other software is solely due to MS NOT using the Industry Standard layouts and instruction codes, so again, the issue is due to deliberate design decisions by Microsoft to NOT play with the rest of the world.
Now, I don't know what it's like where you are, but in many industries legal contract often run for multiple years, seven or ten or fifteen years can be common. For other legal reasons all the documents involved in the contract negotiations etc need to be kept in their original format for the life of the contract and past the time of the final payment in which a challenge to a payment can be made - sometimes for seven years beyond that. It was document in this class that I was having an issue with.
Now, you seem to think Word 2010 and Word 2013 are perfect or close to it, try opening documents saved in Word 2a, Word 6, and Word 97 in these last two versions of Word and see if they open properly or not, and if they get changed by MS Word when they're closed. Word 2007 couldn't do it, and the few I tried in Word 2010 got screwed worse than in Word 2003.
It's this incompatibility that requires people to retain earlier versions of Word, and the differences in the way the latest versions look, feel, and are used upsets some users as well as most people are only happy and comfortable with what they're used to using. Which is why some companies don't like the ribbon format.
Edit - Oops, forgot to say:
The problem with not perfect format layout between MS Word and any other software is solely due to MS NOT using the Industry Standard layouts and instruction codes, so again, the issue is due to deliberate design decisions by Microsoft to NOT play with the rest of the world.
Don't even get me started. Between managing indavidually purchased O2010 licenses and getting setup with a volume license, I really don't know which is less of a pain in the ###. Volume licenses are the same cost per install as non-volume licenses so no benefit there. I'm still not clear on what it takes to get into the open license program and I've talked to three different sources including Microsoft's own sales staff. I get not being able to easily move an Office license from one machine to another without de-registering the serial number. I don't get why the uninstall process does not unregister the serial number (Adobe can do this but MS can't figure out how?). I really don't get not being able to re-install Office back on the notebook it was just activated on so that I can then do the manual deactivation; it was just on this friggin machine. The folks responsible for MS licensing policy need a swift kick in the head with a frozen muckluck.
Office 2010 has been a licensing nightmare and I've only managed to afford four of them so far.. and all because Microsoft Office 2003 won't run on Microsoft Windows 7 so they can't even manage compatibility between there own products.
Office 2010 has been a licensing nightmare and I've only managed to afford four of them so far.. and all because Microsoft Office 2003 won't run on Microsoft Windows 7 so they can't even manage compatibility between there own products.
Word compatibility inside the Windows versions is already less than perfect. I have had great success using both OpenOffice, and now LibreOffice to edit highly technical scientific Word manuscripts- including revision tracking and comments, and dealing with asian font mismatches with my American installations. MS broke their own lock on proprietary formats years ago. the argument is driven more by fear/uncertainty/doubt than actual exploration of the issues. We regularly have Windows Word users 'breaking' each other's document formatting on XP and Win7 systems. The .docx debacle has only made the problem more visible. Compatibility arguments do not long survive actual testing of meaningful differences and honest comparisons with a 'gold' (pure Word user) experience.
You're correct. MS Word doesn't save or interpret .doc or .docx properly. I've created many documents in LibreOffice which do not work in MS Word properly. Ditto, the opposite. Word doesn't work right. LibreOffice does. Simple solution, get everyone to drop Word and install LibreOffice, after all it's free. Alternate solution, to have Microsoft give away Word for free, at least for students (I believe there is such a program at most colleges, or you could use the online version, I suppose.) Back in 2008, most students could obtain Server 2008 and just add their own GUI, also installing ms Office free.
Now if Windows 8 would just come out with a version where you could add your own GUI right out of the box instead of having to disable the Formerly-known-as-Metro interface in order to use it, and allow you to disable all its features systemwide, to be consistent.
There should also be a way to disable the ribbon in Office straight out of the box, it's horrible and unusable, and you have to install an addon in 2007 versions in order to TYPE to find commands without using it. (Did they include that feature in the next version?)
I use an old copy of Office 2003 if I simply MUST use Windows and Word. This seems to work great, no complaint from clients, etc. yet. No need to have 2007 or above; maybe MS could give away free copies of 2003 to anyone who wants them, to keep the cost to the consumer reasonable (free.) They could also give away free copies of XP, the last MS OS that worked properly.
They'd never have to develop a dang thing ever again that way, so development costs would disappear, and they could begin giving away all their software, and become a not-for-profit business that way, the way all businesses need to be run.
Now if Windows 8 would just come out with a version where you could add your own GUI right out of the box instead of having to disable the Formerly-known-as-Metro interface in order to use it, and allow you to disable all its features systemwide, to be consistent.
There should also be a way to disable the ribbon in Office straight out of the box, it's horrible and unusable, and you have to install an addon in 2007 versions in order to TYPE to find commands without using it. (Did they include that feature in the next version?)
I use an old copy of Office 2003 if I simply MUST use Windows and Word. This seems to work great, no complaint from clients, etc. yet. No need to have 2007 or above; maybe MS could give away free copies of 2003 to anyone who wants them, to keep the cost to the consumer reasonable (free.) They could also give away free copies of XP, the last MS OS that worked properly.
They'd never have to develop a dang thing ever again that way, so development costs would disappear, and they could begin giving away all their software, and become a not-for-profit business that way, the way all businesses need to be run.
Oh shoot.. hadn't thought of that.. brilliant.. let me just call all the partner companies my staff interact with... Ring.. Ring.. so I gave them your suggestion.. I think the admin on the other side just dropped the phone from laughter.. might be a "no".. ok.. let me call the next partner organization we interact with regularily...
but to go to Office 365 in 2014 or 2015 they'll spit the dummy about their data not being secure and dump MS Office.
I think it does anyhow.. Office 2003 support ends in 2014 or 2015 so there will be a long wait before businesses are pushed from 2010 to 365.. granted, that's if Microsoft doesn't ship an incompatible OS and short the listed support life cycle.
At my last several Engineering companies, Word was tossed out. Some years back, it basically just failed as a wordprocessor for large documents. In those days, I switched first to Lotus Office, broke that, then to Word Perfect. WP was surprisingly clumsy, but it worked very well, even allowing sub-documents, a feature I had on workstations in the mid-80s but had to give up moving to PCs.
For collaboration, that was the final standard there. For distribution, it had been Acrobat... I never want an editable document sent to people who are just supposed to read and perhaps comment on it.
More recently, my last two Engineering companies had the usual issues: most people in the company do not use Windows (a few of us hardware people do -- that's where the CAD tools are -- but for software, it's all Linux). We did the .doc-files-in-any-WP thing at the last company, but basically transitioned to Google Docs for most things. This is hardly the best wordprocessor around, but the collaboration rocks, and you don't have to teach non-engineers how to deal with .ODF or .DOC documents in Subversion.
That was already the solution at my current company, in theory, though we still have .ODF files in Subversion, and a few non-engineers sending .DOC and .DOCX files around through email chains.
For collaboration, that was the final standard there. For distribution, it had been Acrobat... I never want an editable document sent to people who are just supposed to read and perhaps comment on it.
More recently, my last two Engineering companies had the usual issues: most people in the company do not use Windows (a few of us hardware people do -- that's where the CAD tools are -- but for software, it's all Linux). We did the .doc-files-in-any-WP thing at the last company, but basically transitioned to Google Docs for most things. This is hardly the best wordprocessor around, but the collaboration rocks, and you don't have to teach non-engineers how to deal with .ODF or .DOC documents in Subversion.
That was already the solution at my current company, in theory, though we still have .ODF files in Subversion, and a few non-engineers sending .DOC and .DOCX files around through email chains.
We tested Docs but could not put it into production due to having our data stored on Google's servers. If Google started offering an appliance that put the hosted apps within my network.. that may well do it. Googles apps can update and our data can remain in-house.
The change to Win 8. Bunches of corporation CIOs and CFOs are simply sick of MS forcing huge expenses down their throat. Win 8 is going to be one of the biggest. A solid group of business applications (notice I didn't say APPs) ported to Linux; proprietary but reasonably price per seat and it's a go. Open source just for open source sake has been a ball and chain around Linux since day one when it comes to the corporate world at the desktop level.
I for one will be running Win XP at the commercial desktop level for as long as there are those applications where I am forced to be compatible.
For personal use I only have one ThinkPad running XP just for Quicken for finances, everything else is Mint.
I for one will be running Win XP at the commercial desktop level for as long as there are those applications where I am forced to be compatible.
For personal use I only have one ThinkPad running XP just for Quicken for finances, everything else is Mint.
The big win in using something like Open Office is consistency. The only motives among the developers are to improve the product and maintain compatibility.
With Microsoft products, you get into these games Microsoft plays. They'll nix application compatibility, so that everyone who gets a PC with Windows N+1 has to run Office N+1, thus doubling their upgrade profits. And they tie that to file formats -- they've intentionally broken the .DOC format at least half a dozen times, so that Word N+1 writes files by default that can't be understood by Word N, in an attempt to force updates across the board. In theory, not supposed to happen with the XML formats (either the Open Document formats, or Microsoft's proprietary clones of said formats), but ... does anyone really trust Microsoft not to do that again?
With Microsoft products, you get into these games Microsoft plays. They'll nix application compatibility, so that everyone who gets a PC with Windows N+1 has to run Office N+1, thus doubling their upgrade profits. And they tie that to file formats -- they've intentionally broken the .DOC format at least half a dozen times, so that Word N+1 writes files by default that can't be understood by Word N, in an attempt to force updates across the board. In theory, not supposed to happen with the XML formats (either the Open Document formats, or Microsoft's proprietary clones of said formats), but ... does anyone really trust Microsoft not to do that again?
We need that; it is the only thing standing between Linux desktops and our users.
Thx
Thx
i applaud Linux itself being open source- and love it, but for it to replace windows as my personal PC it needs to run my games- and my games are closed source and i buy them. So yes - i look at the steam initiative and hope it works. and i would love to move completly to linux- with gaming, with adobe lightroom, with my tax software at the end of the year.
but i can't expect people to open up thier programs just to move to linux- and though there are sort of similar products out there- they are not the same
but i can't expect people to open up thier programs just to move to linux- and though there are sort of similar products out there- they are not the same
Games may be a good basis. Platforms with a robust market of proprietary/closed source games have a much easier time of becoming popular than those that don't, regardless of anything else.
But it's other applications, too, and the simply fact is that open source applications have not always existed, or matched, some of those from closed source companies, on features, on quality. At the end of the day, if I have a job to do, I'm going to chose the tool that lets me do this the best. Not a religious decision, a practical one.
And this is main reason there hasn't been a serious desktop Linux movement: it just doesn't get the job done. Folks who develop software for a living -- including most Linux developers, pundits, and proponents -- may not even really get this. I mean, hey, it does their job, right? I've never been totally a Linux guy, but if I have a need to any coding, Linux is where I go these days, even if it's in a VM under Windows.
But not for Electronics CAD, not for digital photography, not for videography, not for music, not for anything else I do on the PC. Some of these things can be done, with some effort, on Linux, but it's amateur hour, the kinds of applications. I'm not going to be happy in Audacity when I have Sound Forge, Reaper, Vegas, Acid, and Sonar available on my Windows platform.
I would love the chance to use Linux more, or entirely. But that's driven by applications. And some of the best will always be closed source. Not embracing that AS AN OPTION has been the main thing holding Linux back. And given the really horrible directions Microsoft's taking these days w.r.t. the desktop -- their vision for the "future", full-screen apps, will set development computing back 30 years -- Linux has the best opportunity, in these next three years, that it's ever had at claiming a significant share of the desktop. That might not happen anyway, but it's impossible without closed source applications.
But it's other applications, too, and the simply fact is that open source applications have not always existed, or matched, some of those from closed source companies, on features, on quality. At the end of the day, if I have a job to do, I'm going to chose the tool that lets me do this the best. Not a religious decision, a practical one.
And this is main reason there hasn't been a serious desktop Linux movement: it just doesn't get the job done. Folks who develop software for a living -- including most Linux developers, pundits, and proponents -- may not even really get this. I mean, hey, it does their job, right? I've never been totally a Linux guy, but if I have a need to any coding, Linux is where I go these days, even if it's in a VM under Windows.
But not for Electronics CAD, not for digital photography, not for videography, not for music, not for anything else I do on the PC. Some of these things can be done, with some effort, on Linux, but it's amateur hour, the kinds of applications. I'm not going to be happy in Audacity when I have Sound Forge, Reaper, Vegas, Acid, and Sonar available on my Windows platform.
I would love the chance to use Linux more, or entirely. But that's driven by applications. And some of the best will always be closed source. Not embracing that AS AN OPTION has been the main thing holding Linux back. And given the really horrible directions Microsoft's taking these days w.r.t. the desktop -- their vision for the "future", full-screen apps, will set development computing back 30 years -- Linux has the best opportunity, in these next three years, that it's ever had at claiming a significant share of the desktop. That might not happen anyway, but it's impossible without closed source applications.
... nothing new.
OpenSUSE non-oss repository has been around for ages.
OpenSUSE non-oss repository has been around for ages.
Wow, I never imagined that Netflix would end up on Linux. It's definitely a good thing, in my mind.
For many (not me, tho), Netflix could have specifically been the missing 'killer app'. Think about it: granny wants a PC to email the kiddies on and she likes to watch episodes of some old shows on Netflix. That last requirement would have instantly eliminated Linux as an option in times past. Now, it can still be viable.
Nice. Thanks for the article, Jack!
For many (not me, tho), Netflix could have specifically been the missing 'killer app'. Think about it: granny wants a PC to email the kiddies on and she likes to watch episodes of some old shows on Netflix. That last requirement would have instantly eliminated Linux as an option in times past. Now, it can still be viable.
Nice. Thanks for the article, Jack!
Just to let others know Fedora supports it also - http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=286230 - Downloading now to try it out!
Edit: Well it seems to broken at the moment... Darn
Edit: Well it seems to broken at the moment... Darn
If Adobe compiled their Creative Suite to run under Linux and Windows VST plugins could be ported or bridged to run under Linux, I'd have no personal reason to stick with Windows.
At work I use MS Project, too, and there's currently nothing that works as well under Linux (don't try to sell me, I've looked at a lot of options)
IF I could cover those three bases, I'd have a Linux (Xubuntu for me, please!) homerun!
At work I use MS Project, too, and there's currently nothing that works as well under Linux (don't try to sell me, I've looked at a lot of options)
IF I could cover those three bases, I'd have a Linux (Xubuntu for me, please!) homerun!
I would just like to see an option in the Software Center that would hide all items that cost anything. Now, it is just too cluttered with items for which there is a charge. As for the availability of non-free software in LINUX, I am all for it. There are only a few things for which I need Windows, and if I they were available in LINUX, I could ditch Windows entirely.
I love the quickbooks comment. The lack of being able to have quickbooks on linux has been the only thing keeping me with windows for the past 4-5 years. If this happens it will be a MAJOR game changer.
I agree that Linux has to open up to proprietary software if it is intended to become a true competitor to Apple and MS. However, what I hate is having to go through tons of shareware and proprietary software to find that open source program that I may use only once. Ubuntu needs to segregate shareware from freeware and proprietary software. I hate installing a package only to find that it is a demo for proprietary software and it expired in ten days. Let me have a choice and not have to go through hundreds of titles to find the "needle in a haystack".
Yeah. That's really the way for Linux to be 'the desktop of the year'.
Once closed source is accepted (happily), Linux users will see the multitude of games and specialist softwares like MS Office (nothing beats MS Office, na..)
And that's not at all a threat to the Open Source community. We open source people just want, as Jack said, a software that just fills our needs, be it open or closed. Only when these softwares ARE available, does this matter. We will continue to use our favorite FOSS and enjoy the best of every world. I mean..
The Stability of a Linux Box
The Feel of a Macintosh, and
The Infinite Software of a Windows Machine, devoid of its viruses. :-D
Once closed source is accepted (happily), Linux users will see the multitude of games and specialist softwares like MS Office (nothing beats MS Office, na..)
And that's not at all a threat to the Open Source community. We open source people just want, as Jack said, a software that just fills our needs, be it open or closed. Only when these softwares ARE available, does this matter. We will continue to use our favorite FOSS and enjoy the best of every world. I mean..
The Stability of a Linux Box
The Feel of a Macintosh, and
The Infinite Software of a Windows Machine, devoid of its viruses. :-D
If you don't want it don't use it...
Linux to me has always been about choice. That is the essence, people run businesses on linux desktop (not just Google), I did and had no problems with compatibility linux to windows or MAC but sometimes Windows to Linux on Powerpoint etc where formatting was key.
I will probaly always be a linux proponent but not a bigot. It's an operating system not a religion, get over it!
Linux to me has always been about choice. That is the essence, people run businesses on linux desktop (not just Google), I did and had no problems with compatibility linux to windows or MAC but sometimes Windows to Linux on Powerpoint etc where formatting was key.
I will probaly always be a linux proponent but not a bigot. It's an operating system not a religion, get over it!
I've just finished upgrading from Ubuntu 10.04 to 12.04 and really have not had the time investigate the changes good or bad but Linux could use some assistance. I have used Intuit for business and personal needs for sometime but that does not mean I like the way they handle their clients. The software and it's implementation have not been done correctly for migration This problem is not a Linux problem but Intuit's situation just as there are several Linux vendors. Ubuntu verses Red Hat and the others has little to due with THIRD party developers.
that makes it a easier to use and more like what many people are familiar with.
... as long as it doesn't incorporate ANY open source code. (If it did it would be an extension of that code, and the pseudo-proprietary source code would have to be released for open use. )
The ability to derive an income from programming for Linux would attract more talent and could help set standards for quality based on accountability, rather than novelty and popularity, but only if customers shun the software licensing scam that denies accountability for lack of performance as described and responsibility for consequential damages, but holds customers liable for imagined damages to the publishers.
If so, I'm all in favor of it. If not, as far as I'm concerned, all "proprietary" software "publishers" are scamming scumbags who should be rotting in prison.
I can think of at least one way to have and app free of open-source code - (gasp) assembly language.
'Course that would mean that the programmer actually knew how to program. Instead of hacking and cracking together a committee-driven, bloated, security-riddled, buggy application, it could be refreshing to see a set of lean, mean, minimal apps that did just what was needed, no more and no less. I know programmers who got started with graphical games that ran under DOS, and later moved to apps for gaming hardware.
The ability to derive an income from programming for Linux would attract more talent and could help set standards for quality based on accountability, rather than novelty and popularity, but only if customers shun the software licensing scam that denies accountability for lack of performance as described and responsibility for consequential damages, but holds customers liable for imagined damages to the publishers.
If so, I'm all in favor of it. If not, as far as I'm concerned, all "proprietary" software "publishers" are scamming scumbags who should be rotting in prison.
I can think of at least one way to have and app free of open-source code - (gasp) assembly language.
'Course that would mean that the programmer actually knew how to program. Instead of hacking and cracking together a committee-driven, bloated, security-riddled, buggy application, it could be refreshing to see a set of lean, mean, minimal apps that did just what was needed, no more and no less. I know programmers who got started with graphical games that ran under DOS, and later moved to apps for gaming hardware.
If Linux community can get SMB software like Intuit and Microsoft Office on board along with a really good RDP application, I can see a lot of medium sized business using Linux and Windows RemoteApp's (Citix is expensive, where say, an existing Windows Server 2008 STD file server would just requires additional licensing and configuration for a small amount of clients and applications) as a possible deployment option. Also, Microsoft has made a lot of effort in cohabitation and management with *nix environments which makes am mix OS environment a lot easier to manage for the predominant SMB Windows Administrators.
...running Photoshop and MS Office in VirtualBox. I find it interesting that no one has mentioned that so far.
Where I see a need for proprietary software to release a Linux version is for those apps that make heavy use of hardware drivers that VirtualBox just can't emulate. That would be apps like modo (likely to get a Linux version now that it's been bought by Foundry) and Poser Pro 2012 (Smith Micro). I don't see the latter happening unless a lot of other shops suddenly decide Linux is the new latest/greatest.
For me, an OS is an OS: it allows me to run my apps without getting in the way. I think the combination of being unobtrusive, secure and running a lot of proprietary versions of popular software will all serve to bring Linux to what those market-share people hold so important.
Oh, and would I buy proprietary software if it was available for Linux? like modo ($1100 a pop)? absolutely! Better start saving up for it now... reckon it's just a matter of when, not if.
Where I see a need for proprietary software to release a Linux version is for those apps that make heavy use of hardware drivers that VirtualBox just can't emulate. That would be apps like modo (likely to get a Linux version now that it's been bought by Foundry) and Poser Pro 2012 (Smith Micro). I don't see the latter happening unless a lot of other shops suddenly decide Linux is the new latest/greatest.
For me, an OS is an OS: it allows me to run my apps without getting in the way. I think the combination of being unobtrusive, secure and running a lot of proprietary versions of popular software will all serve to bring Linux to what those market-share people hold so important.
Oh, and would I buy proprietary software if it was available for Linux? like modo ($1100 a pop)? absolutely! Better start saving up for it now... reckon it's just a matter of when, not if.
I love open source. Many complicated things just seem to work better if they are developed in the open for anyone to comment on. I started using more and more Open Source software as I got tired of tools that I had to fix every time I went to do some small task.
I also beleive in the right for honest hardworking people to earn a living. We also have right to use an alternative if what they are selling isn't worth the price or in some cases is just bad.
I think that proprietary software can only get better from living in and competing with a world of open source alternatives.
I don't think that the open source community needs worry about propietary software. If open source wasn't needed and wanted it wouldn't exist.
If proprietary software comming to Linux means anything, it means that the developers that are trying to make that honest living also see the need for open source.
I also beleive in the right for honest hardworking people to earn a living. We also have right to use an alternative if what they are selling isn't worth the price or in some cases is just bad.
I think that proprietary software can only get better from living in and competing with a world of open source alternatives.
I don't think that the open source community needs worry about propietary software. If open source wasn't needed and wanted it wouldn't exist.
If proprietary software comming to Linux means anything, it means that the developers that are trying to make that honest living also see the need for open source.
that the majority of established, 'common use' software builders are averse to providing their products for free, and to allowing their code to float freely about the ocean that is business computing. I see this helping the Linux market, though I'm uncertain as to its effects on the open source 'market'. If I could have Quickbooks, and Office on Ubuntu, I'd dump Windows permanently.
doesn't do for you?
For general Office usages I've not yet found anything I used to do in MS Word, and Excel that I can't do in Libre Office. A Couple of the Macros had me having to recreate them in Libre Office, but they were nothing compared to the agro I had with MSO 2007 and 2010 ribbons or the troubles I had with some of the changes in MSO 2003.
For general Office usages I've not yet found anything I used to do in MS Word, and Excel that I can't do in Libre Office. A Couple of the Macros had me having to recreate them in Libre Office, but they were nothing compared to the agro I had with MSO 2007 and 2010 ribbons or the troubles I had with some of the changes in MSO 2003.
Yeah let's have mass acceptance... so viruses can finally start appearing in Linux just as in Window$.
Smart move.
Smart move.
has, they won't do much, if anything at all.
Or Chad Perrin was *wrong* in every Open vs. Closed argument I ever had with him about WHY closed source is a bigger security risk.
I'll let you pick which one you want to support, but you can only pick one or the other.
Ultimately, the exploits in Windows often come from 3rd party holes in proprietary software that are not discovered or disclosed by their publishers, according to Apotheon. If closed source software comes to Linux *and* Chad is correct about Open Source peer review disclosing and resolving security holes quicker - then closed source on Linux means that there will be *unknown* security exploits in 3rd party software in the wild that are undiscovered and exploitable for longer, making Linux *inherently* less secure.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
(And Apotheon thought I wasn't paying attention to his points and just arguing to win the argument at ANY cost... )
I'll let you pick which one you want to support, but you can only pick one or the other.
Ultimately, the exploits in Windows often come from 3rd party holes in proprietary software that are not discovered or disclosed by their publishers, according to Apotheon. If closed source software comes to Linux *and* Chad is correct about Open Source peer review disclosing and resolving security holes quicker - then closed source on Linux means that there will be *unknown* security exploits in 3rd party software in the wild that are undiscovered and exploitable for longer, making Linux *inherently* less secure.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
(And Apotheon thought I wasn't paying attention to his points and just arguing to win the argument at ANY cost... )
that only ever ran MS software due to the organisation being totally MS centric. Windows, MS Office, Outlook, MS Internet Explorer, MS Defender, Windows Server, etc - their accounts were outsourced and that company only ever sent over printed reports. All software within the organisation had to be Microsoft or you couldn't load it on a company system. yet they had one of the highest infection rates I've ever seen in a corporate environment, especially for an organisation of 23 people.
And atypical and... during what period, on what platform? How was security managed on this Windows Network? Was it NT4, W2k, W2k8? Were the workstations Win95/98 or W2k Pro or XP or...
There are a whole lot of undisclosed variables here that are going to have a tremendous impact on your claim above. I'm not saying that there WEREN'T exploits on solely MS based machines with nothing else loaded or running. I'm saying that Apotheon claims that when you introduce closed source into an environment, the code cannot be peer reviewed, and that exploits that exist may go undiscovered, unpatched, and exposed - *and* that the bad guys know how to look for these weaknesses. Most exploits leverage this, according to the FOSS party line. So - if you introduce closed-source applications to a FOSS platform, you bring this problem right along with it. No way around that. It doesn't matter if your Linux foundation is secure, if you're running closed source apps that are full of vectors for attack on top of that.
There are a whole lot of undisclosed variables here that are going to have a tremendous impact on your claim above. I'm not saying that there WEREN'T exploits on solely MS based machines with nothing else loaded or running. I'm saying that Apotheon claims that when you introduce closed source into an environment, the code cannot be peer reviewed, and that exploits that exist may go undiscovered, unpatched, and exposed - *and* that the bad guys know how to look for these weaknesses. Most exploits leverage this, according to the FOSS party line. So - if you introduce closed-source applications to a FOSS platform, you bring this problem right along with it. No way around that. It doesn't matter if your Linux foundation is secure, if you're running closed source apps that are full of vectors for attack on top of that.
If a third party application has a vulnerability that can be exploited it only acts as a doorway at that point, it's at that point the security quality of the OS itself takes over. With Windows it means any any hole is a gateway to the entire system, but with the way Unix and Linux is compartmented with plenty of internal security it means nothing or next to nothing can be done once through the hole.
I got sent one of those emails that has a Flash card in it along with some malware that enters via the Flash code. As soon as I viewed the email the Flash code started to run, the malware jumped from the Flash code to my OS and I got a message from the OS asking for permission. Ran a scan, found the malware, cleaned it out, deleted the mail, and no issues. But my brother had big problems on his Win 7 Pro system dealing with it as it got past the security barriers when he received it and viewed it.
It's because of the inherent differences in the basic design that I don't see any third party vulnerabilities being much of an issue, if any issue to Linux. I still do NOT see a major concern coming solely from having proprietary applications on Linux.
It's kind of like the difference between driving around an active rifle range in a light van and an armoured van.
I got sent one of those emails that has a Flash card in it along with some malware that enters via the Flash code. As soon as I viewed the email the Flash code started to run, the malware jumped from the Flash code to my OS and I got a message from the OS asking for permission. Ran a scan, found the malware, cleaned it out, deleted the mail, and no issues. But my brother had big problems on his Win 7 Pro system dealing with it as it got past the security barriers when he received it and viewed it.
It's because of the inherent differences in the basic design that I don't see any third party vulnerabilities being much of an issue, if any issue to Linux. I still do NOT see a major concern coming solely from having proprietary applications on Linux.
It's kind of like the difference between driving around an active rifle range in a light van and an armoured van.
http://www.zdnet.com/how-to-decide-should-you-upgrade-to-windows-8-7000008186/?s_cid=e539
Who suggests that the security in Windows 7 is a solid improvement over Windows XP and Vista. I agree. In the meantime, Malware on Linux based Android has become a growing problem even while Windows security concerns have subsided greatly. Windows 8 is a step forward from Windows 7 in this regard, designed with any even greater focus on system securtiy (for example, preventing systems from dual booting secure Windows 8 and insecure Linux).
The point is - an exploit in the system or an exploit in a single app doesn't really make a difference, if your personal information is compromised in the process. Malware, Trojans and viruses have a financial incentive in mind these days, not bragging rights of hacking root access to your system (unless there is money to be made doing so).
This argument is outdated. If Linux were to become as popular as Android is, it *would* be targeted by malware. The fact that Android *is* Linux and it *is* targeted really illustrates that I'm right about this long running argument.
You're looking at this from a Windows XP era perspective - and the platform landscape has changed significantly during that time. I know this. My shop's Windows platform malware challenges have subsided tremendously since Windows 7 and W2k8. We used to have 3 to 5 AV responses per month minimum. Now I see one case every 3 to 4 months, almost always on a Windows XP machine. My BYOD malware user issues have increased dramatically during that time, almost exclusively on Linux based Android.
Who suggests that the security in Windows 7 is a solid improvement over Windows XP and Vista. I agree. In the meantime, Malware on Linux based Android has become a growing problem even while Windows security concerns have subsided greatly. Windows 8 is a step forward from Windows 7 in this regard, designed with any even greater focus on system securtiy (for example, preventing systems from dual booting secure Windows 8 and insecure Linux).
The point is - an exploit in the system or an exploit in a single app doesn't really make a difference, if your personal information is compromised in the process. Malware, Trojans and viruses have a financial incentive in mind these days, not bragging rights of hacking root access to your system (unless there is money to be made doing so).
This argument is outdated. If Linux were to become as popular as Android is, it *would* be targeted by malware. The fact that Android *is* Linux and it *is* targeted really illustrates that I'm right about this long running argument.
You're looking at this from a Windows XP era perspective - and the platform landscape has changed significantly during that time. I know this. My shop's Windows platform malware challenges have subsided tremendously since Windows 7 and W2k8. We used to have 3 to 5 AV responses per month minimum. Now I see one case every 3 to 4 months, almost always on a Windows XP machine. My BYOD malware user issues have increased dramatically during that time, almost exclusively on Linux based Android.
said the majority of them were in the Javascripting and only compromising the data stored in the apps using Javascripts - I'm not up with and into using smart phones or Android so I've not been following it closely. But from what the articles I've seen about the security issues it seems it's not the OS itself that's being compromised all the time, but the apps on the system due to the faults in the Javascript and almost all the developers using Javascript to write their apps.
If the cause of the security flaws is as those reports claimed, then the fault is NOT in Android it's in the Java and using non-Java apps would render the exploits useless.
And yes, Android is a variant of Linux cut back to only what the developers want in it, how much it's cut back I don;'t know so I've no idea of how much of the security system they've removed.
If the cause of the security flaws is as those reports claimed, then the fault is NOT in Android it's in the Java and using non-Java apps would render the exploits useless.
And yes, Android is a variant of Linux cut back to only what the developers want in it, how much it's cut back I don;'t know so I've no idea of how much of the security system they've removed.
I think there are already some nasty things that are cross platform due to targeting Java or Flash regardless of the OS under it. The question will be what the malware can do once it has exploited the third party vulnerability. That is the part I'm interested to see personally.
Already kind of established the answer to that question?
Maybe not as much harm as when they can run around the entire kernel with impunity - but still, enough damage to be painful.
Maybe not as much harm as when they can run around the entire kernel with impunity - but still, enough damage to be painful.
This is absolutely a dramatic step forward in making Linux, or at least Ubuntu, more credible option for SMBs and even enterprises.
The only way it could go badly is if competitive closed source titles are less robust or stable on *nix than they are on closed sourced platforms like OS X and Windows. That would reflect poorly on the *nix developers' SDKs, toolsets and the kernel stability. If the *nix community is as confident of their foundation as they claim to be, this shouldn't be a concern at all - and Linux advocates should *welcome* the opportunity to establish that *nix is a *superior* platform to build your applications on.
If Linux gave meaningful support to applications that interfaced with my Microsoft back-office platforms and solutions at a better TCO and ROI than a like Windows machine - it would be on my radar as a potential replacement for my user desktops in a heartbeat. That isn't *ever* going to happen unless closed sourced applications appear for the Linux desktop.
The only way it could go badly is if competitive closed source titles are less robust or stable on *nix than they are on closed sourced platforms like OS X and Windows. That would reflect poorly on the *nix developers' SDKs, toolsets and the kernel stability. If the *nix community is as confident of their foundation as they claim to be, this shouldn't be a concern at all - and Linux advocates should *welcome* the opportunity to establish that *nix is a *superior* platform to build your applications on.
If Linux gave meaningful support to applications that interfaced with my Microsoft back-office platforms and solutions at a better TCO and ROI than a like Windows machine - it would be on my radar as a potential replacement for my user desktops in a heartbeat. That isn't *ever* going to happen unless closed sourced applications appear for the Linux desktop.
support their Linux systems the way they support Windows etc. Such as how Flash is not properly supported by it's proprietary owners to work on a Linux machine the way it does on a Windows system.
And who is to blame? If software publishers with proprietary applications saw Linux as lucrative, they would put more resources there.
This is a chicken-and-the-egg question that the Linux community needs to resolve if they want to gain meaningful market share. One reason Android became first viable, and then dominant in Smart Phone total units sold was the arrival of quality apps with mainstream consumer appeal. But until the Droid 1 gave Android a big enough market base to attract those developers, the platform was largely ignored by most top-tier publishers. GIMP and Open Office will *never* be those things for Linux.
Ubuntu needs to find their "Verizon"... someone who has something the competition doesn't have (the best network... Verizon,) but lacks something the competition DOES have (the most attractive smartphone platform - AT&T and Apple).
This is a chicken-and-the-egg question that the Linux community needs to resolve if they want to gain meaningful market share. One reason Android became first viable, and then dominant in Smart Phone total units sold was the arrival of quality apps with mainstream consumer appeal. But until the Droid 1 gave Android a big enough market base to attract those developers, the platform was largely ignored by most top-tier publishers. GIMP and Open Office will *never* be those things for Linux.
Ubuntu needs to find their "Verizon"... someone who has something the competition doesn't have (the best network... Verizon,) but lacks something the competition DOES have (the most attractive smartphone platform - AT&T and Apple).
ensure that the people who do use it can allow people to use the end result. Adobe push to have people use Adobe Acrobat to create PDF files and encourage this by giving Adobe Reader away free, but the Adobe Reader for Linux wasn't there for years, and then Adobe got upset when they found out the FOSS community had filled the gap and not only done it well, they did it better and cheaper.
The same was done with Flash, buy Flash to create things as we give people the software to watch it free - yet they don't do what they said, they only give away a good one to watch it in Windows that changes every few years while you can create a player in Linux and it stays the same until you change how Flash itself works. Well one major US based international organisation was spending a fortune on creating a special data entry system to work in Flash so people could do it all via their browsers. When they found out it didn't have full functionality in Linux they dumped Flash and have since done it using just HTML and Java giving it a much higher responsiveness and a broader cross platform use-ability.
If a company wants to put out a product for people to create things and encourage it's use, then they either have to ensure the resulting output is cross-platform capable or ensure they put out multi-platform user programs to use the created stuff with, or admit up front they're being one platform centric and tell the potential users of their software they will have limited customer use-ability.
When people claim stuff Flash can be used on any system at all, they are giving out pure BS.
The same was done with Flash, buy Flash to create things as we give people the software to watch it free - yet they don't do what they said, they only give away a good one to watch it in Windows that changes every few years while you can create a player in Linux and it stays the same until you change how Flash itself works. Well one major US based international organisation was spending a fortune on creating a special data entry system to work in Flash so people could do it all via their browsers. When they found out it didn't have full functionality in Linux they dumped Flash and have since done it using just HTML and Java giving it a much higher responsiveness and a broader cross platform use-ability.
If a company wants to put out a product for people to create things and encourage it's use, then they either have to ensure the resulting output is cross-platform capable or ensure they put out multi-platform user programs to use the created stuff with, or admit up front they're being one platform centric and tell the potential users of their software they will have limited customer use-ability.
When people claim stuff Flash can be used on any system at all, they are giving out pure BS.
Who actually ever said that linux wants "market share"? Linux is attractive, only to people who value its characteristics.
For example, linux is attractive to the software engineering community, because of the unfettered innovation going on, on the platform. It is attractive to hosting companies because of its manageability. It is attractive to both embedded device (including phones) and supercomputer manufacturers because it scales down as well as it scales up. It is attractive to the military and to companies in telecommunications because it is rock solid. It is attractive to investment banks because it is a fantastic number cruncher. And so on.
Linux does not seem attractive to the unshaved masses of ignorami, mostly -- I guess -- because they do not have a clue. Since when is that a problem? Anybody who values other characteristics more, or elsewhere, should simply use another system.
For example, linux is attractive to the software engineering community, because of the unfettered innovation going on, on the platform. It is attractive to hosting companies because of its manageability. It is attractive to both embedded device (including phones) and supercomputer manufacturers because it scales down as well as it scales up. It is attractive to the military and to companies in telecommunications because it is rock solid. It is attractive to investment banks because it is a fantastic number cruncher. And so on.
Linux does not seem attractive to the unshaved masses of ignorami, mostly -- I guess -- because they do not have a clue. Since when is that a problem? Anybody who values other characteristics more, or elsewhere, should simply use another system.
They seem pretty interested in the shaven masses given that they develop a desktop distribution targeting the average user.
But that's the beauty of it, anyone can grab the Linux kernel and build distribution on top of it tuned for there specific target customer/user. This elitist "the dump masses don't deserve it" crap is part of the problem.
But that's the beauty of it, anyone can grab the Linux kernel and build distribution on top of it tuned for there specific target customer/user. This elitist "the dump masses don't deserve it" crap is part of the problem.
...to that tiresome "too many distros, too fragmented" rubbish one hears repeated all the time.
You were doing so well until your last paragraph resorted to name calling and insults.
If we can opensource software on proprietary operating systems, why not the other way. I for one am glad of this.. it means companies are finally realising that Linux is not just for geeks.. if games companies like Valve are starting to move to Linux, then serious software should follow. Bring it on.. 
I have been using Linux since 1998. Still remember the enthusiasm felt by many colleagues about the then new possibility of having a valid alternative to all those commercial platforms. Looking at the way Linux has grown in the desktop environment, it is rather surprising and disappointing to see that this option is considered by users in rich countries. Only in places where users have an option of having one more computer to do the "other" important things do they actually opt to install Linux on the other one.
My observation has been that users with limited resources to purchase only one computer prefer using a commercial (closed source) environment, where they can expect every thing they need to work (more or less). Closed source programs are closed but are very widely used.
This is a good move. I hope I can one day run all the programs I need on Linux without and Windows emulators and other tweaks!
Congrats Ubuntu
My observation has been that users with limited resources to purchase only one computer prefer using a commercial (closed source) environment, where they can expect every thing they need to work (more or less). Closed source programs are closed but are very widely used.
This is a good move. I hope I can one day run all the programs I need on Linux without and Windows emulators and other tweaks!
Congrats Ubuntu
Its a necessity for business
Quickbooks was a great example.
Entertainment distribution will continue to have DRM until we are able to get rid of some of the Industry power in politics.
Till then what do we do.
For Linux to be relevant to modern kids DRM is not debatable.
Sometimes its just necessary to open the door.
Something the American politicians are pretending to do now.
Quickbooks was a great example.
Entertainment distribution will continue to have DRM until we are able to get rid of some of the Industry power in politics.
Till then what do we do.
For Linux to be relevant to modern kids DRM is not debatable.
Sometimes its just necessary to open the door.
Something the American politicians are pretending to do now.
as we have legal access to the codecs and other ways around DRM
This is down to the ideology of the distribution. But at the end of the day, if you do not want to have that type of software, then don't install it. Filter it out of your searches. If they started to pre-install or require such software as part of the release; then this would create a completely different argument. When you choose a Linux distribution, in a way you are choosing to accept the choices that the project has made in regards to what they want to supply you with, sure you can change it, but you accepted up front some form of the release. If you take the opposite such as the FreeBSD project, you need to work in reverse, and build and install everything that you do want. The freedom of choice is there, be it with choosing to install or not, or choosing to switch to some other project with a different path and ideology. This would be a great research project for some graduate student, a study on the political contrasts between open source ideologies, as well as the variances within similar/like projects.
I am absolutely not sure that a request for the user to escalate to root permissions in order to allow Netflix to modify system files on the user's machine is acceptable, since they refuse to disclose what the netflix viewer actually contains. This practice -- very common in Windows -- violates every possible security guideline.
Netflix can attempt to enforce DRM on their servers. That is their right. However, they have no authority whatsoever to take control of the user's machine and litter it with binary files and patches while contaminating an environment that is otherwise entirely clean of similar malware; all of that just to make some more profits to the detriment of others while disrespecting what is other people's equipment and property.
Netflix can attempt to enforce DRM on their servers. That is their right. However, they have no authority whatsoever to take control of the user's machine and litter it with binary files and patches while contaminating an environment that is otherwise entirely clean of similar malware; all of that just to make some more profits to the detriment of others while disrespecting what is other people's equipment and property.
Just change that one folder to have more rights for your user?
to do it. You can even set it to apply to a particular group as well.
Trying to think this through: of course I want my games and music on my Ubuntu box. Just wondering if Linux becomes a transparent gateway (not window to the internet, what happens to the "build something for the good of humankind" mentality one finds everywhere in the Linux communities...
to the internet, what happens to the "build something for the good of humankind" mentality one finds everywhere in the Linux communities... - Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
