Discussions

So, what if Linux won the war?

Tags:
+
0 Votes
Locked

So, what if Linux won the war?

Oz_Media
What if Linux won the OS battle, put MS out of business and MAC ran and hid under the bed? (shhhh, stop laughing)

Right now, as Linux has next to no market penetration at all, it isn't a target or virus writers and PC hackers/trackers. Therefore the big Linux boast is how secure and solid it is, like a rock.

However, being thrust into the market forefront, do people actually believe that Linux would remain stable and secure with open source code?

First of all, they'd HAVE to start boxing and selling retail versions as you wouldn't be able to trust downloads anymore; it would be far too easy to corrupt an install from a downloaded file, redirected website or sppofed link.

Secondly, the price would soar, packaging, delivery and marketing costs. That means they have to offer a value added service to such retail clients such as user support, warranty and exchange etc. Once again pushing up costs of boxed, safe product.

Of course to stop any black market resellers that would sell hacked copies, now they have to licence it, and again the cost goes up.

So now you have Linux sold just as Windows is, no cost benefit there anymore.

You have a system that is the market forefront and the target of hackers worldwide, security is reduced, thus requiring patches written by Joe's 16 year old son, David. (it is open source afterall, isn't that a key benefit?).
David's new patch opens up another area of exploit, reduces system stability and causes crashes (just to be fair we'll call that the Linux Screen Of Death (LSOD)).

People will then expect to be able to play games on it too, so yet ANOTHER third party extension is added for free download. That free download is not trustworthy unless from a secure server. So the company providing that download has to start charging for the LX12 gaming interface for Linux. LX12 costs $99.00.

I've already paid for a "safe" version, now I have to pay for a "safe" gaming interface too? Man, this Linux license stuff is a rip off!!!

By now, Windows has all but disappeared, owns less than 15% of the marketshare. People stop writing viruses for it and the few remaining developers just offer the code online to fellow Windows fans to work on and stabilize. Windows now becomes less bloated as there's simply no need for all the patches, add-ons, security updates, licencing etc., they decide to offer it for free.

TR is then filled with posts stating, "10 reasons why Windows is better than Linux", with such reasons as 1) It's free you don't have to pay for licences. 2) It is more stable 3) it has a smaller footprint 4)it is more intuitive and easier to use ....

So what would happen if Linux won the war?

Free, stable and untargeted OS for the world to use? Sure.

Linux fans are far better off just keeping their heads down, enjoying their private club and forgetting about LWD - Linux World Domination (Muwahahahahahaha ]:) ), it aint going to happen and if it did, you wouldn't like it anyway.
  • +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    I posted yesterday, while everyone was stuffing with the turkeylurkey. Hope you all had a good Thanksgiving!

    Don't know if it's bad form to bump your own post but it got buried behind "How do I?" questions/discussions pretty quickly.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    Never in bad form when handled well, which I think you did.

    You have to realize, though, you're competing with mud-puppy pets.

    +
    0 Votes
    glee610

    I want to point out somethings.
    even if linux became main stream.

    a) Linux has a community to back them up. the more the people join the bigger the community. They are not young teenages. They are elite programmers.

    b) Opensource doesn't mean more bugs or more viurs b/c you can see the source code. It means nothing. But I do understand that they're virus and bugs; thats why we have the community to help. If you ever heard of de-commpiler you can do the samething with close source but that is besides the point.

    C) The linux programmers are not bounded by polics written by management. They are free to write what they want and have community option on it. This would lead to produce better, tight code that m$ could never do.

    D) linux programmers or the community get back to you personaly. m$, does get back to you but it takes time. And than sometimes they will just give you the run around or nothing at all.

    E) Last but not least I would like to know how much programming skills and knowlege do you have ?

    I think you have some great business explanations but linux is not a business but a community. Communitys grow, business do but they have to met the laws of business. Where the linux community doesn't. I agree with you but it's b/c of ignorance that linux will not be top OS.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    First of all you feel a small community is tah answer to all problems posed, however if they took over from Microsoft, buh-bye small community.

    a) Linux has a community to back them up.

    Super. Now if that community became global, how do you know who writes secure code, patches and fixes, updates and new software and who purposely writes patches that are expoits or virus'? When a new VERIFIED and trusted patch is released, how many 'rogue clones' would hit the market too, as we've already seen with MS updates and that's a closed source code.

    b) Your community argument...again.

    Now instead of your community being neighbours and helpful friends, picture all kinds of wierdos moving into the neighbourhood, playing as friendly community members but having their own agenda in mind. Now make that community global and tell me how you will monitor and control who gets in to your trusted community and who can't be trusted? You'd have to limit access to a small "community" of people, thus creating a closd source code that others can't decompile and play with.

    c) Your community can write better tighter code than MS.

    Fantastic, but with a global community who is writing the code? It's not just your friendly peer group anymore but a global population of people you trust that are trustworthy, people you trust that aren't trustworthy, people you don't trust that are trustworthy etc.
    Who determines what is safe and what isn't? You, your community? Sure, that'll work. Now you are just segregating Linux into a series of provate communities, thus the OS can never standardize and would NEVER EVER become widespread enough.

    d)How many linux members will get back to you personally when they have more than a billion people who trust and want their input?

    That's my entire point, which your post completely ignores. You are still thinking small, community based. This is a what if scenario for taking over as the world's most common platform, just as all 'nix fans think it should be.

    If you really feel the world will work together harmoniously for the better of the OS and malicious intentions will not be there, you need to go outside and meet a few strangers.

    e) My personal programming knowledge is absolutely irrelevant. I've written some C++ and I can write and get around Python scripts pretty well, however that means absolutely nothing with regard to the price of eggs these days.

    "Linux is not a business but a community"

    So you didn't understand the original post at all, if you did you would understand that I was referring to Linux being the globally preferred OS, do you REALLY think it would be a community thing between 'online friends and peers' and not HAVE to become a multibillion dollar business at that point?

    Between your community focus and comments with respect to my own programming skills, you have offered nothing of relevance at all.

    Thanks for your input all the same though, it speaks volumes.

    +
    0 Votes
    glee610

    Your acting as if I just insult you. I was talking in genral terms. I was mearly stating that linux has a community that grows with popularity. If you think about it, if everyone contributed and put it togather them **self***. key world here is self. I would think that we would have an excellent O/S which could in time be the globel standered b/c of it's openness. also, I said, that question was not pointed at you. It was pointed at everyone, I believe that the reason most people don't adopt new and creative things (linux) is b/c your ignorane and lazyness to even try or learn. Again, not saying that about you, i know how touchy you are. I am agruing to you about the facts that the reason why linux will never be " the top dog" o/s.

    My understanding of business is very far and you point out some good facts but like i said before to many variables to make a bold statement that we never have a linux system adopted by everyone.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    Your title was Linux ignorance. If that was misconstrued as meaning you thought my comments were ignorant, I do apologize.

    you still seem to be missing the whole focus of a global standard though.

    " if everyone contributed and put it togather them **self***. key world here is self. I would think that we would have an excellent O/S which could in time be the globel standered b/c of it's openness.

    Not at all, in fact open source is impossible to standardize.

    If everyone puts together their OWN system, there IS no standard, that's the whole point of standardization, every aspect must be asolutely identical for all customers.

    To explain computer stndardization, when a large company needs to invest in many computers, they seek out a manufacturer that guarantees standardization. That means that for a predetermined time frame (say 5 years) EVERY SINGLE COMPONENT of that system can be reordered and is identical to the initial investment. If one PC uses a Seagate 500GB hard drive, they ALL use the same exact part number. Up to 5 years from that initital purchase date, any hard drives replaced will also be guaranteed to be identical. THAT is standardization. Take a low end company like DELL for example, they use loss leaders, they uy out clearance parts etc and uild machines. Though many will use teh same parts by sheer fluke, there is no guarantee that if your Seagate 500GB HD drives next year, it will be replaced with an identical part, you may get a Western Digital or even a different Seagate, but thye don't guarantee a standard. When you buy IBM business machines (not from retail stores) you pay a lot more but they will also gurantee standards for a minimum time frame. (eex. 5yrs)where anything you get replaced or even if you add a new machine to the network, it is identical in every way.

    So back to your theory, if everyone does their own thing and source code is left open, you simply cannot achieve standardization, it is literally impossible due to ann open source business model.

    I don't think people avoid Linux due to ignorance at all, and that has nothing to do with why Linux won't take over the world. For a usiness to imvest in business workstations, pay for support and have software that is equally supported by manufacturers that are responsible for it's code and supporting it in house, there is no possible way they will seriously consider Linux. The very few that do are shops that are focused on IT, networking etc that have endless numbers of technical staff on hand.

    There is then the compaitbility issue, and NO, Linux isn't as seamlessly compatible as some woul dlike to make it seem.

    Legacy apps that cost businesses tens of thousands to develop may always require a flavour of Windows.

    Sharing documents across multiple offices and ubsinesses is a lot easier for some people as they use common MS office apps (myself I PDF everything so it doesn't make any difference to me). My boss likes to send everything out as a word doc, our suppliers send us countless Excel spreadsheets which are also integrated into our accoutnign software. No, Open Office does not offer the same functionality or compatibility, I've tried it.

    Again, not saying that about you, i know how touchy you are. I am agruing to you about the facts that the reason why linux will never be " the top dog" o/s.

    Of course that is not insulting in anyway, you seem to know me so well and know how "touchy I am" and, as you have agreed yourself, business is not really your strength.

    So once again, as I mentioned in my first post, your view that if open source was a standard (that's an oxymoron)then the Linux community would take over, if people weren't so lazy that they just used what worked and was suported instead of venturing into something new, there'd be a chance.

    So your first hurdle is educating people who already know and can efficiently use one system, that they are better off learnign a new system instead.

    Your next hurdle is finding them support, teaching them that they can no longer rely on a single developer or support contract but must now rely on a free, online community of peers they neither know nor trust, to work out issues with their sensitive company data.

    Your next hurdle is providing Linux for free and havign it secured. good luck with that one. You'll need a single, secured sever that is locked down like the safe at Brinks, but available for anyone to access 24/7 with utter repliabilty. If not, people will be able to download form any unrtrusted source and would never be sure to have a safe version.

    I suppose the next of the countless hurdles would be cost. As your main server which provides the only safe open source code to all users, needs to be maintained and a LOT of bandwidth must be paid for, hope you're feeling generous in your effort to rid the world of MS, it costs a lot of money!

    It reminds me of an old Monty Pthons sketch actually, how to play a flute in one simple lesson.

    1) First you low in one end
    2) Wiggle your fingers up and down the other end.

    or how to rid the world of all known diseases:

    First you become a doctor and develop a cure, then you tell all the other doctors jolly well what to do!

    It's simple and hopeful but far far from realistic.

    There's SO much more behind Linux's failure to rise to teh top than simply users being too ignorant to accept it. I've done SUSE rollouts myself, to organizations that used Windows for years. There are a LOT reo concerns that you have put forth.

    +
    0 Votes
    Jremmy

    I use Linux at least 10 hours a day. I am not an expert like most of you but I like Linux over Windows. It seems everything you do on Windows has a road block or some B.S. error message or some other issue that drives you nuts. I also think that a lot of M.S. users are extremely misled about Linux. I have seen so many false accusations and charts that M.S. dreams up and puts on the net and people believe it because M.S. said so. M.S. is more common sure but that is because all these people grow up in a Windows enviroment and don't know any better or are just to lazy to learn something new. Honestly, I have to touch up on my Windows knowledge because I started on and still use Linux. It sucks for us nix users because the rest of the world is brainwashed with WINDOWS, WINDOWS, WINDOWS. And why is it so horrible that you can manipulate Linux to your liking? I just wish that there weren't so many distros. I wish that we could come together I know its cliche but seriously if all these programmers came together and made 1 KICKASS distro of Linux it could compete and have more desktops, laptops, servers, etc with Linux right out of the box. It is cool to do your own thing but if Linux will ever be as big as M.S. or MAC people are going to have to come together and produce a knock down, drag out distro. BTW I HATE WINDOWS LOL J/K don't flare up on me OZ you hemroid you. Have a good one everybody.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    I hadn't thought of that one.

    +
    0 Votes
    The 'G-Man.'

    all that would really happen if the entire world was running on Linux.

    'Elite Programmers' getting back to Joe Shmow about his printer driver issue.

    +
    0 Votes
    drowningnotwaving

    You can absolutely guarantee that??? No single exception?

    No possiblility of the Ruskie or Middle-Eastern cyber-virus crew getting in there, just for laffs???

    Side-splittingly funny !!! :)

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    If they tried to keep their current values in such a global OS. I don't think it would work too well. It would be too fragmented. With the small market share they have now, they have so so many distros that all do almost the same thing. Imagine if 6 billion people were using and building for it.


    So I must completely agree with your theory on how it would turn out.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    Linux - the kernel is licensed under GPL completely different to the way Microsoft is licensed so your view of the implication of pirating does not apply its all a fantasy.

    Increased % of Linux desktops would not be all at once and any commercialization would just be increased growth for those in the business at present, Red Hat Novel etc.

    Unix and Linux, BSD, the Unix clones get their security through architecture and design, eg complete separation of user accounts from admin accounts, you need to crack root account to install viruses. Microsoft does not have have this feature and thus required a lot of bolt on extras to give it any level of security, any half decent IT pro should be able to get their head around this.

    Long time Linux users choose Linux because it does a much better job of their computing requirements than the alternatives, so they use it, it's not a fashion statement, or a popularity contest, anyone can use whatever suits their purpose, the closed source, Microsoft world has made a living for, large numbers of IT, pro's ranging from the highly skilled to the hardly adequate, so any decline will not be sudden.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    Viruses are about stealing information, or damaging it. You don't need to be logged into root to delete all the files in your home folder, or to attach an addon to firefox to spy on you. Root permissions mean very little at all in a well constructed virus. Granted many viruses would be run once viruses, as without root you would not be able to specify start up items in any hidden places. But it only needs to run once.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    Has to have access to the hardware via the OS to do anything. No access to the machine it is just lines of code doing nothing. It has to have permission to run to do anything, no root permission no access.

    Here's a challenge, you are in the programming business, write something that will run on a standard Linux system without root permission

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    You don't need root to run programs, otherwise Linux would be the most worthless OS ever. Limited users can run programs installed by the admins. Limited users can also run anything they download. Maybe not install, but they can run it. There is nothing saying that you can't get one of those drive by viruses that use a vulnerability to run itself under the logged in users permissions. Under this users permissions, all the files you have, all your work, is exposed. Just because it cannot hurt the core OS is irrelevant. A virus could theoretically destroy everything that is important. AKA, your home folder.


    I also haven't managed to keep a Linux system around/running long enough to bother to learn how to develop for it.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    A program needs to have executable permission and I'm certain if it was easy to do this someone would have done this, the Linux code is not full of security holes so more users does not make it less secure as the security is there because it has been designed to be secure with its basic architecture file system permissions and other designed in features.

    there are 2 great myths that regularly appear in these forums, 1 security through obscurity of Linux, Nix OS's get their better security through design (if you think this is BS come up with an exploit) 2. the year of Linux, any increases Linux use will come gradually as it spreads out from niche's in the market where Linux is a better choice of OS

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    not have you as owner and not with execute permissions?

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    It's a matter of faith, Linux users don't have a clue how quickly linux would be hit and hammered if it was more widely accepted.

    They like to think that it would remain as it is today, yet on a grander scale, and that MS is just really stupid, hired the worst, stupidest technicians and engineers, when much better can be had form an online community. It's easy for them to capitalize on issues that are brought to light regarding MS's weaknesses, if teh same spotlight was on Linux it would be the same thing though, regardless of permissions, root access, footprint etc. They just assume that Linux wouldn't change as it grew into a multibillion dollar industry.

    Good luck with that.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    "Nix" type OS's right from the start have an architecture and design for operating in a multi-connected, multi-user environment, it is designed to be secure. If it is as simple as you say to infect it with destructive malware I'm certain somebody would be doing it. For a program to execute the system even if only a user on the system still need to be given permission from that particular system to run.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    I don't see why a drive by website program couldn't just delete your home folder. Which would cause the most damage possible to anyone's computer... the loss of all your data.

    And before you say it requires your permission, look up on TR about how addons can be used for malicious code from Firefox. It can be as simple as a Flash exploit that gains control of the file system at the user level and deletes your files. The core OS is still fine, but everything important to you, everything that makes your computer have a purpose, is gone. Poof.

    And there is viruses for Linux based systems (Usually distro specific I've noticed), lots and lots of viruses, many have been unpatched for years. Just google them.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    If it is so easy then tell us the basic principle of how this could be done

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    just google it, theree are even youtube videos on how to hack linux. there are countless virus scripts available online, tutotials on how to infect linux etc.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    I think you've completely missed the point here.

    firstly, the kernel is absolutely, 100% irrelevant. People need to acquire Linux for free via downloads. So who monitors teh net to ensure all links provided on a global scale are valid? Who then ensures that none of those websites are spoofed and redirected to somewhere where malicious code is downloaded? LInux is vulnerable, it would become far remo vulnerable if open source because a standard for the globe. Right now they are not a viable target for malidious code, however Linux is still not virus free and completely secure either.

    This is not a debate on whether Microsoft offers etter security than Linux, that argument is too old. We all know that, right now, Linux is less prone to viruses, however it is also true that it is not a target or malicious code writers. With a larger audience it will quickly become a target for all malicious code writers (regardless of the efforts required) and would offer far less security than now.

    Long time linux users, whatever. I made no comment about long term linux users. As I also said, the world has seized Windows for that exact same reason you suggest long time linux users choose linux for' "it does a much better job of their computing requirements than the alternatives. The same can be said of MAC users too. I also know countless people who use Linux because it's cool to do so when you are in IT, that doesn't mean it doesn't also suit their needs. When you conduct business all day with companies that use Windows, obviously the OS that suits your requirements will e Windows, but that's not even close to the topic here. What if Linux was the pro choice? How would it survive as a business model? Your post ignores the entire premise of the discussion in an attempt to show why you prefer Linux.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    Linux has been a commercial product and has been for awhile, Red Hat, Novel, I purchased Mandrake 9.2 Powerpack myself. This commercialization is a much different model than the traditional MS or other commercial closed source software, as much of the software is open source and licensed under GPL, what you are being sold is the cost of just producing the media, manuals and not the cost of writing it, and in some cases a service contract and the odd close source program. When I look at the cost of Mandrake 9.2 as compared to WinXP at the time, Mandrake was significantly cheaper and is allowed to be installed on more than 1 machine, which as far as I know is the same for Red Hat Novel, or any other commercialized Linux. Any % increase desktop share for Linux is going to be a steady increase not an overnight explosion, so those in the game of commercialized Linux are not going to be swamped all at once and windows being a steady source of regular income (often because of it's weaknesses) will be out there for the masses for some time yet.

    MS products are becoming, more and more of a consumer appliance product, so as I see it Linux's next area to expand into will more likely to be in the high end power part of the commercial and business market especially in the CAD market where MS OS's take more than their fair share of a machine's resources than is desirable, Back in the past the top end of the CAD market was workstations and Unix as the PC was not up to the task. When PC's became powerful enough to handle this work, the PC became a much cheaper option, and as MS had the only OS for the PC at the time that was the way things went. Linux uses a machines resources better, so as I see it sooner or later the CAD developers will see the advantage of building Linux versions of their software, the could build their own Linux to integrate best with their software.

    Linux, the way it's produced, distributed, it's design and architecture is completely different to MS products. Applying the rules of the MS world has no validity as they are so different, more popularity will not make it less secure as security is part of it's design at a fundamental level, with Windows, an add on, an afterthought, and another steady income stream for some in the industry.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    As an MCNE, I've noted elsewhere here that I have sold and installed Suse for several corporate rollouts (all have since reverted back to Windows after about 2-3 years though. I am not under contract to support them anymore and they found it FAR cheaper to use licenced Windows instead). I know very well that they sell boxed software these days.

    I am also certain that their business model is very different from MS. OF course when you are that small, you will have a different business model than a multibillion dollar conglomerate.

    Your comments are valid but don't counter the initial post at all. Linux simply could not operate on such a large scale with such licence costs in place, it would ecome incredibly insecure (due to free downloads) and would be the target of all hackers.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    The CPL license is completely different than MS EULA. When you Download Linux it is from secure servers. The main reason for "Nix" type OS's security is by design. "Nix is designed from the ground up to be a multi-user multi-connected OS and accordingly has features in its design and basic architecture to enable it to perform adequately in this environment. Windows has it's roots in a single user non-connected environment and was never designed with proper inbuilt security, this has been added and bolted on as an afterthought.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    And you are still going on and on and on abotu how licencing is different.

    SOMEBODY CHANGE THE RECORD!!!

    STOP. Now think about it, TODAY, as in not tomorrow, Linux uses a CPL license system.

    If they were to become as big as Microsoft, they couldn't licence the same way and still control development. They'd either have insanely high prices for a boxed CPL licenced package or would have to charge on a leased licence system (or similar) as MS does today.

    And AGAIN as far as 'nix security. Whether by design or divine intervention, it makes no bloody difference!

    'nix HAS been hacked already, it CAN be done.FACT. So forget about it being some inpenetrable fortress of an OS.

    If it was the biggest target, it would in turn become the most hacked. FACT.

    just because America has a large military and a seemingly inpenetrable defense, it doesn't mean that America is not the number one target of foreign attack, in fact the previous results in the latter.

    Canada, in contrast, has a very small military, however we have not seen any of our skyscrapers crashed into by terrorists, terrorists use Canada to GET ot the USA so they can terrorize America, not Canada. (plus we have more global support and they know it, attacking Canada is declaring world war)

    Your ever so trusty 'nix flavour is all of a sudden the largest target on the planet with literally hudreds of thousands of people writing viruses and seeking new vulnerabilities in order to take it down.

    As I've said a thousand times, it's the biggest guy in the bar that is also the key target for everyone else to take down.

    When you download linux it's from secure servers, seriously j-mart, how wee is you brain? I mean that as nicely as I can put it, it's as if you read a sentence and grasp one word, create your own comment from it instead of what was actually said, and then argue against it.

    I have said HOW many times that if linux became the global preference, SOMEONE will have to set up a single, secure, and managed server; in your eyes that would be for free of course as they have nothing better to do.

    Otherwise there would be thousands of exploits, downloads from third parties that are already exploited before installation, it is uncontrollable, even a closely locked down and private source such code such as Windows has that problem, Open Source would simply become open season.

    Support, is currently provided by a community of trusted but yet unknown/unnamed people. Those people would GLADLY support a global audience 24/7 for free and all said patches and fixes would also be secure, tested and offered from the single secured global server. Without it, code add ons, updates and fixes would be easily exploited and offered from unknown sources with no protection at all.

    So now you expect a single release, through a single secured server, with secured support....for free.

    What time do you open your free e-commerce store offering your guiding light?

    And how will you pay for that server and the millions of gigs of bandwidth monthly? Damn kind, aren't you?

    Unless of course you realize that charging for the cost of the CD and materials enclosed in the box does not cover the cost of the server, support, security and bandwidth too. In which case you now need to create a whole new licence system to pay for your additional operational costs.

    First off, I PAY for my own bandwidth, why would I pay to download software from your server and pay for YOUR bandwidth?

    Secondly, I have my own security, why should I pay extra for YOUR security when I can get it from an untrusted but seemingly secure server for free?

    If I buy Linux why must I use YOUR choice of security and support to maintain it? That's not allowed in MS' world.


    That's another thing, with free copies of your OS floating around, how will you account for charging for yours whjich is exploited just as easily as any other?


    Now, DON'T SAY A WORD ABOUT CPL LICENCES, DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT SAYING MENTIONING ROOT SECURITY, IT'S ALL A THING OF THE PAST AND YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE.

    Talk about MS adding security as an afterthought (yeah..I am sure that's the last thing thy consider, seeing as the issue is never raised), however how about some forethought for a change.

    I've had more logical conversations about the Easter Bunny with a toddler.

    +
    0 Votes

    Oz

    j-mart

    You must be board and looking for a pointless argument about nothing. If we look at the facts that actually exist at the present time

    1. Due to the significant investment and income generation centered around Windows is not going to be suddenly overwhelmed and dominated by Linux, despite how many, "it's the year of Linux" is declared.

    2. Increased use of Linux is as it is now slow and steady quite possibly the largest uptake for Linux next will possibly be in specialized commercial applications where it could be of some advantage over windows.

    Growth in Linux will be slow and steady and many of the systems in place will be able to absorb this growth as it is not going to happen in a mad rush.

    Your basic fantasy story that Linux could all of a sudden be thrust into the limelight, almost as if overnight become a resounding success, with the Linux supply chain due to this sudden and unexpected polarity crashing down around it, is just that, a fairy story.

    The present Linux model based on the GPL License would cope with any steady increase in Linux adoption without too much trouble, It would get to the stage where boxed sets would be readily available at computer retail outlets. The cost of copying CD / DVD's is not astronomical, or printing boxed and manuals either, the industry at present that produces bootleg Windows could step in here if the wanted to as coping GNU Linux is not illegal.

    If writing effective viruses fo Linux is so easy I'm sure there would be many doing it.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    and not presented as anything but.

    reverse the tables and lets see how linux, under it's current business models would hold up.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    But only on the bits about making Boxed Sets. Almost all of the current makers do this already and places like Red Hat SUSE and so on also have Support Contracts with their users.

    Of course security would suffer but only because there is now more incentive for the Nasties to Hack into the Core OS and do their thing. Though the way to do this is a lot different to a Windows Platform and when M$ did make a half hearted attempt to try to secure their Flagship Product with the release of Vista they got decryed by most of the Press and End Users who didn't want a more secure system if they had to be put out in the process.

    But none the less the very first case of Hacking a Computer happened on a Unix System at the Melbourne University in AU and it is possible but none the less it is harder because of the Architecture involved to do in a Nix Environment than it is in a Windows Environment where so many work with Root Permissions to do what they want.

    There would be quite a few Script Kiddies who would have to relearn their craft and the Big end of Town would have to employ much better security than they currently are.

    However the main difference would be with the increase of people writing Code for the Base Platform there would be far more Code Blot creping in and the Nix would get as bloated as Windows currently is and bog down the hardware eventually. The current way of writing code by the Open Source Community would get hit hard by so many Windows Developers trying to get their script accepted and this is the single biggest problem that I can see happening.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    dwdino

    Most of the replies fail to take into account the Ecosystem created by Microsoft (or any large vendor). If Linux were to become THE OS of choice, many would have to find a way to make their lively hood from its products and services. The only reason you can have "free" software is because the developers are being paid somewhere else.

    +
    0 Votes
    jck

    Go back to using my Commodore 64 with my MPS-803 or my Panasonic KX-1091i printer with the Star-Micronics interface, and writing documents in 80 column with GEOS. :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    There's always a price list, a rolodex and a pen & paper. I bet it won't be much more than 10 years most kids won't know how cursive writing. Handwriting/penmanship will be to them as Calligraphy is to us today.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    For about grades 1 to 8, it was handwriting. had to learn it in G2.
    Starting in G8 and on, it had to be printing. The teachers had to print everything. Possibly because of English as second language. But more likely as many of us could not properly read handwriting. I personally cannot write in handwriting, takes me 20 times longer to write in handwriting than it does to just print it out, but if you handwrite as I was taught to in school, I can read it. But if you swoop around and make funny lines, I cannot read it.

    I heard once that the death of handwriting, was because of the left brained logical people that cannot draw. The required ability to draw is the same as the ability required to handwrite or write neatly. The left brained people became prominent when computers became products for the masses.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    when I was recovering from a coma, I had to learn to write properly again, as I had lost motor skills (walking, reaching for and grasping objects etc.).

    It was a bummer *** I had excellent penmanship, was into calligraphy and mechanical drafting too. Then I couldn't write my name legibly. So I forced myself to write as much as possible, I started just writing out books I was reading, just writing it all out to develop the unconcious motor skills, and now I write well again. Sometimes, when I am online too much, I find my writing gets poor. I just start writing stuff out again, and handwriting everything (notes, daytime tasks etc)instead of printing it out.

    I refuse to let a learned skill fail me due to laziness.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    Why have two different ways of writing the same characters? For that matter, why bother with upper case and lower case?

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    m_sWhenYouTypeLikeThisInCode_ProgramersRule

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    Some people prefer to communicate effectively without a computer.

    Writing in any language is about hand eye control, motor skills, creative thought, and discipline. Computers remove those skills from our youth and it has resulted in a ridiculous world of acronyms, single letters being used to represent words and even sometimes combining with a numer used to represent a word. It's absolutely moronic to see how some people feel they are communicating these days, perhaps in a peer group it works but god help you when you explore the rest of the world.

    We've all seen how easily some people are thrown right off topic when they read posts here. It is generally due to their misunderstanding of punctuation, grammar, the inability to break down adverbs, adjectives etc. and they wind up reading something that isn't really there and ignoring what was actually said. In essence, people are just going stupid.

    Edit: While many people here have difficulty reading my posts due to my terrible typing skills, the same goes for the written word. If you can't write, it impedes your ability to communicate effectively.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    I agree with most of what you say, but none of it addresses my question. All of your arguments would apply equally if we had only one case and no cursive. None of them would apply if we didn't have computers.

    Why have two different forms of writing? Why have two different cases? Sure, it's what we've grown up used to seeing, but that isn't a reason to continue it.

    Don't get me started on the letters 'C' or 'Q'.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    People dismiss it because they feel no need for what they deem accurate grammar and communication skills that are now seemingly out of date. However many of those same people will hang onto laws and political commentary made over 200 years ago in order to deny a more progressive society.

    Cursive writing is an art form called penmanship. Some poeple still require written instruction, and before you go on abotu printing, that's just as bad these days. An inability to write or even print is much like an inability to read, it impedes communication.

    When you look for a job in the US these days, you need certs, qualifications,education, hands on skills, communication skills etc. So why is it okay to not be able to print properly, use punctuation or write legibly?

    It's not really funny how easily the simplest of skills are dismissed by those who dont't possess such skills.

    How anyone can function in society, even in today's society, without being able to write or print legibly and with correct or at least reasonable punctuation is beyond me.

    As for capitals, that is an indicator of nouns, eginnings of sentences etc. It maks it easier to read when properly broken into paragraphs and puctuated.

    if all comments are just spewed out in lower case and without proper spacing or punctuation it's hard to determine where one sentence ends and another starts.reading english has been taught in a way that the brain recognizes capitalization as starting a new sentence or referring to a noun that way we can read properly and at speed without misunderstanding the comment being made.you can f**k with a language all you like it doesn't mean that proper capitalization and punctuation is not important to those who have to read it.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    I know my punctuation well, but I can't spell for sh*t and I cannot print neatly. My hand doesn't obey my mind well enough for it. It's not as if I haven't written books worth of stuff. My dad cannot print clearly either, nor my grandpa, its genetic. I am just lucky that the digital age has made printing and handwriting, nearly obsolete.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    While genes may result on one taking longer to learn how to print or write clearly, they are both learned skills that can be developed with practice, unless by genetics you are referring to a hereditary mental deficiency that impedes your motor skills.

    As ot Why print neatly? You are joking, right? Written or printed communication means others must be ale to read what you are trying to communicate. Another reason is that if you write like a 5 year old and can't spell, it doesn't exactly promote you as educated because a good education includes learning and practicing those most basic of human functions.

    That's like saying, "I don't need to speak English properly."

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    I do have several mental disabilities. My spelling is not so good (Getting better thanks to the internet) and my printing is terrible. But on the other hand, math also confuses the **** out of me, I still cannot do long division properly. And yet I can program banking system software. I just finished coding the calculation for joint TDS/GDS. So what do these "paper" skills really matter for anymore?

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    In your case those skills would correctly identify a mental deficiency, whether or nto that is an issue for the employer looking at your resume is up to them.

    WHat you are suggesting, is like somene who can't walk sitting in a chair and saying, "so what if I can't walk, why do I need legs? I don't walk for a living."

    In many cases, prehaps a company with wheelchair acess or situated on the first floor, you may not need legs. However in cases where the company is on a high floor, insurance measures would ensure that everyone was able to safely evacuate a building in the case of an emergency.

    So you do need legs and such a disability should be considered important.

    The point is, whether you feel you'll use a skill or not doe s not mean that it is unimportant to others.

    We are merely talking about the ENGLISH language. If you have a learning disability that's completely understandable, it doesn't mean that it is not VERY important for others though. If yuo want to rewrite a language do so, just don't expect teh world to forget their most common language for teh sake of your disability though. And with your excuses including, why use capitals, that has nothign to do with a learning disability anyway, that's just plain 'kin lazy!

    Once again, I don't mean any disrecepct towards you for having a mental deficiency, learning disability or anything else that you have no control over.

    But you can't ecpect the world to expect less from others because you have genelogical issues.

    That whole 'no child left behind' stuff is pure crap.

    I believe very strongly in equal opportunity, but don't expect me to lay down while others catch up.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    I'm not questioning the need for accurate grammar, spelling, or punctuation. I'm not questioning the necessity of forming written characters in a clear fashion so readers can easily tell one from the other. I'm asking for a reason to continue teaching both printed and cursive characters. What difference does it make if I write the characters as unconnected individuals or as one continuously connected word? Why maintain both systems? (Four systems if you count upper and lower cases.)

    You're right that we've been taught certain conventions, but we can just as easily teach others. We've been taught that sentences begin with an upper case letter, but we could as easily recognize the beginning of a sentence by the first character after the period that ended the last one. Capitalization doesn't lead to faster reading in and of itself; we read slower when it isn't there because it's a convention we've been taught.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    it only took me half a second to get into the flow. It doesn't really matter to me. After reading 12 year old kids Engrish/Malaysian butchering of grammar, it was easy.
    Just look at this last tech support request I got.


    "alright, this is very annoying. I log into the game all is just peachy, all the graphics are fine everything okay except! the writing everything is fuzzy and all blurry. I have installed my new drivers, I have changed the resolution and the quality of the game several times and I'm running out of idea's anyone able to help me????"

    ^^^Further proof that we need more than a spell checker in browsers.


    And Ozzie, no worries (Though you mixed up some replies :) ). Those "normals", many work dead end jobs, gas stations, restaurants, or are still in school. Many others died of drugs or gang violence. Meanwhile I graduated at the top of my class (Thanks to the previous top leaving early) and immediately got a job programming making more than double/triple what those "normals" make. I don't think of it as a disability, its a mechanism for me to ignore/forget useless information.


    however I do wish I took physics instead of chemistry, chemistry was fun, but physics would have been useful, even if I didn't understand it fully. And all those years wasted when they tried to force me to learn French and Ukrainian, hopeless....

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    In short, is we could all just reduce our grammar teaching to suit that of yourself, the world will be a better place.

    I don't have an issue with using cursive handwriting nor capitalization, same numer of strokes, if not fewer than printing.

    I understand that the common conventions do not suit your needs, however there are many things in life that don't suit mine either. I don't expect any changes to national systems just to appease my own desires though, I understand what a global system is and I will adapt to suit it as best I can.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    I actually dropped out halfway through grade 11 because my parents separated and we moved, I went to work full time instead. It was fun when I went back to school to visit friends and was making more than thier teachers though. It wasn't until I went to trade school that I had to pass a test showing that I had sufficient knowledge of math, formulas, reading comrpehension etc, in order to qualify for the class. Even then, it was an hour in a classroom writing a test and not anther year or five in school.

    My goal at that point was to prove that I was able to earn more money than my friends who graduated and went on to college, and I still make more compared to those I have met since.

    Sure I could have followed my brothers path and graduated ,went to college and become a successful corporate lawyer but my heart wasn't in it.

    Actually just got news today that my time is up at my current position, BDM's and sales reps are always first to go. But I've seen it coming for a while now in a dead insudstry that won't pick up until at least May, don't really care though and have irons in the fire all the time. Actually thinking of getting into selling boats and yachts, have a one on one with a manager of a major dealer next week. I contacted him, told him what I wanted, what I've done and what I could do, so I'll see where that leads if anywhere. I have also have a couple of offers from former customers over tha last few months that I have ignored so far but they are there if I want them. I find I get offers and opportunities all the time, and just seek them otuu when needed.

    If not, I can make more working for myself than I've ever made working for anyone else, no big deal. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and it's faded now, past experience has proven to me that decent paying jobs are easy enough to find, skewul or no skewul.

    Edit: I was fortunate enough to enter the workforce when it was just a matter of a handful of resumes and a friendly handshake to seal the deal. It allowed me to gain experience when drive and eagerness was enough to get a start. Today I agree that for younger people it is much harder to get a foot in the door and gain any experience without a formal education, mainly due to the recruiting/mass resume hiring process that people have been sucked into.

    +
    0 Votes
    jck

    Doing long-hand mathematics for most children already is, thanks to the calculator/computer.

    Way to go. Cripple our kids when the batteries/power is gone.

    +
    0 Votes
    afuller

    the way you know that it has happened is when everybody on the planet begins talking with a LISP.

    +
    0 Votes
    zefficace

    The fact is, what is made by man can be undone by man, provided there is sufficient interest.

    Windows, Linux, the lock on your front door, your state of the art alarm system, they will be "worked around" or broken if "they" really want to.

    Besides, there is always the "stupidity" factor. I know, I'm not supposed to say there are many idiots out there, because it's politically incorrect. But, you know some people are "click crazy". Others are just too trusting and fall for social engineering. Build what you want in your OS, but Ron White said it best: "You can't fix stupid".

    +
    0 Votes
    collaredsiren

    First; GPL, to go commercial with all Linux-based code you'd have to find everyone who had ever put any code in and get their permission, which would be impossible, some have passed on, others have disappeared ect...

    Second; DISTRO's, flavours, derivatives, ect... schools have them, governments have them, groups have them, companies have them, there must be thousands of different distro's, used by different kinds of people. And with the ever growing popularity of Linux-based Operating Systems, there are more and more coming out all the time, getting a vulnerability to hop from red-hat to Debian/Ubuntu to SUSE is hard enough as it is, imagine trying to get it to in the case where there are thousands or even hundreds of thousands more distro's to consider?

    Browser vulnerabilities? this plays a big part of most of the previous responses, but does anyone have any idea how many browsers there are, I'll help; it's hundreds, and as above with growing popularity comes growing varieties, Fire Fox, though growing on windows as well as Google Chrome, in the open source world, people try the new varieties, settle with the one they prefer till they find something better, and funny enough people have different tastes and prefer different things!

    Hacker; All these variations man, there's just too many!

    Yeah, no doubt there will be some who choose the most popular distro and browser combinations and end up with problems, but once those problems are discovered they will be fixed.

    Finally; Back to the Commercialisation theme; as discussed above it will be hard to comply with the GPL and go down this route, but, no doubt with growing popularity there will be mis-spelt domain names ect that carry varied versions of OS's that will intentionally include vulnerabilities, and there will be store's and companies ect that will box and support particular varieties, but as it's open-source there will be competition between these companies, also of note is the fact that most distro websites already carry lists of local distributors and support companies, and this competition is encouraged, this is one of the most fundamental differences between M$/MAC and Open-Source; differences are promoted and encoraged, the best tool for the job and so on, and obviously the best tool for the job will be the strongest locally supported varieties.

    Contrary to the opinion held by the author I believe the above scenario is pretty much a worst case scenario, not a 'most-likely' as it is just to variable that no-one will be able to predict what will happen. Two final thoughts though:

    1. Enjoy Linux as it is, if you like it recommend it!

    2. Do not take my word for it, do your own research, and make your own mind up.

    +
    0 Votes
    Daughain

    I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the fact that the multiple distros work in favor of linux security. I also find it entertaining that the IP assumes that an 'overnight blitz' that leaves linux as the 'most popular OS' would then force it into the business model MS uses.

    I recently switched from windows to Ubuntu linux, and have spent a fair amount of time learning about other flavors of linux since my initial switch. My current understanding leads me to believe that the main benefit of linux being open source is that it can be modified for many different applications fairly easily. I have found Ubuntu and KDE simple and easy for a veteran windows user to adapt to, and generally more secure than windows in general.
    That being said, for an office or business application, there are many better flavors of linux (most of them, actualy). Because of this, I expect, that 'linus as the #1 OS' would be based more on the flexibility of the flavors of the OS, than because of 'one kick-a**' version. Therefore, no 'MS style' business model could truly be imposed.
    Just a few thoughts from your local mechanic. =)

  • +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    I posted yesterday, while everyone was stuffing with the turkeylurkey. Hope you all had a good Thanksgiving!

    Don't know if it's bad form to bump your own post but it got buried behind "How do I?" questions/discussions pretty quickly.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    Never in bad form when handled well, which I think you did.

    You have to realize, though, you're competing with mud-puppy pets.

    +
    0 Votes
    glee610

    I want to point out somethings.
    even if linux became main stream.

    a) Linux has a community to back them up. the more the people join the bigger the community. They are not young teenages. They are elite programmers.

    b) Opensource doesn't mean more bugs or more viurs b/c you can see the source code. It means nothing. But I do understand that they're virus and bugs; thats why we have the community to help. If you ever heard of de-commpiler you can do the samething with close source but that is besides the point.

    C) The linux programmers are not bounded by polics written by management. They are free to write what they want and have community option on it. This would lead to produce better, tight code that m$ could never do.

    D) linux programmers or the community get back to you personaly. m$, does get back to you but it takes time. And than sometimes they will just give you the run around or nothing at all.

    E) Last but not least I would like to know how much programming skills and knowlege do you have ?

    I think you have some great business explanations but linux is not a business but a community. Communitys grow, business do but they have to met the laws of business. Where the linux community doesn't. I agree with you but it's b/c of ignorance that linux will not be top OS.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    First of all you feel a small community is tah answer to all problems posed, however if they took over from Microsoft, buh-bye small community.

    a) Linux has a community to back them up.

    Super. Now if that community became global, how do you know who writes secure code, patches and fixes, updates and new software and who purposely writes patches that are expoits or virus'? When a new VERIFIED and trusted patch is released, how many 'rogue clones' would hit the market too, as we've already seen with MS updates and that's a closed source code.

    b) Your community argument...again.

    Now instead of your community being neighbours and helpful friends, picture all kinds of wierdos moving into the neighbourhood, playing as friendly community members but having their own agenda in mind. Now make that community global and tell me how you will monitor and control who gets in to your trusted community and who can't be trusted? You'd have to limit access to a small "community" of people, thus creating a closd source code that others can't decompile and play with.

    c) Your community can write better tighter code than MS.

    Fantastic, but with a global community who is writing the code? It's not just your friendly peer group anymore but a global population of people you trust that are trustworthy, people you trust that aren't trustworthy, people you don't trust that are trustworthy etc.
    Who determines what is safe and what isn't? You, your community? Sure, that'll work. Now you are just segregating Linux into a series of provate communities, thus the OS can never standardize and would NEVER EVER become widespread enough.

    d)How many linux members will get back to you personally when they have more than a billion people who trust and want their input?

    That's my entire point, which your post completely ignores. You are still thinking small, community based. This is a what if scenario for taking over as the world's most common platform, just as all 'nix fans think it should be.

    If you really feel the world will work together harmoniously for the better of the OS and malicious intentions will not be there, you need to go outside and meet a few strangers.

    e) My personal programming knowledge is absolutely irrelevant. I've written some C++ and I can write and get around Python scripts pretty well, however that means absolutely nothing with regard to the price of eggs these days.

    "Linux is not a business but a community"

    So you didn't understand the original post at all, if you did you would understand that I was referring to Linux being the globally preferred OS, do you REALLY think it would be a community thing between 'online friends and peers' and not HAVE to become a multibillion dollar business at that point?

    Between your community focus and comments with respect to my own programming skills, you have offered nothing of relevance at all.

    Thanks for your input all the same though, it speaks volumes.

    +
    0 Votes
    glee610

    Your acting as if I just insult you. I was talking in genral terms. I was mearly stating that linux has a community that grows with popularity. If you think about it, if everyone contributed and put it togather them **self***. key world here is self. I would think that we would have an excellent O/S which could in time be the globel standered b/c of it's openness. also, I said, that question was not pointed at you. It was pointed at everyone, I believe that the reason most people don't adopt new and creative things (linux) is b/c your ignorane and lazyness to even try or learn. Again, not saying that about you, i know how touchy you are. I am agruing to you about the facts that the reason why linux will never be " the top dog" o/s.

    My understanding of business is very far and you point out some good facts but like i said before to many variables to make a bold statement that we never have a linux system adopted by everyone.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    Your title was Linux ignorance. If that was misconstrued as meaning you thought my comments were ignorant, I do apologize.

    you still seem to be missing the whole focus of a global standard though.

    " if everyone contributed and put it togather them **self***. key world here is self. I would think that we would have an excellent O/S which could in time be the globel standered b/c of it's openness.

    Not at all, in fact open source is impossible to standardize.

    If everyone puts together their OWN system, there IS no standard, that's the whole point of standardization, every aspect must be asolutely identical for all customers.

    To explain computer stndardization, when a large company needs to invest in many computers, they seek out a manufacturer that guarantees standardization. That means that for a predetermined time frame (say 5 years) EVERY SINGLE COMPONENT of that system can be reordered and is identical to the initial investment. If one PC uses a Seagate 500GB hard drive, they ALL use the same exact part number. Up to 5 years from that initital purchase date, any hard drives replaced will also be guaranteed to be identical. THAT is standardization. Take a low end company like DELL for example, they use loss leaders, they uy out clearance parts etc and uild machines. Though many will use teh same parts by sheer fluke, there is no guarantee that if your Seagate 500GB HD drives next year, it will be replaced with an identical part, you may get a Western Digital or even a different Seagate, but thye don't guarantee a standard. When you buy IBM business machines (not from retail stores) you pay a lot more but they will also gurantee standards for a minimum time frame. (eex. 5yrs)where anything you get replaced or even if you add a new machine to the network, it is identical in every way.

    So back to your theory, if everyone does their own thing and source code is left open, you simply cannot achieve standardization, it is literally impossible due to ann open source business model.

    I don't think people avoid Linux due to ignorance at all, and that has nothing to do with why Linux won't take over the world. For a usiness to imvest in business workstations, pay for support and have software that is equally supported by manufacturers that are responsible for it's code and supporting it in house, there is no possible way they will seriously consider Linux. The very few that do are shops that are focused on IT, networking etc that have endless numbers of technical staff on hand.

    There is then the compaitbility issue, and NO, Linux isn't as seamlessly compatible as some woul dlike to make it seem.

    Legacy apps that cost businesses tens of thousands to develop may always require a flavour of Windows.

    Sharing documents across multiple offices and ubsinesses is a lot easier for some people as they use common MS office apps (myself I PDF everything so it doesn't make any difference to me). My boss likes to send everything out as a word doc, our suppliers send us countless Excel spreadsheets which are also integrated into our accoutnign software. No, Open Office does not offer the same functionality or compatibility, I've tried it.

    Again, not saying that about you, i know how touchy you are. I am agruing to you about the facts that the reason why linux will never be " the top dog" o/s.

    Of course that is not insulting in anyway, you seem to know me so well and know how "touchy I am" and, as you have agreed yourself, business is not really your strength.

    So once again, as I mentioned in my first post, your view that if open source was a standard (that's an oxymoron)then the Linux community would take over, if people weren't so lazy that they just used what worked and was suported instead of venturing into something new, there'd be a chance.

    So your first hurdle is educating people who already know and can efficiently use one system, that they are better off learnign a new system instead.

    Your next hurdle is finding them support, teaching them that they can no longer rely on a single developer or support contract but must now rely on a free, online community of peers they neither know nor trust, to work out issues with their sensitive company data.

    Your next hurdle is providing Linux for free and havign it secured. good luck with that one. You'll need a single, secured sever that is locked down like the safe at Brinks, but available for anyone to access 24/7 with utter repliabilty. If not, people will be able to download form any unrtrusted source and would never be sure to have a safe version.

    I suppose the next of the countless hurdles would be cost. As your main server which provides the only safe open source code to all users, needs to be maintained and a LOT of bandwidth must be paid for, hope you're feeling generous in your effort to rid the world of MS, it costs a lot of money!

    It reminds me of an old Monty Pthons sketch actually, how to play a flute in one simple lesson.

    1) First you low in one end
    2) Wiggle your fingers up and down the other end.

    or how to rid the world of all known diseases:

    First you become a doctor and develop a cure, then you tell all the other doctors jolly well what to do!

    It's simple and hopeful but far far from realistic.

    There's SO much more behind Linux's failure to rise to teh top than simply users being too ignorant to accept it. I've done SUSE rollouts myself, to organizations that used Windows for years. There are a LOT reo concerns that you have put forth.

    +
    0 Votes
    Jremmy

    I use Linux at least 10 hours a day. I am not an expert like most of you but I like Linux over Windows. It seems everything you do on Windows has a road block or some B.S. error message or some other issue that drives you nuts. I also think that a lot of M.S. users are extremely misled about Linux. I have seen so many false accusations and charts that M.S. dreams up and puts on the net and people believe it because M.S. said so. M.S. is more common sure but that is because all these people grow up in a Windows enviroment and don't know any better or are just to lazy to learn something new. Honestly, I have to touch up on my Windows knowledge because I started on and still use Linux. It sucks for us nix users because the rest of the world is brainwashed with WINDOWS, WINDOWS, WINDOWS. And why is it so horrible that you can manipulate Linux to your liking? I just wish that there weren't so many distros. I wish that we could come together I know its cliche but seriously if all these programmers came together and made 1 KICKASS distro of Linux it could compete and have more desktops, laptops, servers, etc with Linux right out of the box. It is cool to do your own thing but if Linux will ever be as big as M.S. or MAC people are going to have to come together and produce a knock down, drag out distro. BTW I HATE WINDOWS LOL J/K don't flare up on me OZ you hemroid you. Have a good one everybody.

    +
    0 Votes
    santeewelding

    I hadn't thought of that one.

    +
    0 Votes
    The 'G-Man.'

    all that would really happen if the entire world was running on Linux.

    'Elite Programmers' getting back to Joe Shmow about his printer driver issue.

    +
    0 Votes
    drowningnotwaving

    You can absolutely guarantee that??? No single exception?

    No possiblility of the Ruskie or Middle-Eastern cyber-virus crew getting in there, just for laffs???

    Side-splittingly funny !!! :)

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    If they tried to keep their current values in such a global OS. I don't think it would work too well. It would be too fragmented. With the small market share they have now, they have so so many distros that all do almost the same thing. Imagine if 6 billion people were using and building for it.


    So I must completely agree with your theory on how it would turn out.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    Linux - the kernel is licensed under GPL completely different to the way Microsoft is licensed so your view of the implication of pirating does not apply its all a fantasy.

    Increased % of Linux desktops would not be all at once and any commercialization would just be increased growth for those in the business at present, Red Hat Novel etc.

    Unix and Linux, BSD, the Unix clones get their security through architecture and design, eg complete separation of user accounts from admin accounts, you need to crack root account to install viruses. Microsoft does not have have this feature and thus required a lot of bolt on extras to give it any level of security, any half decent IT pro should be able to get their head around this.

    Long time Linux users choose Linux because it does a much better job of their computing requirements than the alternatives, so they use it, it's not a fashion statement, or a popularity contest, anyone can use whatever suits their purpose, the closed source, Microsoft world has made a living for, large numbers of IT, pro's ranging from the highly skilled to the hardly adequate, so any decline will not be sudden.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    Viruses are about stealing information, or damaging it. You don't need to be logged into root to delete all the files in your home folder, or to attach an addon to firefox to spy on you. Root permissions mean very little at all in a well constructed virus. Granted many viruses would be run once viruses, as without root you would not be able to specify start up items in any hidden places. But it only needs to run once.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    Has to have access to the hardware via the OS to do anything. No access to the machine it is just lines of code doing nothing. It has to have permission to run to do anything, no root permission no access.

    Here's a challenge, you are in the programming business, write something that will run on a standard Linux system without root permission

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    You don't need root to run programs, otherwise Linux would be the most worthless OS ever. Limited users can run programs installed by the admins. Limited users can also run anything they download. Maybe not install, but they can run it. There is nothing saying that you can't get one of those drive by viruses that use a vulnerability to run itself under the logged in users permissions. Under this users permissions, all the files you have, all your work, is exposed. Just because it cannot hurt the core OS is irrelevant. A virus could theoretically destroy everything that is important. AKA, your home folder.


    I also haven't managed to keep a Linux system around/running long enough to bother to learn how to develop for it.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    A program needs to have executable permission and I'm certain if it was easy to do this someone would have done this, the Linux code is not full of security holes so more users does not make it less secure as the security is there because it has been designed to be secure with its basic architecture file system permissions and other designed in features.

    there are 2 great myths that regularly appear in these forums, 1 security through obscurity of Linux, Nix OS's get their better security through design (if you think this is BS come up with an exploit) 2. the year of Linux, any increases Linux use will come gradually as it spreads out from niche's in the market where Linux is a better choice of OS

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    not have you as owner and not with execute permissions?

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    It's a matter of faith, Linux users don't have a clue how quickly linux would be hit and hammered if it was more widely accepted.

    They like to think that it would remain as it is today, yet on a grander scale, and that MS is just really stupid, hired the worst, stupidest technicians and engineers, when much better can be had form an online community. It's easy for them to capitalize on issues that are brought to light regarding MS's weaknesses, if teh same spotlight was on Linux it would be the same thing though, regardless of permissions, root access, footprint etc. They just assume that Linux wouldn't change as it grew into a multibillion dollar industry.

    Good luck with that.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    "Nix" type OS's right from the start have an architecture and design for operating in a multi-connected, multi-user environment, it is designed to be secure. If it is as simple as you say to infect it with destructive malware I'm certain somebody would be doing it. For a program to execute the system even if only a user on the system still need to be given permission from that particular system to run.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    I don't see why a drive by website program couldn't just delete your home folder. Which would cause the most damage possible to anyone's computer... the loss of all your data.

    And before you say it requires your permission, look up on TR about how addons can be used for malicious code from Firefox. It can be as simple as a Flash exploit that gains control of the file system at the user level and deletes your files. The core OS is still fine, but everything important to you, everything that makes your computer have a purpose, is gone. Poof.

    And there is viruses for Linux based systems (Usually distro specific I've noticed), lots and lots of viruses, many have been unpatched for years. Just google them.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    If it is so easy then tell us the basic principle of how this could be done

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    just google it, theree are even youtube videos on how to hack linux. there are countless virus scripts available online, tutotials on how to infect linux etc.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    I think you've completely missed the point here.

    firstly, the kernel is absolutely, 100% irrelevant. People need to acquire Linux for free via downloads. So who monitors teh net to ensure all links provided on a global scale are valid? Who then ensures that none of those websites are spoofed and redirected to somewhere where malicious code is downloaded? LInux is vulnerable, it would become far remo vulnerable if open source because a standard for the globe. Right now they are not a viable target for malidious code, however Linux is still not virus free and completely secure either.

    This is not a debate on whether Microsoft offers etter security than Linux, that argument is too old. We all know that, right now, Linux is less prone to viruses, however it is also true that it is not a target or malicious code writers. With a larger audience it will quickly become a target for all malicious code writers (regardless of the efforts required) and would offer far less security than now.

    Long time linux users, whatever. I made no comment about long term linux users. As I also said, the world has seized Windows for that exact same reason you suggest long time linux users choose linux for' "it does a much better job of their computing requirements than the alternatives. The same can be said of MAC users too. I also know countless people who use Linux because it's cool to do so when you are in IT, that doesn't mean it doesn't also suit their needs. When you conduct business all day with companies that use Windows, obviously the OS that suits your requirements will e Windows, but that's not even close to the topic here. What if Linux was the pro choice? How would it survive as a business model? Your post ignores the entire premise of the discussion in an attempt to show why you prefer Linux.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    Linux has been a commercial product and has been for awhile, Red Hat, Novel, I purchased Mandrake 9.2 Powerpack myself. This commercialization is a much different model than the traditional MS or other commercial closed source software, as much of the software is open source and licensed under GPL, what you are being sold is the cost of just producing the media, manuals and not the cost of writing it, and in some cases a service contract and the odd close source program. When I look at the cost of Mandrake 9.2 as compared to WinXP at the time, Mandrake was significantly cheaper and is allowed to be installed on more than 1 machine, which as far as I know is the same for Red Hat Novel, or any other commercialized Linux. Any % increase desktop share for Linux is going to be a steady increase not an overnight explosion, so those in the game of commercialized Linux are not going to be swamped all at once and windows being a steady source of regular income (often because of it's weaknesses) will be out there for the masses for some time yet.

    MS products are becoming, more and more of a consumer appliance product, so as I see it Linux's next area to expand into will more likely to be in the high end power part of the commercial and business market especially in the CAD market where MS OS's take more than their fair share of a machine's resources than is desirable, Back in the past the top end of the CAD market was workstations and Unix as the PC was not up to the task. When PC's became powerful enough to handle this work, the PC became a much cheaper option, and as MS had the only OS for the PC at the time that was the way things went. Linux uses a machines resources better, so as I see it sooner or later the CAD developers will see the advantage of building Linux versions of their software, the could build their own Linux to integrate best with their software.

    Linux, the way it's produced, distributed, it's design and architecture is completely different to MS products. Applying the rules of the MS world has no validity as they are so different, more popularity will not make it less secure as security is part of it's design at a fundamental level, with Windows, an add on, an afterthought, and another steady income stream for some in the industry.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    As an MCNE, I've noted elsewhere here that I have sold and installed Suse for several corporate rollouts (all have since reverted back to Windows after about 2-3 years though. I am not under contract to support them anymore and they found it FAR cheaper to use licenced Windows instead). I know very well that they sell boxed software these days.

    I am also certain that their business model is very different from MS. OF course when you are that small, you will have a different business model than a multibillion dollar conglomerate.

    Your comments are valid but don't counter the initial post at all. Linux simply could not operate on such a large scale with such licence costs in place, it would ecome incredibly insecure (due to free downloads) and would be the target of all hackers.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    The CPL license is completely different than MS EULA. When you Download Linux it is from secure servers. The main reason for "Nix" type OS's security is by design. "Nix is designed from the ground up to be a multi-user multi-connected OS and accordingly has features in its design and basic architecture to enable it to perform adequately in this environment. Windows has it's roots in a single user non-connected environment and was never designed with proper inbuilt security, this has been added and bolted on as an afterthought.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    And you are still going on and on and on abotu how licencing is different.

    SOMEBODY CHANGE THE RECORD!!!

    STOP. Now think about it, TODAY, as in not tomorrow, Linux uses a CPL license system.

    If they were to become as big as Microsoft, they couldn't licence the same way and still control development. They'd either have insanely high prices for a boxed CPL licenced package or would have to charge on a leased licence system (or similar) as MS does today.

    And AGAIN as far as 'nix security. Whether by design or divine intervention, it makes no bloody difference!

    'nix HAS been hacked already, it CAN be done.FACT. So forget about it being some inpenetrable fortress of an OS.

    If it was the biggest target, it would in turn become the most hacked. FACT.

    just because America has a large military and a seemingly inpenetrable defense, it doesn't mean that America is not the number one target of foreign attack, in fact the previous results in the latter.

    Canada, in contrast, has a very small military, however we have not seen any of our skyscrapers crashed into by terrorists, terrorists use Canada to GET ot the USA so they can terrorize America, not Canada. (plus we have more global support and they know it, attacking Canada is declaring world war)

    Your ever so trusty 'nix flavour is all of a sudden the largest target on the planet with literally hudreds of thousands of people writing viruses and seeking new vulnerabilities in order to take it down.

    As I've said a thousand times, it's the biggest guy in the bar that is also the key target for everyone else to take down.

    When you download linux it's from secure servers, seriously j-mart, how wee is you brain? I mean that as nicely as I can put it, it's as if you read a sentence and grasp one word, create your own comment from it instead of what was actually said, and then argue against it.

    I have said HOW many times that if linux became the global preference, SOMEONE will have to set up a single, secure, and managed server; in your eyes that would be for free of course as they have nothing better to do.

    Otherwise there would be thousands of exploits, downloads from third parties that are already exploited before installation, it is uncontrollable, even a closely locked down and private source such code such as Windows has that problem, Open Source would simply become open season.

    Support, is currently provided by a community of trusted but yet unknown/unnamed people. Those people would GLADLY support a global audience 24/7 for free and all said patches and fixes would also be secure, tested and offered from the single secured global server. Without it, code add ons, updates and fixes would be easily exploited and offered from unknown sources with no protection at all.

    So now you expect a single release, through a single secured server, with secured support....for free.

    What time do you open your free e-commerce store offering your guiding light?

    And how will you pay for that server and the millions of gigs of bandwidth monthly? Damn kind, aren't you?

    Unless of course you realize that charging for the cost of the CD and materials enclosed in the box does not cover the cost of the server, support, security and bandwidth too. In which case you now need to create a whole new licence system to pay for your additional operational costs.

    First off, I PAY for my own bandwidth, why would I pay to download software from your server and pay for YOUR bandwidth?

    Secondly, I have my own security, why should I pay extra for YOUR security when I can get it from an untrusted but seemingly secure server for free?

    If I buy Linux why must I use YOUR choice of security and support to maintain it? That's not allowed in MS' world.


    That's another thing, with free copies of your OS floating around, how will you account for charging for yours whjich is exploited just as easily as any other?


    Now, DON'T SAY A WORD ABOUT CPL LICENCES, DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT SAYING MENTIONING ROOT SECURITY, IT'S ALL A THING OF THE PAST AND YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE.

    Talk about MS adding security as an afterthought (yeah..I am sure that's the last thing thy consider, seeing as the issue is never raised), however how about some forethought for a change.

    I've had more logical conversations about the Easter Bunny with a toddler.

    +
    0 Votes

    Oz

    j-mart

    You must be board and looking for a pointless argument about nothing. If we look at the facts that actually exist at the present time

    1. Due to the significant investment and income generation centered around Windows is not going to be suddenly overwhelmed and dominated by Linux, despite how many, "it's the year of Linux" is declared.

    2. Increased use of Linux is as it is now slow and steady quite possibly the largest uptake for Linux next will possibly be in specialized commercial applications where it could be of some advantage over windows.

    Growth in Linux will be slow and steady and many of the systems in place will be able to absorb this growth as it is not going to happen in a mad rush.

    Your basic fantasy story that Linux could all of a sudden be thrust into the limelight, almost as if overnight become a resounding success, with the Linux supply chain due to this sudden and unexpected polarity crashing down around it, is just that, a fairy story.

    The present Linux model based on the GPL License would cope with any steady increase in Linux adoption without too much trouble, It would get to the stage where boxed sets would be readily available at computer retail outlets. The cost of copying CD / DVD's is not astronomical, or printing boxed and manuals either, the industry at present that produces bootleg Windows could step in here if the wanted to as coping GNU Linux is not illegal.

    If writing effective viruses fo Linux is so easy I'm sure there would be many doing it.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    and not presented as anything but.

    reverse the tables and lets see how linux, under it's current business models would hold up.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    But only on the bits about making Boxed Sets. Almost all of the current makers do this already and places like Red Hat SUSE and so on also have Support Contracts with their users.

    Of course security would suffer but only because there is now more incentive for the Nasties to Hack into the Core OS and do their thing. Though the way to do this is a lot different to a Windows Platform and when M$ did make a half hearted attempt to try to secure their Flagship Product with the release of Vista they got decryed by most of the Press and End Users who didn't want a more secure system if they had to be put out in the process.

    But none the less the very first case of Hacking a Computer happened on a Unix System at the Melbourne University in AU and it is possible but none the less it is harder because of the Architecture involved to do in a Nix Environment than it is in a Windows Environment where so many work with Root Permissions to do what they want.

    There would be quite a few Script Kiddies who would have to relearn their craft and the Big end of Town would have to employ much better security than they currently are.

    However the main difference would be with the increase of people writing Code for the Base Platform there would be far more Code Blot creping in and the Nix would get as bloated as Windows currently is and bog down the hardware eventually. The current way of writing code by the Open Source Community would get hit hard by so many Windows Developers trying to get their script accepted and this is the single biggest problem that I can see happening.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    dwdino

    Most of the replies fail to take into account the Ecosystem created by Microsoft (or any large vendor). If Linux were to become THE OS of choice, many would have to find a way to make their lively hood from its products and services. The only reason you can have "free" software is because the developers are being paid somewhere else.

    +
    0 Votes
    jck

    Go back to using my Commodore 64 with my MPS-803 or my Panasonic KX-1091i printer with the Star-Micronics interface, and writing documents in 80 column with GEOS. :^0

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    There's always a price list, a rolodex and a pen & paper. I bet it won't be much more than 10 years most kids won't know how cursive writing. Handwriting/penmanship will be to them as Calligraphy is to us today.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    For about grades 1 to 8, it was handwriting. had to learn it in G2.
    Starting in G8 and on, it had to be printing. The teachers had to print everything. Possibly because of English as second language. But more likely as many of us could not properly read handwriting. I personally cannot write in handwriting, takes me 20 times longer to write in handwriting than it does to just print it out, but if you handwrite as I was taught to in school, I can read it. But if you swoop around and make funny lines, I cannot read it.

    I heard once that the death of handwriting, was because of the left brained logical people that cannot draw. The required ability to draw is the same as the ability required to handwrite or write neatly. The left brained people became prominent when computers became products for the masses.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    when I was recovering from a coma, I had to learn to write properly again, as I had lost motor skills (walking, reaching for and grasping objects etc.).

    It was a bummer *** I had excellent penmanship, was into calligraphy and mechanical drafting too. Then I couldn't write my name legibly. So I forced myself to write as much as possible, I started just writing out books I was reading, just writing it all out to develop the unconcious motor skills, and now I write well again. Sometimes, when I am online too much, I find my writing gets poor. I just start writing stuff out again, and handwriting everything (notes, daytime tasks etc)instead of printing it out.

    I refuse to let a learned skill fail me due to laziness.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    Why have two different ways of writing the same characters? For that matter, why bother with upper case and lower case?

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    m_sWhenYouTypeLikeThisInCode_ProgramersRule

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    Some people prefer to communicate effectively without a computer.

    Writing in any language is about hand eye control, motor skills, creative thought, and discipline. Computers remove those skills from our youth and it has resulted in a ridiculous world of acronyms, single letters being used to represent words and even sometimes combining with a numer used to represent a word. It's absolutely moronic to see how some people feel they are communicating these days, perhaps in a peer group it works but god help you when you explore the rest of the world.

    We've all seen how easily some people are thrown right off topic when they read posts here. It is generally due to their misunderstanding of punctuation, grammar, the inability to break down adverbs, adjectives etc. and they wind up reading something that isn't really there and ignoring what was actually said. In essence, people are just going stupid.

    Edit: While many people here have difficulty reading my posts due to my terrible typing skills, the same goes for the written word. If you can't write, it impedes your ability to communicate effectively.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    I agree with most of what you say, but none of it addresses my question. All of your arguments would apply equally if we had only one case and no cursive. None of them would apply if we didn't have computers.

    Why have two different forms of writing? Why have two different cases? Sure, it's what we've grown up used to seeing, but that isn't a reason to continue it.

    Don't get me started on the letters 'C' or 'Q'.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    People dismiss it because they feel no need for what they deem accurate grammar and communication skills that are now seemingly out of date. However many of those same people will hang onto laws and political commentary made over 200 years ago in order to deny a more progressive society.

    Cursive writing is an art form called penmanship. Some poeple still require written instruction, and before you go on abotu printing, that's just as bad these days. An inability to write or even print is much like an inability to read, it impedes communication.

    When you look for a job in the US these days, you need certs, qualifications,education, hands on skills, communication skills etc. So why is it okay to not be able to print properly, use punctuation or write legibly?

    It's not really funny how easily the simplest of skills are dismissed by those who dont't possess such skills.

    How anyone can function in society, even in today's society, without being able to write or print legibly and with correct or at least reasonable punctuation is beyond me.

    As for capitals, that is an indicator of nouns, eginnings of sentences etc. It maks it easier to read when properly broken into paragraphs and puctuated.

    if all comments are just spewed out in lower case and without proper spacing or punctuation it's hard to determine where one sentence ends and another starts.reading english has been taught in a way that the brain recognizes capitalization as starting a new sentence or referring to a noun that way we can read properly and at speed without misunderstanding the comment being made.you can f**k with a language all you like it doesn't mean that proper capitalization and punctuation is not important to those who have to read it.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    I know my punctuation well, but I can't spell for sh*t and I cannot print neatly. My hand doesn't obey my mind well enough for it. It's not as if I haven't written books worth of stuff. My dad cannot print clearly either, nor my grandpa, its genetic. I am just lucky that the digital age has made printing and handwriting, nearly obsolete.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    While genes may result on one taking longer to learn how to print or write clearly, they are both learned skills that can be developed with practice, unless by genetics you are referring to a hereditary mental deficiency that impedes your motor skills.

    As ot Why print neatly? You are joking, right? Written or printed communication means others must be ale to read what you are trying to communicate. Another reason is that if you write like a 5 year old and can't spell, it doesn't exactly promote you as educated because a good education includes learning and practicing those most basic of human functions.

    That's like saying, "I don't need to speak English properly."

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    I do have several mental disabilities. My spelling is not so good (Getting better thanks to the internet) and my printing is terrible. But on the other hand, math also confuses the **** out of me, I still cannot do long division properly. And yet I can program banking system software. I just finished coding the calculation for joint TDS/GDS. So what do these "paper" skills really matter for anymore?

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    In your case those skills would correctly identify a mental deficiency, whether or nto that is an issue for the employer looking at your resume is up to them.

    WHat you are suggesting, is like somene who can't walk sitting in a chair and saying, "so what if I can't walk, why do I need legs? I don't walk for a living."

    In many cases, prehaps a company with wheelchair acess or situated on the first floor, you may not need legs. However in cases where the company is on a high floor, insurance measures would ensure that everyone was able to safely evacuate a building in the case of an emergency.

    So you do need legs and such a disability should be considered important.

    The point is, whether you feel you'll use a skill or not doe s not mean that it is unimportant to others.

    We are merely talking about the ENGLISH language. If you have a learning disability that's completely understandable, it doesn't mean that it is not VERY important for others though. If yuo want to rewrite a language do so, just don't expect teh world to forget their most common language for teh sake of your disability though. And with your excuses including, why use capitals, that has nothign to do with a learning disability anyway, that's just plain 'kin lazy!

    Once again, I don't mean any disrecepct towards you for having a mental deficiency, learning disability or anything else that you have no control over.

    But you can't ecpect the world to expect less from others because you have genelogical issues.

    That whole 'no child left behind' stuff is pure crap.

    I believe very strongly in equal opportunity, but don't expect me to lay down while others catch up.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    I'm not questioning the need for accurate grammar, spelling, or punctuation. I'm not questioning the necessity of forming written characters in a clear fashion so readers can easily tell one from the other. I'm asking for a reason to continue teaching both printed and cursive characters. What difference does it make if I write the characters as unconnected individuals or as one continuously connected word? Why maintain both systems? (Four systems if you count upper and lower cases.)

    You're right that we've been taught certain conventions, but we can just as easily teach others. We've been taught that sentences begin with an upper case letter, but we could as easily recognize the beginning of a sentence by the first character after the period that ended the last one. Capitalization doesn't lead to faster reading in and of itself; we read slower when it isn't there because it's a convention we've been taught.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    it only took me half a second to get into the flow. It doesn't really matter to me. After reading 12 year old kids Engrish/Malaysian butchering of grammar, it was easy.
    Just look at this last tech support request I got.


    "alright, this is very annoying. I log into the game all is just peachy, all the graphics are fine everything okay except! the writing everything is fuzzy and all blurry. I have installed my new drivers, I have changed the resolution and the quality of the game several times and I'm running out of idea's anyone able to help me????"

    ^^^Further proof that we need more than a spell checker in browsers.


    And Ozzie, no worries (Though you mixed up some replies :) ). Those "normals", many work dead end jobs, gas stations, restaurants, or are still in school. Many others died of drugs or gang violence. Meanwhile I graduated at the top of my class (Thanks to the previous top leaving early) and immediately got a job programming making more than double/triple what those "normals" make. I don't think of it as a disability, its a mechanism for me to ignore/forget useless information.


    however I do wish I took physics instead of chemistry, chemistry was fun, but physics would have been useful, even if I didn't understand it fully. And all those years wasted when they tried to force me to learn French and Ukrainian, hopeless....

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    In short, is we could all just reduce our grammar teaching to suit that of yourself, the world will be a better place.

    I don't have an issue with using cursive handwriting nor capitalization, same numer of strokes, if not fewer than printing.

    I understand that the common conventions do not suit your needs, however there are many things in life that don't suit mine either. I don't expect any changes to national systems just to appease my own desires though, I understand what a global system is and I will adapt to suit it as best I can.

    +
    0 Votes
    Oz_Media

    I actually dropped out halfway through grade 11 because my parents separated and we moved, I went to work full time instead. It was fun when I went back to school to visit friends and was making more than thier teachers though. It wasn't until I went to trade school that I had to pass a test showing that I had sufficient knowledge of math, formulas, reading comrpehension etc, in order to qualify for the class. Even then, it was an hour in a classroom writing a test and not anther year or five in school.

    My goal at that point was to prove that I was able to earn more money than my friends who graduated and went on to college, and I still make more compared to those I have met since.

    Sure I could have followed my brothers path and graduated ,went to college and become a successful corporate lawyer but my heart wasn't in it.

    Actually just got news today that my time is up at my current position, BDM's and sales reps are always first to go. But I've seen it coming for a while now in a dead insudstry that won't pick up until at least May, don't really care though and have irons in the fire all the time. Actually thinking of getting into selling boats and yachts, have a one on one with a manager of a major dealer next week. I contacted him, told him what I wanted, what I've done and what I could do, so I'll see where that leads if anywhere. I have also have a couple of offers from former customers over tha last few months that I have ignored so far but they are there if I want them. I find I get offers and opportunities all the time, and just seek them otuu when needed.

    If not, I can make more working for myself than I've ever made working for anyone else, no big deal. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and it's faded now, past experience has proven to me that decent paying jobs are easy enough to find, skewul or no skewul.

    Edit: I was fortunate enough to enter the workforce when it was just a matter of a handful of resumes and a friendly handshake to seal the deal. It allowed me to gain experience when drive and eagerness was enough to get a start. Today I agree that for younger people it is much harder to get a foot in the door and gain any experience without a formal education, mainly due to the recruiting/mass resume hiring process that people have been sucked into.

    +
    0 Votes
    jck

    Doing long-hand mathematics for most children already is, thanks to the calculator/computer.

    Way to go. Cripple our kids when the batteries/power is gone.

    +
    0 Votes
    afuller

    the way you know that it has happened is when everybody on the planet begins talking with a LISP.

    +
    0 Votes
    zefficace

    The fact is, what is made by man can be undone by man, provided there is sufficient interest.

    Windows, Linux, the lock on your front door, your state of the art alarm system, they will be "worked around" or broken if "they" really want to.

    Besides, there is always the "stupidity" factor. I know, I'm not supposed to say there are many idiots out there, because it's politically incorrect. But, you know some people are "click crazy". Others are just too trusting and fall for social engineering. Build what you want in your OS, but Ron White said it best: "You can't fix stupid".

    +
    0 Votes
    collaredsiren

    First; GPL, to go commercial with all Linux-based code you'd have to find everyone who had ever put any code in and get their permission, which would be impossible, some have passed on, others have disappeared ect...

    Second; DISTRO's, flavours, derivatives, ect... schools have them, governments have them, groups have them, companies have them, there must be thousands of different distro's, used by different kinds of people. And with the ever growing popularity of Linux-based Operating Systems, there are more and more coming out all the time, getting a vulnerability to hop from red-hat to Debian/Ubuntu to SUSE is hard enough as it is, imagine trying to get it to in the case where there are thousands or even hundreds of thousands more distro's to consider?

    Browser vulnerabilities? this plays a big part of most of the previous responses, but does anyone have any idea how many browsers there are, I'll help; it's hundreds, and as above with growing popularity comes growing varieties, Fire Fox, though growing on windows as well as Google Chrome, in the open source world, people try the new varieties, settle with the one they prefer till they find something better, and funny enough people have different tastes and prefer different things!

    Hacker; All these variations man, there's just too many!

    Yeah, no doubt there will be some who choose the most popular distro and browser combinations and end up with problems, but once those problems are discovered they will be fixed.

    Finally; Back to the Commercialisation theme; as discussed above it will be hard to comply with the GPL and go down this route, but, no doubt with growing popularity there will be mis-spelt domain names ect that carry varied versions of OS's that will intentionally include vulnerabilities, and there will be store's and companies ect that will box and support particular varieties, but as it's open-source there will be competition between these companies, also of note is the fact that most distro websites already carry lists of local distributors and support companies, and this competition is encouraged, this is one of the most fundamental differences between M$/MAC and Open-Source; differences are promoted and encoraged, the best tool for the job and so on, and obviously the best tool for the job will be the strongest locally supported varieties.

    Contrary to the opinion held by the author I believe the above scenario is pretty much a worst case scenario, not a 'most-likely' as it is just to variable that no-one will be able to predict what will happen. Two final thoughts though:

    1. Enjoy Linux as it is, if you like it recommend it!

    2. Do not take my word for it, do your own research, and make your own mind up.

    +
    0 Votes
    Daughain

    I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the fact that the multiple distros work in favor of linux security. I also find it entertaining that the IP assumes that an 'overnight blitz' that leaves linux as the 'most popular OS' would then force it into the business model MS uses.

    I recently switched from windows to Ubuntu linux, and have spent a fair amount of time learning about other flavors of linux since my initial switch. My current understanding leads me to believe that the main benefit of linux being open source is that it can be modified for many different applications fairly easily. I have found Ubuntu and KDE simple and easy for a veteran windows user to adapt to, and generally more secure than windows in general.
    That being said, for an office or business application, there are many better flavors of linux (most of them, actualy). Because of this, I expect, that 'linus as the #1 OS' would be based more on the flexibility of the flavors of the OS, than because of 'one kick-a**' version. Therefore, no 'MS style' business model could truly be imposed.
    Just a few thoughts from your local mechanic. =)