convince me

A trusted 'propriety' brand like IBM's AIX or HP /UX? :)

Uptime ( as long as I want it to be )

Viruses ( none )

errr
err
hmmm
err
No can't
To stick with it yes, but to move to it, the arguments are going to be worse than those for switching the other way.

part of the common history on learning linux books...

a computer science student asked on usenet if anyone wanted to help him write a clone of unix that would run on a 386.

this was the official birth of linux.

a couple of years later, they had this great kernel, but not much else.

meanwhile, gnu.org had a great set of tools, but no kernel that was reliable.
they approached the linux-kernel group, and asked if they wanted to partner up.
creating the birth of
GNU-LINUX
( GNU = GNU is Not Unix )
;)

we are just to lazy to call it gnu linux and call it linux.
( the kernel obviously being the most important part of an os )

>>what does windows offer that cannot be met with linux?<<

Windows keep mosquitoes and other insects out.

Windows keep cold winds out during the winter.

Windows keep air-conditioned air inside during the summer.

By putting shades up, windows give you sunlight without losing privacy.

And Pella now offers one with the blinds between the glass!!

It allows a sound-proof environment while you're surfing the net on your Linux computer.

The only reason to switch an OS is if you find an application that will not run under another.

I doubt 100% of viruses and exploits are targeted at Windows. Most maybe, but not every single one.

As you noted yourself, your second point is irrelevant. How are you defining compatability? With Windows, you're compatible with the majority of desktop / laptop OS installations in the Western world.

I'm not defending Windows, but your phrasing makes it appear you started this discussion just to bad-mouth it.

Not that I'm a big Windows supporter...because...I'm not. But:

1) No OS is vulnerable to 100% of viruses and exploits. Some viruses are OS specific, and some exploits applicable to software found only on one OS platform.

2) In actuality, you don't have to be at the mercy of one company...and in fact, you can run server-based Windows-compatible software under emulation on Unix/Linux platforms now with 99.9% compatibility. Therefore, you can cut MS out of the picture while running MS-compatible apps.

3) What does Windows offer that Linux doesn't? 3rd party software choices. Speaking strictly from an aspect of software available for that OS...Linux is severely limited...at least for the time being.

BTW...I'm not selling Windows...just trying to marginalize the sensationalism...

and...I'm still working with Linux at home in my spare time...and trying to convince the boss here at work to do linux-based database servers.

Thank God for ADO.NET...proof-positive Microsoft doesn't understand client/server database concepts...helps me with my case to get Linux and a Linux-based SQL database online.

I think this is where a lot of people completely miss the boat. There isn't a compelling reason to move Linux->Windows, nor is there a compelling reason to move Windows->Linux for a majority of users today.

If you're currently an average Linux user and are comfortable there then there's not much to convince you to move to Windows.

If you're currently an average Windows user and are comfortable there then there's not much to convince you to move to Linux.

Windows is not vulnerable to 100% of viruses and exploits.

Linux is not vulnerable to 0% of viruses and exploits.

Neither MS nor Linux distros have great concern about your business, but both have excellent support structures.

Microsoft has security issues. Linux has split personality issues. Pick your poison.

But the bottom line is that, for the most part, there is not a compelling reason to move from one platform to the other if you're comfortable with what you're using and it gets the job done well.

You come out swinging with falsehoods. 100% of viruses and exploits? Incorrect, and typical of your cheap shots to misrepresent the truth.

>>why would I want to become at the mercy of one company, that has no vested interest in keeping my business a going concern?
Au contraire, in my experience. Microsoft goes to great lengths to accommodate the CIOs and CTOs at my client companies. They (the C*Os) like running Microsoft-only or Microsoft-mostly shops because they have someone they can beat on when they need urgent support - and they get support in the form of teleconferences, IM contacts, and in-person visits from Microsoft when required. Try putting urgent requests in to the LUGs - you don't have any leverage in a community of volunteer developers.

BTW, it's compatibility with an "i."

Microsoft wants businesses to be successful. You can't sell new versions and licenses to companies that close their doors.

What does Windows offer that cannot be met with Linux? Enterprise- level applications we use only run under Windows systems.

Personally I enjoy both Windows and Linux. There is nothing in Windows that I can't do with Linux, albeit it takes a little more work to find the right packages to install and to configure the system properly.

In the corporate world however, your choice of operating system is governed by the applications your company runs. Corporate politics makes it very hard to simply "make the switch" to Linux.
There are many enterprise applications that have clients only available on a Windows platform, with no alternatives except to spend $$$ developing a Linux/UNIX alternative.

right, there is a dearth of professional level cad/cam apps for linux.

but, you can do exactly the same thing with maya.
as well as use maya to create a video presentation of the design, with a flythrough and full details included.
( autocad can't do that last )

biggest difference between them is that maya is a modelling app first, it can export it's models as dxf files, for blueprinting.

"why would I want to become vulnerable to 100% of viruses, 100% of exploits?"
If everybody used Linux there would be a lot more viruses and exploits written for it.

"why would I want to become at the mercy of one company, that has no vested interest in keeping my business a going concern?"
The same could be said for the phone company, power company and cable company.

"what does windows offer that cannot be met with linux?"
Eventually nothing. But Windows is much quicker to adopt new technologies.

ms for that.

but the math in my post would actualy be:
7-(3+6+9+12)=4

if ms is being honest about thier updates.

Being pro-Linux and anti-MicroSoft is fine, but there may be a better time and place to wear your "I'd rather die than deal with MS" t-shirt than at a support group for people with multiple sclerosis.

with ms releasing new version of windows it's a perfect time to make the suggestion.

figure initial release cost of 500 per license for a corporation.
add to that the 500 for each license for the new version of office needed for the new version of windows.

if a company has to also look at the new hardware upgrade to meet system requirements for new os...
add another 1000 per system

one lawyers office here in town.. 10 floors of a tower. 1500 workstations.

we are talking huge amount of money for them to "upgrade" to new version of windows.
with the edditional costs of the staff learning new systems quircks etc as mentioned in another post.

by them going open source they could cut the cash layout for systems huge.
like, buying RHEL would be what a grand. for the one copy needed to install it on all machines.

just using this office as an example, since the number of workstations can create the situation where buying new versions of windows can be prohibitive. this particular office is the one I wired for a wang system 14 years ago.
I doubt they have removed thier mainframe for pc network.

Maybe a little melodramatic there! While Windows does have a lot of flaws, it is not open to every vulnerability on the planet (100%)!
You mention Apple, and can I bring attention also to the recent "problems" raised with Cisco equipment...
Like the above, MS are the market leaders, so they're going to be targeted more than the open source software. Chances are, a lot of virus writers etc. are using Linux and do not wish to compromise their own "working" environments.
Windows is what most people know how to use, and what most "popular" applications are compatible with. While I know there are linux equivalents for these applications, the penguin is always gonna have that geek chic about it... So I guess it depends on what you want out of it. Linux is perfectly good for doing pretty much anything if you know what you're doing. Whereas Windows tends to be used and abused, hence the occasional(!) problems with it...
Your call! I use both for different purposes!

you had to get and use a tool to access it, but you could.

( and that is actually red hat's fault, there is read write support for ntfs available, they just didn't include it.
( it's generally installed only when you have an ntfs formatted drive / partition during linux install )

is where I got the linux numbers.

http://counter.li.org/

I estimate that maybe 10% actually register.
the counter actually counts machines according to person, as well as multiboot by person.

so, for evey person running a netowrk of 10 machines, that is one user by thier count.

the fortune 500 that has linux servers, is one user, yet they have 20 machines running linux..

that's where I estimated 200 million users for linux. ( yup, I posted 200 million registered, to account for multiple machines in server rooms. )

OS Hits
Linux + linspire 269 M
Win3.1/95/98/2000/ME 88 M
Win2003/Server 19 M
WinXP 33 M
WinNT 33 M
WinLonghorn 33 M
TOTAL WIN 162 M
Solaris 27 M
*BSD 55 M
NetWare (Novell) 7 M
Mac (Os X) 6 M

results from google and teoma's records of search terms by os.. february 2005

at least with red hat you are paying the company you purchased the product from.

so paying a 3rd party for windows support is different, they aren't the provider you purchased the software from.

Wow - glad I don't live in Vancouver. Those prices are steep, even for Canadian$.

One thing that's not in the equation is the emotional impact of switching OSs. While the emotion itself doesn't have an economic impact the results do. People are less productive while they learn the new ins and outs of their OS. The help desk gets hammered with calls because Solitaire isn't here any more and people need it for stress relief or they'll end up on short-term disability. Techs have to respond to more calls because someone doesn't know how to find x. Office isn't installed, and I can't use this new spreadsheet. Blah blah blah.

All one-time, all up-front, and all SHOULD BE non-issues (if people would take the time to think and explore their OS before panicking) but they're not. Decreased productivity + increased initial support cost = harder to switch.

Ultimately those costs disappear (for the most part), but they can be killers up front.

I am by no means a Windows or MS fan, however I still use a dual boot home system.

Why? The company I work for uses windows, therefore it pays to have the platform available for taking work home etc.

Linux is definitely my O/S of choice, however as long as the company I work for uses Windows, I will always have dual boot system.

Even with the exchange rate, you guys are getting screwed. Your Mom and Pop shops are reasonable. You ship me some prescription drugs and I'll send you some software.

We looked at RH9 about eighteen months ago. The network / desktop / non-mainframe side of our IT department is only nine people for over 700 users at three sites. Only three of us have Unix / Linux experience. We've always had a minority of boxes with *nix loaded that we use for software development, not for traditional end user apps. Those of us without experience loaded it onto some spare boxes, but we couldn't find the time to do much with it and still do all our other work (typical IT problem). I personally had problems trying to figure out how to get Samba to pass my network credentials to our NT servers / domain; at that point I gave up. The other problem preventing wide-scale deployment here is the a perceived lack of support for applications. We need more than just a suite. We've got a several dozens draftspeople running four different CAD packages (AutoCAD, Solid Edge, others). We need something that integrates with our existing document management system (DocsOpen, eCopy Desktop, a few dozen users), software configuration management system (ClearCase, ClearQuest, a couple of hundred users), and project management systems (MS Project, Primavera, several dozen more). We've discussed deploying it on the manufacturing floor where the users don't need more than a browser and a suite, but this is less than 30 machines. It's not worth the opportunity cost to train the IT staff to support that small a number.

I think Linux is a great piece of technology. I have no loyalty to MS. I'll take it on faith that it's superior to Microsoft' operating systems, especially on a server. But there's more to corporate IT than running a web or database server, and more to corporate desktop apps than a suite. This particular shoe just doesn't fit our foot. I think that I can keep my home computer with Windows at an acceptable level of security with less time and attention than it would take me to learn Linux. I think you can train a home Windows user to keep his security up quicker and easier than you can train him to use another operating system.

I also can't stand to hear Microsoft put down purely because they are making a huge profit. Bad-mouth their technology all you want; it's fun and easy. But there's nothing wrong with Bill Gates making money, and so far he hasn't been convicted of anything.

not as much of an additional cost, if the company was going to be changing from say 2k to xp
( since vista being released soon )

the ins and out for 2k are hugely different from xp.
it's when ms is releasing a new version so that companies start seriously looking at getting the old version being phased out that a lot of the "hidden" costs of switching are equalled by the "hidden" costs of changing versions of windows itself.

reducing the tco to switch from ms solutions.

one thing about linux that isn't often discussed.. new versions are not at 5 year intervals, they are at 6 month intervals.
the development is far faster with linux.
this is probably the biggest reason a lot of windows it guys still think linux is cli only.
( on top of thier server boxes that are not running a gui ) :D

on Tigerdirect.ca (shipped from Canada in Canadian $$.

Windows XP Pro - $377 (not OEM but full retail)
MS Office Professional 2003 $583 (full retail version)

Both would be much less if you can use upgrades or buy OEM.

Future Shop - Canadian wide chain - has home computers for $500 and up for "home" models. $1000 packages include monitor, printer and software (MS Works, MS Money, Quicken).

Dell.ca - low end business models (Optiplex) from $568, workstation that my company uses for developers and power users from $668. Dells best workstation ( Xeon processor, dual processore capable) starts at $1953. HP's best workstations start at $2500 Cdn

Now these are Canadian prices off the web - but its a little hard to believe that Vancouver retail could be so far off. And I don't think that Future shop has a Vancouver surcharge.

Have you actually bought anything lately?

James

In my twenty years in IT, I've only seen one mass OS migration, and that was only to the minimal level necessary, not to the newest level. I don't know anybody that completely swaps OS's every time Bill spits out a new ad campaign, but there may be some misguided individuals that do. We leave a box with the OS it came with until we have to do some other major mainenance on it. That could be years; I've got machines still running the original install of W95 / O97. They are still meeting their users needs.

We disagree about the differences between 2K and XP. I'm in that camp that believes XP is 2K with a face lift. We don't retrain IT staff or users for each desktop version of Windows; I haven't seen that much difference in supporting them. We set all users to the "Classic" settings so XP and 2K look like 9x. We are rolling out Office 2003, but since our users didn't user 20% of the features in O97, we aren't even bothering with retraining them. The features they do use are all still in the same place. Contracts with our customers often dictate the application we must use (not just the compatible file type generated). The non-suite applications don't change at all when MS lays a new egg, and unless I can get Linux counterparts to those apps I described earlier, changing the OS isn't even an option.

Yes, the refresh rate on Linux is much greater than with Windows or Mac. But unless there's a new application that requires the new OS, why do I care? It's all about the applications.

You could switch because you wouldn't become vulnerable to 100%
"why would I want to become vulnerable to 100% of viruses, 100% of exploits?"
It's better to be at the mercy of a company that exists rather than someone who does something for free and then decides not to
"why would I want to become at the mercy of one company, that has no vested interest in keeping my business a going concern?"

at the future shop 6 blocks from here, the only systems available are the hp / compaq home stations, complete with monitor and printer.

staples, same thing

mdg, own name on the systems, but home systems, complete are a grand.
( I think they finally opened a bc store )

only 2 shops in town sell commercial workstations.. one optimised for graphics work only, at 12 thousand.
the other will build to suit only, and bare bones is a grand.

we are on the wrong side of the rockies to get real support from any major vendor.

dell, had an inspiron laptop. could not get new modular cloppy from dell for it.
( dell canada didn't support the 3200 )
dell usa will not ship to canada.

with garbage support like that, won't use dell.

hp, can't even get them to fix a driver problem for one of thier printers.

I personally also have a lack of interest in buying online.
I only buy when I can deal with someone face to face.

this lets dell out.
it lets hp / compaq out ( other than home pcs )
and gateway is in the cold also.

if I'm going to be spending a lot of money for systems, it's gonna be face to face in thier local office / outlet, so I can see they intend on being here when needed.

Because the CEO (or his admin assistant) said you will use the corporate standard which is Windows. You can play with your toys on your own time.

And yes, I was at a company once that considered AS/400's toys to be played with when the real work was done.

MDG starts at about $700 Cdn - intel MBs, but consistently lousy service.

If you want a true graphics workstation try a larger vendor like Compugen - they have a Vancouver office, but service across the country. I bought hundreds of business workstations and a few high end Graphics stations for CAD at my last employer and was very happy. HP makes some great CAD workstations - you don't have to spend 12k on one.

James

Three things: America Online, Compuserve, or Microsoft Network (MSN).

As distasteful as it is to most technical people, more people use one of those three than "real" isps. Until AOL et al figure out the need to port to Linux, home users will stick with Windows. My guess is that there is no real reason to do that, because they are included with Windows "for your convenience" and why ruin a good thing (businesswise, that is).

that MS refuses to meet with any of thier software.

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/gDefinition/0,,sid39_gci214309,00.html

the posix standard

http://www.ieee.org/portal/site

the IEEE:
The original and largest worldwide organization serving as the leading provider of technical information, standards, conferences, and services to computing ...

http://w3c.org

for web content standards

all three of which are used by ISO in thier standards.

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage

a good example of ms refusing to meet international standards.
ms charset defs.. codepage 850 isn't it?
iso8895-X for all other os.
( charset definitions )

even TR isn't standards compliant.
I validated this discussion and got 939 errors.. for html 4.01
which hasn't been the offical standard for over 5 years.
(xml 1.0 as of January 29, 2000 for website markup standard )

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/2100-3513-5683842.html
"in ie7 they will support some of the w3c..."

None of that matters for $h!t.

What matters is that Windows runs the applications that I have to support, applications that my company's customers mandate by contract that we use, applications that I had no authority to approve or disapprove when they were selected, applications that I can get plenty of training on at multiple skill levels at the local technical college for myself and my end users, applications that in some cases have no Linux counterparts (especially in the CAD and document management fields), applications we choose not replace because the ROI isn't there, applications, applications, applications. What part of applications haven't I been able to make clear?

that ac3d, blender, wings3d, povray modeller...
are not anywhere near as high a quality as max, maya, lightwave, c4d, softimagexsi...
and even a lot of people using linux don't know where to get high quality 3d software for linux.

have you checked out cinelerra?

http://heroinewarrior.com/cinelerra.php3

open source movie editing and rendering tool, for linux.

You will be part of a world wide bata test community.
You will get software that is buggie from the start!
You will get to pay the most for using it and pay the most for how many people use it.
And all the hackers love it. So it is a win win game you get to run it and others get to help them selfs to your computer.
And each new version has the same code as the last so you keep helping the poor hackers to get into your new OS.
Did this help?

I'm sure someone used this same argument, but I did not take the time to read all of the posts from this thread.
It is not about features, or this thing or that, or your personal feelings about Bill Gates. Rather do what you like, because in the end if you get the job done, and you're happy using Linux then it works out just fine. I would only favor one OS over another, if it ran a piece of software I need not found in the others. With open source thriving today and cross-platform development efforts of individuals increasing, choosing one OS over another almost boils down to personal preference and style. Heck, I'd use a C64 if it can play some of my 3-D games.

Sounds like already have your mind made up, but I'll throw a few good reasons out there.

1. You're not vulnerable to 100% of viruses, because some viruses target Linux. Windows is heavily targeted because it's the most popular OS. You can take steps to make yourself safe. For instance, I don't use Outlook, and have Active X controls turned off. I run Norton Antivirus and have a firewall. And please, lock down IIS securely (lots of people don't). I've never had any trouble with viruses.

2. You're at "the mercy of one company" no matter which vendor you decide to use. No company out there has a personal interest in keeping your company afloat. They're all just interested in their OS/tool. I used to be a Java developer using IBM's WSAD. When we tried to migrate to Oracle, we found that Java isn't as "open" as advertised.

3. A Microsoft platform offers more software, and software you've actually heard of, then any other OS.

4. So what if it's proprietary? This isn't micro-channel technology, where you have no choices and little expandability. You have everything at your fingertips with Windows. The question I would ask is this: what does it buy you using Linux? (And give yourself real answers, not generalities like "freedom.")

5. For developers, Windows gives you access to an excellent developer tool, with the best IDE (imo) ever, in Visual Studio .NET. Along with hundreds of good third party tools to augment your development.

6. What does Windows offer that can't be met with Linux? I would guess a larger user base. Put a Linux application that you wrote out on download.com (if they'll even let you), then put one on there you wrote for Windows, and see which one gets more hits.

There are probably major points I'm leaving out--that's just an off-the-cuff answer. This is also just my opinion--your mileage may vary. Basically, I see lots of different choices in OS out there. You should pick the one that suits your needs the best, and leverage its strengths (while mitigating its weaknesses).

As a developer, Windows works great for me. I did two years of UNIX support back in the early/mid 90s, and I can't imagine going back.

How many support calls have you logged to Microsoft? To Red Hat? I'm just curious, because your claims run counter to my experiences.

I've heard quite good things about Microsoft support. A friend had support on the phone for hours to identify a problem, and Microsoft actually produced a hotfix for them so they could continue production. My experience with Red Hat support has been that they don't care about making a quality product and are quick to tell you that they don't support what should be legitimate usage of their software (for instance, multipathing in certain RHEL3 drivers is present, but unsupported).

You are just venting your prejudices.

I've been working with PCs (in the broad sense of the term "Personal Computer") since their inception. And before that I worked on IBM, Texas and Sperry mainframes with proprietary OS.

In almost a quarter of a century I've gone all the way from DOS (both MS and DR) to WinXP-SP2.
I've also had perforce to work with several versions of MacOS, UNIX, AIX and Linux.

I'm no MS lover and it's fun to join the crowd and to be an MS basher. MS jokes are great. But that's it. I happen work for corporative, small business and home users whose main interest in this life is get their job done, and go home to wife and kids, hobbies or whatever else rocks their world.

MS might be a ruthless thug of a company, but apart from their morals, they get the job done. Non-IT gents can go around PCs, nets and the Internet without having to learn much about the innards of the OS or applications they are using.

Compare it with a car. How many people would have the time or the capacity to understand how to put in a new motor, or an upgrade of the old one? Sure, cars don't crash so frequently as MS Windows does, but again, Windows is way cheaper than a car and the repair is even cheaper.

That is why MS is so popular. Not just the phagocytosis or squashing of upstart companies, or the maketing skills of their people. Windows is pretty and easy and cheap.

Compare it with a restaurant. Yes, I like analogies, so what. Macintosh is a great place to eat, wonderful dishes, always good, but kinda expensive. Linux is a good place because the prices range from low to zero, and there is plenty of choice, but you have to cook your own food and you really need to know how to do it. And then you have MS. MS is McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, KFC, Popeye's, all in one.

Ever wonder why there are so many junk food places around? Most people, like me, might like nouvelle cuisine francaise now and then, and might know how and like to cook themselves. But most of the time we end up in Mc or BK.

So, that's the main reason but I know it will not appeal to you. Talibans do not like fast food joints...

An aftertought. Why not call Windows releases Windows Whooper or Windows DLT? Do you want fries with it?