Linux.com

Why do you even bother writing stupid articles like this??

Linux has its place windows has it's place solaris has it's place OS X has it's place. It's up to the engineers/admins/managers to decide what solution is both COST EFFECTIVE and EASIER to maintain. Cost effective not only includes licenses but training employees to use the software, having available software for the particular os/platform etc. Stop writing articles that either force a choice on someone or whines that linux wasn't the answer. If you like linux then use it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... stop being like those annoying jeohvas witnesses that run around trying to "save" people.

end rand

#

Hmmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as both a Jehovahs Witness and a Linux user, I guess you must have had me in mind.

I don't feel I need to respond any further than to point out that you mis-spelled "rant" and that, if you pull it out slowly, your head won't make that tell-tale popping sound next time.

But I will.

Since we are generally doing well in most of our territories to cover them twice a year, we must have made quite an impression the last time we spoke with you. Really, if you don't want to speak with us, you need only say so and we will leave politely. If you are really determined not to speak with us at your door, let us know that you wish to be placed on the "do not call" list. Problem solved. Unless, of course, we are right, Jehovah keeps his promises and Armeggedon actually comes. In that case, the problem is still solved, although probably not to your liking.

Of course, every few years you might bump into one of us on the street or in a parking lot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but considering how often you have to rub elbows with drug addicts, child molesters, thieves, adulterers, assorted minor league thugs, rapists and the like, I imagine you should be able to tolerate someone whose principle purpose in approaching you is to encourage you to make your life even better than it presently is.

I know this much<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you've never actually listened to what we were saying to you.

#

I think this is what's commonly known as a "troll"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:). Attacking a religion is such an obvious ploy. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses myself, I'd have to say that this person picked the wrong religion to attempt to "get a rise" out of, as that we're typically very reasonable people, and are used to negative viewpoints such as this. btw: It's "Jehovah's Witness", prefaced by "one of", to be grammatically correct. In addition to being spirtually minded, and ethically minded when it comes to Computer Science, I can also be a bit of a stickler when it comes to grammar, (yes, I know, "out of" is ending a sentence with a prepostion, but this aids in fluency, and has commonly become accepted by grammarians). Anyways, nice to know, other brothers/sisters use Linux. I think it only makes since. After all, isn't the Bible the greatest source of "free information" there is?

#

Right. You people make me sick. Why have you spoken, after all? Somewhere comes Jehova's Withness in sentence, and you're up? Searching on google, for new "attacks" or what? Ok. I'll calm down. It is way beyond (not to say off) topic, after all. And I don't appreciate these "militant technic" used in article. "Linux advocacy"? Why bother. It has (GNU/Linux) existed without it, and it can further exist without. And to meld it, I do not need any kind of "God advocacy" neither, thank you very much.

#

You mean Jehovas Witnesses are allowed to use computers? I thought they were considered evil and the tool of the devil (along with Birthdays, Halloween, and anything else that could be considered fun).

I find the best way to get one of those Bible pushers out of my face is to say, "There is no God. If there were, he'd strike me down right now... look, it didn't happen. Now go away."

#

It's amazing how ignorance is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,somehow, thought of as funny.

#

Damn right! The last thing Linux needs is to be made as insecure, slow, and hard to use as Microsoft products. Obviously the author has never been to Asia when he refers to Microsoft as "mainstream".

#

The author makes some very good points, if in fact it is so important for GNU/Linux to "succeed" in a Windows world. All of the preconditions for success that he notes are correct. But is it really all about money? I thought it was about free as in freedom and open source as a better software development model. I started using Linux because I like to try new things and tinker with my computer. It was only later that I realized how superior Linux is to Windows. Also, in the business world MS has so much clout and momentum that, in my opinion, it isn't going to go away too easily. Finally, I think I have to disagree with the point about "too many distributions." Most of those distributions fall under the radar of just about everyone, including most Linux users, leaving just a few that most people have even heard about. Those few aren't even really competing with each other, since their markets are carved out either geographically or in terms of varying interests.

#

It is very hard (if not impossible) to gain market share in a capitalist market unless you're making money...

The concepts are not exclusive either; there are lots of ways to have free-as-in-speech open source software *and* make money off it. That's how Linux is surviving right now.

#

I don't think Linux makes much money for anybody. Please name the Linux companies that have posted profits three years in a row. To my knowledge, most of the development of GNU/Linux software comes from volunteers, working in their spare time. Even the companies that manage to make payroll have gotten the majority of software that they put into their distros from volunteer work. This isn't to say that GNU/Linux can't make money - I just don't think it's the primary motivator for most of the developers working on various OSS and Free Software projects.

#

Why do Windows users have to be considered the "enemy"? Yes Linux is a faster more reliable OS compared to Windows but that doesn't mean we have to "Annihilate" them. Everyone has an environment they feel more comfortable in. If people choose to let a GUI decide all the options for a server, for instance, let them.

Also there is no reason why Linux has to replace Windows. Do we really want all these Windows users who can't even install the OS they're running to convert? Heh, I don't think so.

#

There's an even stronger point to be made. Many people don't even know which OS they're using, or even _that_they_have_an_operating_system_ on their computers. "What operating system do you have on your computer?" "Uh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Word, I think." "What's an operating system?" "We have AOL." And so on.

#

Microsoft most definitely is. Don't bother arguing otherwise. The Halloween papers, "Un-American" and "commie" cracks, and the extra weaseally "myths" pages are ample demonstration that Microsoft is out to destroy Open Source any way it can. They will infiltrate their patents into industry standards bodies, buy politicians, and endlessly fiddle with their file formats and protocols to keep everyone guessing.

I would like nothing more than to be able to ignore Microsoft but they won't ignore us. The only thing that will stop them is sufficient mindshare and the only place to get it is to take it from Microsoft.

#

Microsoft is not the enemy of Linux. Linux is the enemy of Microsoft -- don't forget that. Microsoft needs a target, or they spin their wheels, and Linux is now the best target. Microsoft, however, is not the enemy of Linux -- Microsoft is just another proprietary company be absorbed at the fringes.

#

I couldn't have said it better myself. I wish I could just happily ignore Microsoft and its ignorant users, and use Linux and not worry about it. But Microsoft won't let me. It's not enough for them to have 95% marketshare and $40 billion in the bank; they'll stop at nothing less than total domination of all computer software.

I really don't like Ford's vehicles, but that's ok. I didn't buy a Ford, and Ford isn't doing all kinds of unethical and anticompetitive things to try to force me into buying one. I can happily drive my Acura without ever worrying that Ford is somehow going to change the laws so that driving an Acura is illegal, or have the roads changed so that it's simply impossible to drive my Acura.

So why is it that I have to worry about this crap from Microsoft? MS is a cancer that has run amok, and the only way to prevent it from consuming us all is to destroy it altogether.

#

One of the things you mention is Samba. Despite many hours of fiddlin' I have been unable to get file sharing between my Linux and Windows machines. I expect windows to have difficulty seeing my Linux machine but had hoped that Linux would find my windows machine.
I use OpenOffice for all my document/spreadsheet needs and have found it highly satisfactory. The install is almost like a windows install once it is untarred. Neat I thought, also an area where Linux needs to improve to attract the windows user. Frequently RPM's for Mandrake(my distro)don't work properly. I have found it safer and more reliable to install the tarball than to mess with RPM's but even then the specter of dependency hell looms often. Not to mention that installing an older library creates other conflicts. So, LSB can't get it together soon enough for me.

#

just set up lisa (or reslisa) it's part of the KDE system, but doesn't need it to work

--
Kz

#

Try out webmin (webmin.com). I've had much better luck getting things to work using it to configure samba.

I first tried just going to samba.org and reading documentation, then manually editing smb.conf. No luck.

After using webmin, i've gotten my internal linux server to share files, and I've even set up a linux box at my kid's school as a PDC which automatically maps an H:(home) drive and S:(share) drive on win98 machines.

One thing to consider when using it is authentication. Share level acces vs. user level access might fix problems for you if your just using it internally.

#

...is an excellent tool, considering how much Microsoft tries to squirm to get away from its interoperability. That 'moving target' business does make it more complex.

The best resource I've found, bar none, is the O'Reilly book <A HREF="http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/samba/">Using Samba</a oreilly.com>. After I downloaded and read through the online version, I went out and bought a dead-tree copy, I was that impressed, particularly with the troubleshooting tree, with the aid of which I was finally able to straighten out file and printer sharing on my own network.

#

have you tried Komba2 which is an excellent GUI for Samba ? It's Included on Mandrake 8.2

#

If you download webadmin can easily configure your machine as a samba server. I had mine up and running in less than 5 minutes without having to tweak a single samba file.

#

Imitate, Infiltrate, Dominate

#

If you want Linux to supplant Windows, that's great and all, but instead of writing pointless diatribes about how great it would be, why don't you work on making Linux workable for Windows people?

http://rhems.sourceforge.net/

Those guys seem to be taking the more effective tactic. . .

#

Well, why'd you think the guy talked instead of programming himself? It's too big a job for just one person....We need to alert the whole Open Source Community!

#

The same people that post on slashdot about the the evils of religion come over here and post overly zealous comments like "infiltrate, imitate, dominate."

Not a line that will make my mom want switch to linux. If anything, seeing such words would make her stay away from it.

You should work for Microsoft's anti-linux task force - you'd scare more people away from linux than anything ms has done so far.

Is this really the type of language that needs to be applied to computing? When language like this is applied to any cause it generally produces a negative reaction, not a positive one.

And be careful, because sometimes you get exactly what you ask for. Let's see. The author proposes the eradication of microsoft, and the consolidation of linux distributions. How is that better for anyone? Do you think you'll be able to download this hypothetical consolidated linux for free if its the only choice?

Linux does not exist in a vacuum. It exists because of windows, in reaction to windows. It enjoys success because of its technical merits and its relative cost, among many other things. Let the user base grow based on its merits, not because people like you shove it down everyone's throat.

#

So far the only guy I have seen make a comment
opposed to any religion was that guy above
who equated the artical with Jehova's
witnesses. So the guy bitching about religon
was actually opposed to the artical.

#

So why is it ok for Microsoft to have the same religious attitude about their products and destroying all their competitors? Ever heard of "embrace, extend, extinguish"? This is how MS runs its business, destroying their competitors at all costs. Technical merits mean nothing to them, and don't really matter that much in the marketplace; business tactics do, and with Microsoft practicing unethical, anticompetitive, and illegal business tactics, its very hard to survive at all against them.

The only way any of us will be free of Microsoft's domination will be through their eradication.

#

IMHO, this comment is the best to describe this article. Violence never wins !

#

[quote]
Linux does not exist in a vacuum. It exists because of windows, in reaction to windows. It enjoys success because of its technical merits and its relative cost, among many other things. Let the user base grow based on its merits, not because people like you shove it down everyone's throat.
[/quote]

Linux exists because AST didn't want to open the source to minix. I personally don't use GNU/Linux because i hate windows. I use it because it works for me. If you use it in a reaction to windows, you should re-think your motives. But i still agree with you on the shoving part, lets get back coding and stop all this useless ranting, makes everyone look like kids =)

#

Why Microsoft is the enemy? Why in some ill-fated countries (I speak for Italy) is obligates to you, of fact, for law, to use the Windows. Every entrepreneurial activity or trades them is obliged from always to the book keeping writings and send a sums to the administration. Such declarations must be sended through an appropriate software of codify that it is available single and for Microsoft systems. It achieves some that anyone must have at least one PC-Windows. The prank is that in order to generate files the pdf to send, one of these programs has been distributed with the GNU Ghostscript for Windows, making also to believe that it has been work of the administration. If to the declarations and the budgets are not sended the fines they are enormous and there is also the risk of the jail. And then question is who why Microsoft is an enemy...

excuse me for bad english

#

Your English is better than my Italian, and my parents are Italian. Anyway, thanks for the timely support in the war.

Some of the OpenOffice files can be saved as MS Office files. PS to PDF tools are available in Linux.

With the hatred of MS and the US, and the momentum behind Linux, it will only be a very short time before Italy and other countries will be using Linux, and mandating open source programs in the respective countries. Some are already doing this.

Linux is the beginning of the end for Microsoft. They know this, and it shows through their new licensing schemes. But some countries are resisting, and Linux is too widespread and has too many benefits to have to worry about Microsoft. The only problem is that the change is not coming fast enough for some of us.

Our kids (and some of the kids that post to this site) will in just a few short years regard MS products as we regard the altair now.

Forza Italia!
.

#

First, I do not think this article is stupid as implied by an earlier comment. It isn't true that Windows has its place and Linux has its place. Linux is constantly developed and nothing can be more dynamic than the computer software market. Linux becomes what we make it, it is not already "made up" where to use Linux, and what for.
Second, I'm a little surprised that the author does not mention Koffice as one of the candidates for an office environment. It starts up fast, has most of the features that the average user needs, and is well integrated into rest of the KDE environment, which is important.
The major problem is that it is lacking write support for the msoffice formats, and I agree with the author that this is due to ms protecting its formats too hard.
There is little to do about this as long as ms keeps its domination in the office section.
What could be done though, and I'm surprised that it hasn't been, is to agree on a common format for all the alternative office packages. This would give all of those who do choose linux a common platform to work in, regardless of the choice of applications (gnome/kde/openoffice/staroffice). I think this would make linux a more compelling choice for larger establishments, like some goverments, whose interests in linux is groving for every day.

#

I'm pretty sure the author was referring to office products that can be used across the board, whether a user has Gnome or KDE installed.
I love KOffice, but I run Gnome and don't really care for KDE... So I'm only guessing, but I'm sure that's what was meant, since other than those two there are not a lot of other options "across the board," so to speak.
But hey, if you can make Koffice work in Gnome, tell me how! I'll name someone elses child after you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Just have the KDE libs and whatnot installed, then run it. As long as you have the libraries and mess installed you can run any app in any window/desktop manager.

#

I'm pretty sure that is NOT what the author meant.
I think he is making the very important point that
If we are going to push open solutions, We should
be encouraging the various office projects(Koffice,
Gnumerics/Abiword, Openoffice) to adopt a common,
Open document file format. If they all used a common file format, then Us users could use the tool and environment that we are comfortable with, rather than be forced to adopt the tool to read the file.

I saw someone else make a commment last week about how a browser plug-in that would be a quick viewer for a common file format, would allow people to start moving away from the proprietary MS formats. I think this would be a great boon for everyone. The sooner that people and companies stop creating their data on proprietary formats. The better.

Note that a common XML based document format could become the Wedge that starts pushing people away from Proprietary tools. Also note that it would obviate the need for PDF files.

#

I think Adam Doxtater should use windoze since he likes that Billieware so much. I myself use linux because I wanted stability and security and the freedom to do what I want. Billieware is cute and cute don't compute. I do not give a rats ass about
M$ and I was tired of that unstable and bloated
O.S. so I freed myself of the costly behemoth.
My point is if you want windoze then use it, if you
want a great O.S. use linux and quit crying and trying to convert it in to another pile of micro$oft_crap.

#

My subject line says it all.

#

The author isn't trying to convert Linux to Windows. If you'd stop for a moment and read the article without prejudging it, without being defensive or closed-minded, you'd see that he's talking about "making MS customers more comfortable with using Linux."

#

you should care somewhat about that stable os...cuz technically xp is very stable. Not exactly secure, but stable.

#

1 - Linux costs little
2 - Linux is powerful
3 - Linux development is a protocal of sorts
4 - This protocol is the driving force behind linux not any company or organization. It cannot not survive. It cannot be beaten by any company.
The protocol will not allow that.
5 - Linux does not depend on money
6 - Linux is the reality that sprang forth from the RMS theory of software.
7 - Microsoft is just a company
8 - Mr. Gates knows that MS could not dominate
if CEO's change their mind
9 - Linux rules the small servers, it will soon rule the big iron and have a positive force on the desktop. The reason is the protocol.
10 - Our opinions and coding via the protocol will continue to improve the OS for the many different facets of computing.
11 - This protocol allows companies to use it to build things like tivo and PDA's. It also powers
IBM mainframes.
12 - Where it can be used as a solution it will be used. Of course a good company like IBM can send it's sales force out and sell the software.

#

6 - Linux is the reality that sprang forth from the RMS theory of software.

BZZT! thanks for playing but RMS hates the commercialism of GNU/Linux and <A HREF="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D78EC92.AFBD973B%40moorecad.com">wants to release a Linux-free GNU system.</a google.com>

#

That's just his Bill Gates type ego showing.
His pure theory has come to pass regaurdless if he likes it or not. It's simply reality.
Of course he can do what he wants.

He should be proud of what has been accomplished
via "his" protocol.
I can put GNU on my computer and it is very good and complete with Linux.


  RMS will be thought of someday by colonists on Mars as a Founding Father
of Star Trek type world inwhich they live.
Me get's distracted by human ego but he is right in his theories. We all owe him much.

#

5 - Linux does not depend on money

With more commercialization of GNU/Linux it is coming to the point where financial support is necessary. It has really only been the major players (Red Hat, Mandrake) etc that have helped push it to the position that it is now and they are commercial companies.

This is not to say that great programs have not originated from open source, but it has taken these companies to inject resources to put together distributions that are much more mainstream.

Personally, I would like to see a good mix of open source and proprietary programs. But proprietary requires money, and companies expect a return on investment. I think I read somewhere that $32mil has been injected into producing Xandros.

#

Regaurdless of those commercial interest or how much they spend. OpenSource and Linux themselves do not need money to survive. The protocol of RMS
makes sure of that. Those companies that use or produce linux will have to be like all other companies and either make it or break it.

GNU/Linux itself does not need them for financial support. I hope they all do well but if they don't it is a reflection of their management and business plans. It is not a reflection of GNU/Linux.

#

None of these are valid points.

What an idiot! He must of just got off the boat.

#

I put OpenOffice on one of our Win2K PC's because the copy of MS-Office was not loading (apparently because it was installed with a "bad" CD key).

Let's compare and contrast an MS-Office installation with its OpenOffice counterpart:

MS-Office: The user logs in and uses the office applications.

OpenOffice: Each and every user has to perform the following steps before they start using OpenOffice (this is from the HOW-TO file I put on the machine's desktop:

====================================

Setting up OpenOffice on Windows 2000
Before using OpenOffice on a Windows 2000 PC, each user must run the OpenOffice setup program and change some configuration settings. Here's how:

Installing


        Double-click the OpenOffice.org Setup icon on the desktop.


        You may be asked Install program as other user? - just click OK (i.e. install using your account).


        Click through, accepting defaults, until you see: Select installation directory. Enter the following as the installation directory:


                C:\Documents and settings\<YOUR_LOGIN>\Application data\OpenOffice1.0.1\


        Replace <YOUR_LOGIN> with your network login. For example, if you log into the network using the name JoeB, replace <YOUR_LOGIN> with JoeB.


        Click through, accepting defaults. During installation, you may see a message that says:


                An error occurred while copying the file opens___.ttf to C:\WINNT\Fonts.


        This is normal - just click Ignore.


        Click through until install is complete.

Configuring


        Start OpenOffice.org Writer - Click Start, Programs, OpenOffice, OpenOffice Writer.


        Cancel out of the address import screen.


        Select Tools, Options from menu


        Expand Load/Save on the left side by clicking the + next to it


        Click General under Load/Save


        In the Standard file format section, in the Document type list, select Text document

        For Always save as, select Microsoft Word 97/2000/XP


        In the Standard file format section, in the Document type list, select Spreadsheet

        For Always save as, select Microsoft Excel 97/2000/XP


        Expand Text Document on the left side by clicking the + next to it


        Click General under Text Document


        Change Measurement unit from Centimeter to Inch


        Change Tab stops to 0.50"


        Click OK to save your changes. You may receive a warning that says:


                Warning: Using Microsoft Word 97/2000/XP as default file format may cause information loss


        This is normal - just click OK

You should be able to use OpenOffice now. It's a bit different from Microsoft Office, and not as polished, but it's quite capable, and you can't beat the price.

If you have questions, please contact support.

====================================

Now I ask you: WTF IS THAT?! How can anyone be expected to deploy OOo if every user has to go through this on every machine they want to use OOo on??

Don't get me wrong - I use OOo exclusively, but (just like profiles in Mozilla) if the issues related to mass deployment of OSS software are not worked out, it's going to be an uphill battle to get this stuff into businesses. I'm working hard to convert our organization to as much OSS/GPL software as I can, but it really gets discouraging when I think of the needlessly wasted hours and keystrokes I have to invest in the process.

#

"Microsoft: User logs in and uses the office applications"

Oh please, you just described why that was impossible at your own site. And it has proven to be a pain in the butt at our location too on dozends of occasions. The problem with XP asa workstation is that it does multi-user poorly. Scattering user files all over the place and mixing up "profiles" with true multi-user capabilities just proves it has a few more iteratinos (and few more 1000$ of upgrades for us) before it gets it right.

Openoffice and Mozilla are meant to be friendly to multi-user installations across platforms. To install openoffice on 50 workstations is no more difficult than doing so for windows apps: hack the scripts burn your own ISO or write an install routine to load OO.org onto the boxes off an NFS or FTP server. Not hard to do and you users will have "preinstalled" OO.org without having to click on som many things. In fact OO.org shows you how to do this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

#

I aree that it is a hassle. I would love to install OpenOffice on a Windows 2000 terminal server, but due to the fact that it appears to be a huge task to get the user files setup for each individual user, I haven't attempted it yet. (3 servers and 70 users.) The fact is that if it is a LOT of work, it probably isn't going to happen, even if it is doable. (We use WordPerfect Office Suite, not MS Office.) I spent a lot of time trying to get Mozilla 1.0 installed on these servers as well, but never could get the profiles to work so I gave up and we're stuck with IE 6.0.

#

Sorry, but obviously you don't enjoy reading... or loking for a solution, no you use, 'MCSE' thinking, I downloaded OO when it was first released, just to check it out, I have been using S) 5.2 for a number of years, & was keen to see the difference. I downloaded it onto the Windows 2000 Term server at our office installed it as admin. a few hours later one fo the term server users called me and said what is this?, so I told him to try it, he said, I did I got xyz error. So I checked it out.

It appeared to be a profile controller. So instead of installing it however many times, I searched for this file. It was a text file, easily modified, copied to each users profile, and then edited it for the userts name, boom everyone prefers it to MS Office, now instead of being blocked in by your thinking, stretch your brain a little. Sheeesh....

#

Has anyone ever tried using windows' "Copy User Profile" feature to setup computers with Open Office?

What you do is log in, configure all the applications the way you want. Then click on Start | Settings |Control Panel |System. Click on the User Profiles Tab. Highlight the account you used to do all the configurations, then click on the copy to button. Copy the configuration to all existing users and to the default user. These are located under c:\documents and settings\.

Then get someone to log in and see if Open Office works.

#

The problem <A HREF="http://www.openoffice.org/">OpenOffice</a openoffice.org> has under Windows is related to the fact that Windows is not a true multiuser operating system.

OpenOffice on a Linux system installs and works very simply for a multi-user configuration (it's even simpler when a distro does the 'hard' part for you, and prepackages it as an RPM).

Just remember to use the <tt>-net</tt> option when installing OpenOffice and everything should work out nicely (why this isn't done through the Setup GUI I have no idea, but there you go).

Finally, the network-based install is only intended to conserve drive space; if you don't care about that, you can cheerfully install the entire app for each individual user. Hopefully, a later version of OOo will become more amenable to the Windows way of handling multi-user configs.

Also, I think that OpenOffice will automatically launch the setup process (for the Workstation install) if it hasn't already been done for a given user, when they attempt to use one of the installed applications (on the other hand, this may just be <A HREF="http://www.mandrakesoft.com/">Mandrake</a mandrakesoft.com> being nice and configuring a bunch of 'preinstall' scripts).

Actually, what's to stop somebody doing the same for a Windows install? Write a bunch of 'front-end' scripts that first check to see if the app has been installed, and then launch Setup automatically if necessary; otherwise, just launch the application as you would normally? This would at least keep the user from having to remember to launch the Setup explicitly. Of course, remember to have the script automatically launch the originally selected app once the Setup is complete<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... something like this could be done using VBScript fairly easily.

The OpenOffice Installation Guide has info on there somewhere describing how to determine whether the software's already installed (under Windows, you just check for a particular INI file; that file also describes which version is currently installed, so your script can determine if the Setup needs to be updated). You can check the Preparing the Installation section on page 11, I think (at least that's in the Win32 version for 1.0.1). You'll probably have to check the INI file itself for specific info, although it looks like it tracks all versions that have been installed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

Info on how each application is invoked can be found <A HREF="http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-other.html#8">here</a openoffice.org>. I'd do this myself, but I use it in a strictly single-user mode, so I've never needed it.

#

If you want to script Windows take a look at Winbatch. The possibilities are endless and the price is right. There is also a very good helping board at www.winbatch.com.

Jo

#

We should get rid of Microsoft, but not because their OS sucks. We should get rid of them because they activly fight technological improvement by not following standards, by inventing imaginary solutions to imaginary problems or problems they themselves created due to a poorly designed system.

I don't care what has it's place where, all I know is that Microsoft does not evolve technology in a possitive direction, they only do what they need to do to make money, even if that means devolving technology and making it less good. And there's plenty of evidence suggesting that they go in a negative direction creating flawed concepts and poorly designed systems simply because they can make money out of it.

#

"We should get rid of them because they activly fight technological improvement by not following standards"

And what standards might that be? They followed the C++ standard quite well. Also have no problem with TCP/IP. And please don't mention Java, because that's not a standard.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is based on three standards, XML, SOAP and C# (although the latter has been invented by MS, the standardization is now handed over to ECMA).

#

• <tt>C++</tt> they didn't really have much choice on.


• <tt>TCP/IP</tt> they, again, don't really have much choice on. However, they have freely "extended" it with their own proprietary stuff (such that it will work "better" only with other Microsoft products).


• Java is a de-facto standard, if not a formal standard, which they have blatantly tried to wreck.


• <tt>SOAP</tt> is a standard that they created and endorsed (I could be wrong on this; somebody please point me in the right direction if I am).


• <tt>C#</tt>, as far as I can tell, is nothing more than another attempt to unseat Java.

Microsoft only adopts standards until such time as they feel they can usurp and privatize those standards. They "extended" Java with proprietary extensions that would only work on Windows, claiming it was simply more efficient to make use of existing native functionality; therefore, you ended up with Java applications that would only work on Windows (kinda blows away this whole "write one, run anywhere" idea, doesn't it?).

Kerberos was "extended" with a custom capability which, while not actually prohibited according to the spec, meant that non-Windows systems using a fully compliant implementation, couldn't authenticate to a Windows server. On the other hand, a Windows client could freely authenticate against these same non-Windows servers. Granted, they fixed this, but the fact that it was even tried says something, I think.

And there are many more examples, but I don't want to ramble.

Sorry, but Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to follow standards only so long as it is on their terms. If they honestly felt they could preempt a core standard like <tt>TCP/IP</tt> I, for one, do not believe they would hesitate for even a second to do so.

#

If windows admins prefer to set up everything using GUI applications, then there's only one small problem to solve - write a Front-End to all command-line applications to help them make set-up visualised and easy - that's it. There's hardly anything Linux can't do that Windows does (maybe except for gaming, so far).

#

Actually, Linux CAN do the gaming. The (temporary) problem lies in the lack of gaming applications. Getting games out the door is a lower than low priority with the business market. I think, from personal experience, that the SOHO apps are largely already in place. We should start seeing first-class gaming apps fairly soon<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as employees load Linux at home to match what is on the workplace desktop they will start calling for games so their kids can use the computer while the adults are at work.

If Electronic Arts (for example) starts getting a consistent 1-200 calls a week looking for game applications, it won't take long before shrinkwrap will start hitting shelves.

One thing I do want to point out is that, while $free$ is good, these guys have mortgages to pay, braces to buy and refrigerators that need to be stocked with Perier and Sam Adams: if you don't cross these guys palms with silver, you'll have to write your own games.

#

Try webmin at http://www.webmin.com. Download the RPM (if using redhat), and then browse to the machine at port 10000 (http://your-machine:10000). It doesn't help you set up applications per se, but will config just about everything on the box.

#

Despite what anyone says, windows is easier to use compared to any UNIX-system, 10 times over. With Windows, you can plug in a peice of hardware and (most of the time) it will start working without ANY interaction from the user. That is absolutly amazing! Windows had that kind of technology back with 98se. With XP, its been perfected pretty damn well. What Linux distros can do that? Most linux distros won't autodetect your hardware correctly during installation, let alone set it up properly.

Windows is simply easier. Windows is also designed with desktop usage in mind. UNIX is task oriented. It wasn't ment for creating music CD's and office presentations. The fact that Linux even works as well as it does as a desktop mystifies me. That's not the point.

Windows is easier because it is designed to be a desktop system. UNIX is not. Since Linux is based off UNIX (well... you know what I mean) it isn't designed to be a desktop. When you try to use it as a desktop, you've got problems. Mix that with the fact that there is no centeral organization controling linux, no stable monetary flow, etc and you've got problems. What about licenses? How many companies what to release the source code for propriatary drivers? Don't even start with all those political problems.

Reality check: Microsoft Windows is NOT going away. Neither is Linux. So it makes obvious sense to make it as easy as possible for the two to work together. Rather than bitching about everything, lets find ways to bridge to gaps. OpenOffice, Netscape and KDE/GNOME are all good examples of doing so. The easier it is for Linux and Windows to work together the easier it is for everyone then everyone is happy. I think that was the authors point.

#

I personally have never had to install a driver on Linux, I can't say the same for Windows. Now, I admit that there is some serious problems with driver support in Linux, but how is that the fault of the operating system? Shouldn't the finger be pointed at the hardware vendors for refusing to admit that Linux exists, let alone write drivers for it?

#

This is a pretty old argument which for the most part is no longer valid. Mandrake, RedHat and Suse will install and configure most devices upon without problems. It does have problems with winmodems, but then again, those devices were built for Windows.

Linux has the added adavantage of not having to reboot everytime something is added, be it a hardware device or a program.

While I agree that Windows is easier to use for the avaerage Joe or Jane, Linux is not the complex monster you and the media make it out to be.

#

this is simply NOT TRUE, so stop trying to pass it off as truth.

Go down to the local best buy, buy a firewire hard drive, and plug it in. It WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY WORK under linux. Period.

There are lots of peripherals like this, i just picked a convenient example.

Stop with the blind zealotry -- linux has significant, serious shortcomings that need to be addressed, not swept under the rug.

#

true, but there are also the very long list of common items that windows has a real hard time with. Before I hired someone to fight with windows for me, I would spend about 20 hours a week fighting with this stuff supporting 20 users. I know, a lot of pc techs could beat me, but they could pick a common hardware platform for the entire organisation and I had to live with whatever piece of broken name brand hand me down junk they could find. That meant lots of old spec hardware and some stuff that only partly worked. Linux would work with about anything but the win modems, windows fought over everything including the win modems.

#

That's just how much problems you've had with it yourself. I've never had to stick out a finger to configure my Red Hat.
But I can list A LOT of devices that work with Linux and NOT with the actual Windows versions(Win2K and XP).
If you ever installed Win2K on a bunch of older Compaq pc's or cheap supermarket computers you'd now what I mean.

#

When was the last time you installed Linux? I just don't see how installing Windows is even as easy, forget any possibility of it being easier<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and the cost isn't even on the same planet.

I installed an old (two revisions back) copy of Mandrake 8.0 a couple of hours ago.

It detected everything, walked me through printer and monitor and NIC setup and just ran.If it didn't do that for you, then the mistake was yours. If the problem was with Linux, I would not have succeeded in installing as as readily as I did.

It took about 30 minutes from power on to reboot. In that 30 minutes I installed a LOT of application software, not just the OS. It takes me about 30 minutes to install Win98 on my wife's machine. Then additional hours to install her applications.

Initial printer setup was a snap. Setting up a ton of printer variations after installation is about as easy and the printer driver for my Epson SC600 is arguably better than the one supplied by Epson for Windows. Linux came prepared to handle several hundred printer models without additional software from the manufacturer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... does Windows? Point, click, point, click, done. All the technical information I needed was the model of my printer and to know what machine it was plugged into. How much easier do you want things to get?

To setup my optical wheel mouse, I had to select it from a list, move the wheel and then wait about 10 seconds while the drivers for it were installed and initialized. It came with a driver disk for use with Windows. Wanna race? If I change mice, kudzu will notice and ask for the CD to install the driver for the new mouse. This is the exact same behavior you get with Windows except that Windows is going to march you through a lot of "have disk" baloney and struggle to find the correct driver.BTDT!

To install my monitor I had to select it from a list, then choose my preferred resolution and color depth. Three clicks. After a 10 second test confirmed that my choices were good, the video server was installed with that precise configuration (not a lot of bloated, unused driver code).

The ethernet interface to my DSL modem was a real toughie to install. I had to approve the NIC that the OS found and then provide a host name, IP address (I could have chosen dhcp or bootp, but want a fixed IP addy because I run a mail server from this machine), and DNS address.

That's the connection<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... without any additional modifications<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that I am using right now and that's all I had to do to set it up. I set up the same connection for my wife on her Win98 machine. Again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wanna race?

So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how on earth is Windows even AS easy to install as Linux? I just don't see it.

I have a full-tilt OS, industrial strength mail, printer (my wife uses my printer) and web servers, a very nice office suite, graphics and audio programs up the wazoo, a wide variety of editors including not one, but 3 HTML-specific editors, PIM applications<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you name it, it's already installed. Most of it is "point and click" stuff except for the server-only software. For that, I have a point and click interface in Webmin. The point being that a single GUI serves all the servers on my machine, they don't each have a redundant GUI. Leaves more room for mp3's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

Since I run equivalent software on my wife's computer, I have a pretty good handle on what those apps are worth. I have at least $2,000 worth of software on my Linux box. Easily. And I have every bit as good tech support and product guarantee as applies to her machine.

I got it all for $80 and I can upgrade it easily (point and click), securely and indefinitely for free.

Windows is no easier to install or use. And it certainly is not as easy to pay for.

Just to dispel the next round of FUD, Linux users are NOT compelled to compile their own kernels. My machine is working just fine right this moment without doing that. But, unlike Windows users, Linux users CAN compile a fresh kernel anytime they want whatever new feature the next kernel provides. Simply go to http://www.kernel.org , follow your mouse to the desired kernel version and download it. Then grab a copy of the Kernel Compile Guide from http://www.linuxlookup.com/modules.php?op=modload&amp<nobr>;<wbr></nobr> name=Sections&file=index&req=listarticles&sec<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> d=1
and do exactly what it says, substituting the version number you have for the version number in the Guide.

In my opinion, anyone who can not use Linux effectively and readily probably isn't much good with Windows, either.

If Linux were as hard to use on the desktop as the FUD would have us believe, its numbers would be dwindling, not growing. And that just isn't the case.

#

Incidentally, current versions of <A HREF="http://www.linux-mandrake.com/">Mandrake</a linux-mandrake.com> are even easier (if that's possible).

Granted, in a general sense, for the average user (whatever that is), Windows is a more familiar (and therefore "easier") environment to cope with. Linux, however, is rapidly advancing to the point where I wouldn't have any serious qualms introducing a computer newbie to it.

In point of fact, the only devices I've got right now that Mandrake didn't autodetect and configure (without any interaction from me) are the following:

1. USB-based UPS (APC BackUPS Pro 350), which might even work now (but I can't test it 'cause my spare USB cable had a close encounter with the wrong end of a chair, hence is unusable).


2. Creative Labs DXR3 with hardware decoder (which actually works well--it just required a small amount of manual configuration, although it does still have occasional issues, apparently with its <tt>devfs</tt> support). And I fully expect that the next version of Mandrake will probably autodetect and configure it, too.

Not bad, considering my hardware list:

• USB Logitech 3-button wheelmouse


• USB Epson Perfection scanner (I forget the exact model)


• USB Epson Stylus Color 740 Printer (actually, I lie--this required the same amount of manual configuration that any printer under Windows does: namely, selecting my preferred resolution, inks, etc.)


• Creative Labs SoundBlaster AWE64 (ISA)


• Creative Labs DXR3 DVD-ROM drive


• Matrox Mystique 220. I don't have access to the accelerated 3D support, but that's because the driver doesn't support it. Oh well.


• Microsoft Natural keyboard (yes, it recognizes and uses the special keys, although not for the same functions).


• Creative Labs USB WebCam (I forget which model).

And, of course, all the micellaneous stuff on the motherboard and other such items (I've also left out some of the more unusual hardware I've got, which works fine, as far as I can tell).

And no, you don't have to install your own kernels, esp. if you use a distro like Mandrake (which releases new kernel packages almost as fast as you could download and compile 'em anyway). It's nice, though, that we have the option.

BTW, does anyone know if Windows 2000/XP is optimized for a Pentium at least, or is the code still optimized to run on a 486?

#

"With Windows, you can plug in a peice of hardware and (most of the time) it will start working without ANY interaction from the user. That is absolutly amazing! Windows had that kind of technology back with 98se."

this is actually kind of funny... Microsoft doesn't have that "technology" - it's called monopoly.

Microsoft has not devised some sort of ueber-app that probes your hardware and creates drivers on the fly... but by muscling, threatening, and otherwise duping every hardware developer into believing or swearing that theirs is the only operating system in all of existence, Windows drivers are the only ones developed and they're immediately pledged to the corporation or sent with the hardware in a little disk.

that's not technology, that's evil<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-p

overdramatic i am, yes... but your argument is either stupid or FUD. i rather suspect the latter...

#

Every piece of hardware I install is a total
bitch with Windows. Windows is ALWAYS a pain
in the ass to install for the first time.
Let's go over some past situations...

1) Voodoo3 16MEG 2000PCI.
Linux: Installed the RPMs and it worked.
Windows: Deleted the OS, spent 5 hours getting
the driver to install, then I had to manually
configure the memory access ranges before
it could put the drivers to use.

2) Small CPU and RAM upgrade.
Linux: No config needed, these upgrades are
transparent to the software.
Windows: The video card drivers broke down
again.

3) Sound card:
Linux: No config needed, Mandrake figured it out.
Windows: I needed to download the drivers
from the net.

4) Internet.
Linux: Mandrake figured it out.
Windows: I had to go into Linux to download
the drivers because the ones on the CD were
for 98, and not 98SE.

5) Riva TNT2.
Linux: No problem.
Windows: 10 hours fiddling with the drivers
before it would cooperate.

6) New motherboard.
Linux: Handled the situation as though there
was no upgrade. HD preformance rates went way
up.
Windows: Broke the sound driver and had to
be reinstalled.

God DAMN, Windows is SO FUCKING EASY TO USE!
SHIT! LIKE HOW COULD LINUX EVER WIN?

#

6) New motherboard.
Linux: Handled the situation as though there was no upgrade. HD preformance rates went way up.
Windows: Broke the sound driver and had to be reinstalled.

You got luck with the Windows upgrade there (maybe it's only fair because #5 gave you an overly hard time =P). I upgraded my motherboard and Windows (2000 SP1) had to be reinstalled because it would blue screen on (any type of) boot up (it couldn't recognize the IDE controller anymore and was angry, from what I could tell from the error message). Linux (at the time I was using Slackware 8.0) and X booted and ran without issue. Now I no longer have Windows installed (I set up GCC as a cross compiler so that I can still distribute executables to Windows users too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)).

#

Yeah, what a bunch of crap.
I had a friend who used to work for a computer video card manufacturer... okay, so maybe it was me and not this "friend." Regardless-
I worked in technical support. There were 75 of us there everyday, and each one of us took between 25-35 calls a day. Our product, at that time, wasn't supported in Linux (although if you ask me it worked great) so all those calls were because people couldn't get a video card working with Windows 95, 98, 2000 or XP.
Do the math. 75 people, 30 calls each 6 days a week. OH SURE, Windows works perfectly alright. I'd buy that for a dollar!

#

Um, have you seen the new Mac OS? It's pretty nice and, by the way, is really UNIX under the covers.

Now, what was that about UNIX never being able to be a desktop OS?

Stid
------- "I don't make up the rules, I just play by them."
Stid

#

HAH!!! windoze is easier to set up than Linux? on what planet? for a typical windoze 98/me/2000/xp installlation it takes approximately 2 to 3 hours - including finding drivers and installing them - i can set up 2 or 3 Red Hat or Mandrake systems in that timeframe and all the hardware works WITHOUT INSTALLING ADDITIONAL DRIVERS!!! I don't know how many time I've had to do searches on driverguide.com looking for elusive drivers - it's a major pain in the butt - everytime i've installed a Linux system, it sets up the first time, detects all the hardware, and you're ready to go - not to mention it doesn't crash, you don't have to re-boot everytime you install a program, and many other pluses too numerous to mention - you must work for the Evil Empire - go back to Redmond and get your nose all brown from billgates and LEAVE LINUX ALONE!!! at least have the common courtesy to try it out before you attack it.

#

I love using Linux. I ONLY use windoze most of the time because I can't use Photoshop, Dreamweaver (well...I can at least boot that now via Wine and it mostly works), Homesite 4 and others in Linux without an ordeal. Yes, I could try VMWare (not sure if there is a free demo anymore but heard it was slow on some apps like Photoshop), tried Win4Lin but it was too slow for Photoshop, tried a couple of others but with anxiety. Point is that I find that it isn't so much the OS for me at the present but the Apps that I need to run. KDE is an excellent gui environment. I could live there all the time and never miss windoze, but I need to use Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. When a client passes along those specific files I need those specific Apps. Wine has come a VERY long way towards that. As soon as I can run the apps I need then I am in Linux from now on; period.

#

Yes, I understand. Applications and games are a major concern for users switching from Windows to Linux. Although there are alternative for the apps you discussed. You can try GIMP for starters.

#

Photoshop, Illustrator and Dreamweaver are available on OS X, which provides a good compromise if you need legacy apps. OS X gives you the mainstream commercial apps, plus the must have tools like perl and Emacs.

As far as I recall, Photoshop and Illustrator started out on the Mac.

#

Oh boy, I am so bored with these articles stating "Here's what we need to do in Linux".

You can sit there thinking "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if...", but it doesn't get you anywhere.

I think we should all know by now what needs to be done. We don't need to be reminded of what needs to be done.

All we need is for people to do something about it.

Please, no more of these type of articles!

#

Just a slow news day.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

On the contrary. The more it is said, the more likely it is that someone will pick it up and run with it.

#

I agree that there's truth in that, persistance can get people to act. However, this has got to the point where people are frequently writing the same article. I think it's blindingly obvious by now, and if nobody has listened so far then I doubt that anybody ever will. I'm just completely bored with it all.

#

- if you don't want to use Linux, don't use it

- who cares about Windows?

#

i know it's very extreme of me, but i literally get angry to see the windows interface (i'm still in my angsty stage at 20 years old); for linux to essentially become windows, as this article suggests, is outrageous!!

i use WindowMaker precisely to *avoid* the windows interface... and i stay to the command line whenever possible, really because it's my first love.

granted, the author is not necessarily suggesting all linux users adopt this, only that it be developed and be an option. but therein comes the two-bladed sword which is linux's great strength: DO IT YOURSELF.

if you think linux would so benefit from these new applications, build them. if you're not skilled enough, then build your skills. or start a windows-clone company like lycoris or lindows... you don't have to be a hacker to have an impact.

the way i see it, linux is "just for fun" as linus had written about... it will always be "by hackers, for hackers", no matter how much money random corporations throw into it. those are just projects apart from the real purpose of linux.

so, build your Microsoft clones if you want to - i'll never touch them, because then it's just not linux.

#

I'm a hard core linux server guy (dating back to 1996), but I still get so frustrated whenever I try to use linux on the desktop. Nothing is centralized. For some configuration you can find a GUI app for it, but where it may be on the KDE menu is a mystery. Some changes have to happen in a config file somewhere. Some options I have never found but probably exist somewhere. Why can't we have a control panel? Why can't our start button be cleaner? Also, configuring a VPN client is a nightmare (even though I configured the linux based VPN server myself 3 years ago).

Yeah, yeah, I know I can configure all of this if I want to but if I stay in Windows it is that way by default. We need ease-of-use for Linux on the Desktop. Just because a user "can do it himself if he wants it that way" doesn't mean we shouldn't make it the default behavior. And, we can't refuse to do it the easiest way possible just because Microsoft did it the easiest way and "we aren't Microsoft." Believe it or not, Microsoft has done some things right -- let's borrow their correct ideas (which usually revolve around the UI).

#

If you ask any true linux person, you will find that they aren't in it for the money, or the fame. We just want our computers to work the way we want them to. We don't want to have "features" shoved down our throtes, and we could give a damn about linux "succeding" in the way you describe success. Linux, by it's very nature can't fail. If there is one person who finds it useful or fun to use and hack, then Linux is a success.

I use nothing but linux on my personal machines. I won't use anything but Linux either. I enjoy the speed, stability, and most of all reliability of my linux machines. I can do everything I need to do, and I don't have to worry about my software needing an upgrade every 3 months to keep it working with all the other versions out there.

I read some statistics recently that I found very interesting. Those statistics stated that desktop users on Macintosh machines made up 3.1% of the market, and that desktop users on Linux machines comprised 3.9% of the market. I don't know about you, but I know a lot of places which use mac's, including people at my job. To know that there are more Linux users out there than Mac users means a lot to me in terms of how far linux has come.

#

Why do we want Linux to be like M$? I thought the whole reason we made the move to Linux was to get away from M$. I have only been using Linux for 2 years at home and at work and I think it is great. If the author would do some research he would see that most of the things he mentioned someone has created. For example LinNeighborhood connects to any M$ machine and it's easy to use. If you really want M$ stuff on your box there is CrossOveroffice which supports M$ email. Who cares if it doesn't look like M$. Linux is freedom of choice and it should remain that way. No more proprietary crap please, we have enough already. Thanks to all of you that have made Linux what it is today. Keep up the good work.

Linuxsophmore

#

I quite agree with your comments about getting away from Microsoft monopoly. Personally I am not against monopolies if the object/system that has the monopoly is the best on offer.

But I am against capitalist monopolies. In general, I think such monopolies in the end or very soon, become subject to the market and its bourgeois influences. What I mean is, companies such as Mandrake- look where they are heading? Will the CEOs of such companies give a damn about free information?

Hasn't anyone read the book "Hackers" by Steven Levy. Doesn't anyone remember On-Line ???

Honestly, all this talk about business and mainstream neglects the fact that if Linux were to orient itself to such markets, this would mean the end of Linux- as it exists. That is, the end of Linux for Linux users built by Linux users!

#

my linux experience is small im a new linux user... the problem I have with Linux is the lack of games... im a hardcore gamer I would prefer not to use windows at all but I am rather forced to cause thats the only OS all the good games run on... I mainly only play MMORGs... im planning to buy mandrake most likely to play with it... I will probly try and download wineX and see if i can get some games to run on it... Linux just needs to get easier and gain support for running windows programs... linux is great how it is currently least from what I have seen... Game support for windows games is something I really want to see...

#

I personally think that Linux is a good gaming platform. I know everyone will tell you otherwise, but I've seen this from experience. Of all the games that were officially ported to Linux, they all ran far better then in Windows. Unreal Tournamet 2003 demo (just came out today) is an excellent example, on my celeron 800 and geforce2 gts, it's unplayable in windows even on the ABSOLUTE lowest detail settings and resolution. In Linux however, I get playable frame rates even with max details. UT1 Q3, Tribles 2, etc all ran far better in Linux, so yeah, we could get more games, but most companies need to invest plenty of extra time to make sure the client will work. MMORPG's are the biggest problem since most of them depend on many windows dll's in order to run. This can be avoided, but most programmers are used to their old coding ways. So all in all, it's all up to the companies, when they see Linux as a worthy investment as a gaming platform (After the PS2 linux kit comes, I think they might just look our way) then they'll support us more. Until then stick to games that have been ported<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P

#

If you are a hard-core gamer what are you doing on Linux? Linux is not a hard-core gaming platform -- Linux is not even a secondary gaming platform (Mac has better support). I'm not saying you're not welcome -- I'm saying that if gaming is more important than the OS, you chose the wrong OS to use. If the ideals of Linux are more important, then you're not a hard-core gamer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

I'm sorry if I made it sound like it's the end of all things<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

What I meant was, Linux is an excellent plaform for just about everything under the sun. It's been serving databases and servers for over a decade now, it's been an excellent development plaform, then became a really free and open desktop solution, and now is picking up games. So what I mean is, it's got potential to be used as a good gaming platform, we just have to try and see how we can do it. Of course games are a small part of our lives, but at the end of a day's hard work, you just want to come home and release your frsutrations on a few unlucky bots<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Ah. OK, that makes sense<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) One of the things I've said since the news of Loki's situation came out -- Loki proved that the barrier to Linux gaming isn't technical. If you haven't done so, visit http://www.tuxgames.com/ and pick up any native games which interest you, and write to the companies with native ports and indicate that you are supporting them and why you're supporting them.

#

no way!!! linux can be adopted by any system which is infested by red tape!
for example, the Microsoft foundation donated $5 million to Karnataka, a state in India.
Within three days after their donation, the government of karnataka signed a *very* long term pact with Microsoft for computerizing its administration costing about $500 million(which is one and a half times more than the state's annual budget) .

The funniest thing is, the Microsoft had announced before that they would be helping few other Indian states in the similar way, they did!! but they surreptitiously excluded Goa!!
because the previous government was defeated and the new government was now headed by Manohar Parrikar, an engineer and almnus of India's prime technology institute- IIT Bombay and this government sent a directive to all the state run offices to use the open source software where ever possible.
Not an iorta of work is done in Karnataka, where as Goa is making huge reforms in its administration and obviously they are saving great amount of money being spent on Microsoft's softwares.
Isn't $5 million simply a bribe! since the only thing it has been utilised is for bright hued banners with BIG microsoft logos on it, hung on the broken walls of the orphanages and rehabilation centers.

#

or is ported directly to Linux, then I'll be happy.

#

Get DW running today:

Grab WINE source and install it as a *USER* in your own home dir. Compile it - Compilation is able to get every feature your machine is capable with. RPMS will not work mostly.

After compiling, install DCOM95.
After installing DCOM95, install DW normally.

Run DW normally. Do not use the pallete color, change things like color and fonts sizes by using the menu. A bit slow, but stable.

Take care.

#

I tried the default wine on Suse 8.0, failed. So I went to wine site, downloaded the rpms, and it failed. My windows installation/path is not C:Windows and C:Windows/System, but D:namebrandharddrivewindows/windows/ and D:namebrandharddrivewindows/windows/system. I have windows on a C drive also, after a hard disk crash. But the path is still not C:Windows. Every attempt I've tried in correcting the path has failed because my path is not the standard C:Windows that Wine expects, and my changes are not working.

I'll give the tarballs a shot, but where on the wine site are the tarballs? Also, what is DCOP95? I'm assuming it is a file on Windows? Will Wine ask me for the file? If not, where do I put it?

Install DW normally? Does this mean that I am installing DW from disk onto the fake Windows directory while running Linux? Or can I just copy/use DW from the Windows 98 installation? If I can't use DW from the Windows installation, I assume I am starting over with preferences, location of already completed web sites, etc. Is this correct?

Codeweavers, add a screen that allows the installation to point and click to the appropriate Windows/system folders, getting the path correct. Not everyone has C: Windows, and more and more people have more than one drive.

Don't care about the speed, as long as it works, and I don't have to use windows for anything anymore. Thanks for the help.

#

As for my own experience, Linux is impossibly difficult to people not heavily involved in computers. My sister or my father have trouble doing the simplest thing even if I try to explain to them how everything works and where they find documentation and where they can ask and get more help. Well, perhaps I'm just a bad tutor, but the complexity of Linux makes 'Linux for my Grandma' ridiculous. Linux is for those capable of using it. No sense trying to push it onto people who couldn't use it. Leave them their Windows. Even that is often too complicated for them. Therefore 'Dominate' (on the desktop!) will not and should not happen, at least while Linux would be a pain for most of unqualified users and that will be the case for at least the next seven years I'd say. Let's keep using it and leave poor Grandma alone. Her life is hard enough with her winoze and it will absolutely not become any easier by installing Red Hat or SuSE or whatever or giving her a book on Shell Programmin'.

#

Why do we always have to rant gaianst MIcrosoft. Don't get me wrong I love using Linux. It is great, no more needs to be said about that - but i am really getting fed up with this - let's get rid of Microsoft, they should all die bla bla bla<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this is not helping at all. I cannot believe that sensible grown up people would think it was a good thing if Microsoft ceased to exist - just think about all the jobs, and therefor the mouths it feeds. sure there needs to be competition and done something against the monopolisitcstand of microsoft - but that does not mean that it should cease to exist. please guys, rather than these senseless discussions, people should spend time to improve linux as a desktop OS and Server OS - so people have real choice and are not stuck with microsoft.

#

Unlike most of the idiots in the world with a MS implanted ring in the nose, I have never used Windows. I used FreeBSD before Windows hit the streets. I have never felt the need to switch to a playtime operating system with a TellyTubby interface.

Now that Linux has found a way to attract the visually inclined, and the Leggo educated, MS will eventually go down the drain. This is already happening in Europe. And there's OS X.

I agree.... Microsoft is my enemy because it is an enemy of freedom. However, I understand the why Windows users love the enemy. They are afraid of being tourtured even more, in new and subtle ways. It is not my duty to liberate you, but I do like to rub your noses in your self-imposed sufferings.

Of course, none of this applies to "son-of-yuppy" gamers with $6,000 gaming machines from the gentrified burbs of our great urban centers for whom the most important thing in life is a fictive existence in a testosterone-generated interface, created by fellow sociopaths. Can't do much about them!

But for anyone who wants to get their work done in an efficient and secure manner, I recommend anything BUT Windows.

#

I am amazed at the lack of knowledge about the current Microsoft OS from this group. How many of you have RECENTLY developed with Visual Studio<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET? If you have an want to be critical, that is a welcome debate, if you have not, then like your Windows counterparts, you are guessing. Windows has not stayed static, just like Linux does not. Linux has made tremendous progress, but so has Windows. So, lighten up.. the think driving Microsoft's success is the ease of developement (yes, I know, you all think it all is crap).. but when you have that many programmers, you will have results.. just like the theory of Linux and open source.

#

and it's name is OSX. In an ideal world, Apple would port it's OS to Intel platforms as well (officially, not Darwin) and you would have the mainstream alternative. Of course it doesn't look like Windows, nor should it - an alternative is different from a clone. However, this is never likely to happen due to the fact that Apple is also a hardware company. There are pro and con points to be made from a business model point of view for releasing OSX for Intel, but I doubt it would ever happen because that is not the modset of Apple.

Of course, I'm speaking froma workstation point of view. In reality, Windows XP/2000 and OSX have linux beat hands down in this realm for ease of use and actual productivity (i.e. not spending half your day fiddling with settings and files). And, let's be honest, the stability is there. If your Windows is crashing don't blame the OS, it works - it's probably hardware or other poorly written software. I use Windows 2000 all the time, as a workstation, and never had it crash, and have set many clients up with it as well, no problems. I have crashed Xwindows though.

The difference is with task oriented systems and servers, and this is where Linux shines. Linux was never intended to be an easy to use home system, it was meant to be a powerful networking OS. Microsoft products simply cannot keep up, this has been proven time after time. If you have a sysadmin who *needs* fancy GUIs to keep their systems running, you need a new sysadmin, not a new OS.

#

You are right.
I would love to see OSX on X86.
I hate Xwindows and I think GNOME and KDE are very buggy. My solution for for stability reasons was my own customized version of BlackBox.
Stable, fast and pretty.

I run Linux servers but they have no gui on them. After a few years of running Linux servers...and wondering "when will I find the limits?" I have come to the conclusion that Linux as a server is my best choice and I totally trust it. We were unsure of it at first but now it's like a familiar trusted old friend that solves every problem we face. It's better than we anticipated.

I also think all the nice people that have made
Linux a truly great server platform are now focusing on Linux on the company desktop. We are seeing the beginning of that revolution happening.
It is driven by the overwhelming question that business managers are asking consultants.
"Can't we use Linux on our workstations?".
The market will drive this move and when (not if)
it is successful it will take many desktops over.
You will see applications like Photoshop being produced for the Linux desktop. This will happen very soon. When businesses move many desktops to Linux then the home user will follow shortly.
Sit back and watch. These next 5 years will be very interesting. In two years Linux will not be as far as we think it might. In 5 years though it will surpass our most optimistic speculations.

#

And THAT is exactly what I have been saying all along. Thanks for your insight!

#

Let me start off by saying although I do not agree with all of you, I can see each and every point being made here and they are all valid arguments.
I would like to clarify a couple of things, though, if you don’t mind.
First, I was not suggesting that Linux needs to be turned into a Windows clone. The day that that happens I am going to hang my hat and go home for good. Too many of you are reading too much into what I was saying… or not enough in some cases. I am suggesting the possibility of making the transition easier for those less enlightened. Either that or they are simply left to rot. The simple fact of the matter is this:

I only know to be true what it is that I see in front of me.
Right now I see companies like Red Hat and Sun Microsystems developing Linux Desktop systems. I see companies like IBM, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Veritas, Oracle, and Intel funneling money and resources into the future of Linux.
I see news every day about European governments and businesses making the transition to Linux systems.
I can go on, but will spare you.

Fact: This IS coming, whether you like it or not… whether you see it or not.
Big business has already shown its interest in Linux development, and they will follow through. You can bet on that. People are starting to wake up and realize that there is an alternative, and a solid one at that. Microsoft cannot compete. And they know it. Why do you think they bought space at LinuxWorld? (that one had me stumped for a few days too)

I do not want to see and end to Microsoft. I want to see an end to their reign.

#

Regardless of whether you think the author of this article has the right idea or not, nothing will come of this, aside from the ensuing debate.

The Linux community cannot be told what to do - it has too many moving parts. It doesn't act as a unified entity, since one of its strengths (I believe) lies in decentralised decision making. ie. nobody can hijack it because it's moving in every direction at once.

Those who think that "Linux should be this" or "the Linux community should do that" have missed the point. Linux is a very nebulous thing, and caters for many diverging needs. It cannot and will not be focused on a single goal.

You can try to make specific suggestions to specific developers, and hopefully (if the ideas are sensible) you might get somewhere. You can't tell the Linux community what to do, though, because nobody goes by that name.

#

The author only mentions Linux's success in corporate environments. He failed to mention the other group of advanced users....gamers. Ask a gamer about a certain video card's features, or how to tweak something, and chances are, they know more about it than some of the network admins that are out there. I know because i am both, an admin and a gamer. Linux fails when it comes to Direct X gaming. Yeah, there are ways out there to get SOME of them to run. But not ALL of them. When this becomes a reality, and linux becomes as easy to tweak as windows is, THEN and only THEN will Linux see a lot more supporters and people using it. Here's an example....

When I first installed linux, i had a hard time getting the video card drivers installed. It was in a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bin format (supposedly similar to a windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe file). WRONG! I had to research on the net for hours till i found a way to extract and execute it. Wound up having to do the same thing to get java installed into my web browser. SCREW THAT!!! Too much work + too little time = failure. I shouldn't have had to spend so much time for something that everybody in the computer world knows to do in a windows environment. I shouldn't have even had to open a console to extract and execute a dog on file which is supposedly a double click to install (or right click, run, etc.). And God help the Linux newbies. It's no wonder that they run back to their beloved windows cubbyhole, safe under the arms of Bill Gates and Co. I'm kind of a newbie myself, but not really an advanced either. Probably lower middle.

As far as the corporate scene, the author pretty much hit the nail on the head. One thing he forgot though, was training. Let's say a whole corporation just says, "To hell with windows, we're going with linux on every machine" Downloads the free version, installs it, goes behind and installs all the free stuff that they'll need. Guess what the next challenge is? Train the windows users to a linux environment. Again, Too much work + too little time = failure and lost revenue (for paid training).

Conclusion. A LOT of linux users are NOT corporations, but gamers. I as a gamer, have Linux and Windows installed at home. Why don't I just pick one? Because if i do, linux will be the one that goes bye bye, because of it's lack of DX gaming capability. Quit going for the corporations, obtain interoperability with ALL linux distributions, AND flawless interoperability with windows, THEN and ONLY THEN will Microsoft still see true competition. Then again, probably nobody (let alone a linux distribution or anybody else that has sway inside the community will read this, or take it to heart, and actually listen). Oh well, linux's loss.

#

YOU ARE RIGHT!

I suppose Linux is not ready for primtime yet. It's just a wanabe right now. People are working on it though and maybe in ten years or so it will have 5% of the server market and 2% of the desktop
market. M$ makes some truly great products and with the emergence of DOT NET technology built right into WindowsXP they cannot be stopped.

The dev tools needed are provided in Visual Studio Dot Net. It is the most advanced tool ever created for programmers. This will just keep the applications rolling and businesses interested by continuing their productivity climb.
Linux cannot even begin to compare to the ease at which an application/database can be created. Hours and days instead of weeks and months. That means $$$. I like linux though it's just a hobbie for me. I really like it. When it reaches
10% of the server market I'll take it more serious until then it's XP for me.

#

Get your figures straight. Linux is the number two server OS. As of February last year (anyone know where to get some more up to date figures?) Linux had 27% of the server market, compared to Microsoft's 41%. (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-253320.html?legacy<nobr>=<wbr></nobr> cnet)

I *think* I read somewhere that Linux's server market share was increasing at about 17% (of it's current market share, not of the whole market) annually, but I can't remember where that was.

#

> If we can get this OS to work reliably with Microsoft code

How can that happen when Microsoft can barely get Windows to run Windows code reliably?!

I think the effort would be far better spent developing good, secure, multiuser, friendly applications for Linux.

#

I respect the author's viewpoint. I suggest another factor may be equally or more important.

Suppose you're hired by an upstart business as "the IT person." The boss wants you to decide what computers and software to purchase. You know you're not going to be fired for buying the latest Microsoft offering, even if it stinks, because the boss sees cool ads for what you buy plastered all over the business weeklies.

Suppose that I want to break through this mentality and advocate Linux in a way which can bring in multiple new users at a time. If I had the $$$ (I don't), I would set up a shop in town with a prototype workplace running linux desktops and servers, running all the office software, complete with price comparisons for a similarly-functional Microsoft setup. Then I would do whatever I could--through advertising, bidding, phone calls, word of mouth--to bring in these bosses and show them how much cheaper it would be to tool up with Linux rather than Windows. I would pump them full of all the information about Linux reliability, security (won't have to worry about that perennial virus alert,etc.), speed, and most of all cost competitiveness. I might suggest having a couple of boxes with dual-boot, or some emulation for the occasional weird non-importable Microsoft document. I might also offer free workshops for secretaries, etc. who need to learn the nuances of working with Linux instead of Microsoft. Whatever it took!

My point is that these executives don't even know what Linux offers in terms of cost savings and functionality ON THE DESKTOP. We need folks on the ground making that case.

#

Umm, I sort of do that. I run my own IT business, and evangelize Linux - when it's appropriate. The problem is the real world, and what users do. I don't evangelize Linux as a general workstation. Why? For one thing, support would be a nightmare. Reality is, I would get phone calls like 'I went out and bought this cool new camera/scanner/inkjet etc, how come it doesn't work bla bla bla'... Users do stuff on their own all the time, without telling you - after all, it is their computer. I would look pretty stupid if I said 'You can't do that with Linux', as it's not the mindset of end users. I have set up task oriented systems, i.e. dedicated to certain tasks only, as well as servers, all running Linux.

Plus, when users screw up their MS systems, I have a scapegoat (the evil Bill), can console them, and, most importantly, charge them buttloads of money to fix their constantly screwed up MS systems. The last thing I want when charging hourly rates are systems that work exactly as they're supposed to and never change, especially when nobody else sells them either.

Sorry, reality check here from one in the trenches.

#

"...[T]hese executives don't even know what Linux offers in terms of cost savings and functionality ON THE DESKTOP. We need folks on the ground making that case."

I think you underestimate "these executives." One thing they do know is that time is money, and money is the bottom line. Presently they can run ads for potential employees and pick and choose from dozens for a position who "know Windows, MS-Office, MS-Word, MS-Excel, MS-Access, MS-PowerPoint, MS-Outlook..."; chances are, they already use them at home. Run an ad for someone who knows Linux. Okay, they're not *supposed* to know the OS. Then run an ad for someone who knows KDE, StarOffice.... If you're a small business, you can *always* find some self-professed geek who can bail you out of some Windows nightmare by poking around the Control Panel for a bit. Linux? Good luck.

The time may come - believe me, I want to see Redmond take some damage from this Linux wave - but as of now, it's still a chicken and egg, wait and see. Crappy and horrible as the product and Microsoft may be, there is one *hell* of an installed base out there.

#

There's almost nothing in this article that is correct.

We don't need windows Connectivity, we don't need 'Office' compatibility, ad we don't need the Windows look and feel.

Sorry, Bud. Analysis incorrect. Grade F.

Thanks for playing.

Now go away.

#

Dunno why everyone seems to have an anti-Windows crusade. One more article to that effect, anyway.
I use Windows NT for office apps., such as Word, Excel, Powerpoint? Why? Because they work.
But, I use Linux for other tasks, like communicating with our HP-UX servers (3G Network controllers), and simpler, engineering apps. like Ethereal and tcpdump (to find errors in the network), Xwindows (Exceed don't like looong paths from Finland to, say Taiwan), etc.
So I don't see the problem
I wouldn't use a powerful motorbike to take Granny to the shops, and I wouldn't use a car when I wanted to go short distances, quickly.

#

"Dunno why everyone seems to have an anti-Windows crusade."

In that case I assume that you're a bit out of touch? If you can't understand why so many people are anti-Windows then I would suggest that you go take a cold shower and wake up.

Microsoft are a bunch of monopolists, locking everybody into their apps via the use of proprietary formats, locking people into expensive upgrade cycles and producing extremely holey apps.

Linux is a free alternative that has the potential to replace Windows, and whether you like it or not it's being developed to do so. This is providing an escape from the Microsoft dictatorship - which many people now feel is getting out of hand.

#

I am a windows user. I took an interest in linux because it offers an alternative to Windows. I have not yet bothered to try and install linux, nor do i think i ever will.

Reading this as a windows user who is interested in linux, i am apalled. The article itself doesn't bother me, it is at least sensible. Make linux like windows, to better 'convert' windows users.

It seems to me that Linux users are 'out to get' Windows users. This bothers me. A community that is this hostile to a pool of people it hopes to assimilate will never come close to touching the kind of numbers Windows draws.

As far as i know, the majority of (your average) Windows users are totally oblivious to the existence of Linux. I'm sure that if some of them knew what Linux is and what it can do, they'd try it, play with it, and use it. But they don't. Microsoft, as a multi-billion dollar company, can afford to run advertisements anywhere they want. Microsoft SATURATES the air with ads. Later, when people go to buy their computers, they see "Windows XP!" or whichever version of Windows is on that computer, and they like that, because they recognize Windows. Linux needs that kind of recognition (that is, if it wishes to succeed in drawing your average user, which may or may not be a goal. I would think that the more people that use Linux, the better, because it provides competition, and competition is a catalyst for innovation.)

Linux doesn't need to look, act, walk, and talk like Windows. Like someone said, it wouldn't be Linux then. To be more useful, different versions of Linux would need to be more compatible. Linux definately needs to somehow acquire the ability to run games, and run them well. And of course, while it may seem counter-productive, Linux does need a more "User-friendly" interface. Whining about how that is dumbing down Linux doesn't do a damn thing. I would love to use Linux. But the fact is, reguardless of my own intelligence, i simply don't have the time to study, learn, and tweak with a new OS. i need it to get up and GO. Windows can do this. Why Linux can't is beyond me.

#

Reading this as a windows user who is interested in linux, i am apalled. The article itself doesn't bother me, it is at least sensible. Make linux like windows, to better 'convert' windows users.

It seems to me that Linux users are 'out to get' Windows users. This bothers me. A community that is this hostile to a pool of people it hopes to assimilate will never come close to touching the kind of numbers Windows draws.

It's only the vocal minority that's like that. Most of us just use Linux because it's what works for us. I hope you'll come around; if not, it will be your loss (no offense or anything, I'm just being honest).

#

The reason that many Linux users appear "out to get" Windows users is due to the nature of the Windows/Linux 'war' and the attitude of Windows users (that are, as you said, mostly oblivious of the existance of Linux).

Even during the Anti-Trust case Microsoft are acting like they own the world, trying to devour everything from cell-phones, PDAs, game consoles, your refrigerator, etc. Microsoft continue to lock people into using their software via proprietary formats and bundling, desperately removing any competition. Everything Microsoft does is in the name of innovation, when most (if not all) of what they've done has been no more than copying or buying off other companies.

Why anybody would remain loyal to Microsoft is beyond the understanding of most. So many Windows users don't see, and don't want to see the fact that they're digging a deeper hole by continuing to support Microsoft. Most Linux users are not blind enough to trust Microsoft, and want to at least open the eyes of everybody else. If the only option in this world was Microsoft, oh what a sad and expensive world it would be.

#

I see one big problem with the ''get up and go'' way of thinking. In order for this to work, the OS requires to make decision and choice for you. To me, this is not what Linux is about.

I chose Linux as my OS BECAUSE of the choices I now have. I knew nothing about Linux when I started using it almost two months ago, but it hasn't taken too much of an effort to get to the point where I'm at now.

I think that, as more people start to realize how many liberties MS Windows actually takes away from them, the more people will WANT to learn about the freedoms Linux has to offer.

Personally, if I wanted a ''get up and go'', mystery meat OS I would have stayed with Windoze. And as for user-friendly, Mandrake 8.2 has been very friendly and forgiving to this Linux newbie.

#

Linux will become mainstream only on it's own strengths. There has been other techno switches before and were based on one main thing : the contender (DVD for ex) was technically superior. Although it lacked significant features (no recording at the beginning) compared to the holder of the market, it's technical and marketing advantages made market penetration possible. When the gap was bridged, (DVD can now be recorded), then VHS days are counted.

Linux by and large does what windows does. You can install things pretty easily (look what lindows has done and the RPMdrake and graphical front ends to aptget), connect to any network, use modern hardware.

Now what can it do better or that windows can't as standard ?

In corporate environments (what I know):
Technical advantages stem from its unix root : being multi user, software installs can be done without interupting the users session. The administrator can remotely logs in and do the job.

Users are naturally roaming.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home doesn't need to be local.
Linux boxes can boot from the network, can run software from the network, can be application servers.

Linux has better process scheduling: If a process suddenly takes 99% of cpu and memory, a modern(not a killer) box is still very usable. In dire cases, an admin user can remotely/locally login and kill the runaway process (again without crashing the user session).

dll hell doesn't exist. Ok, there is library dependencies but that's resolvable !

So work needs to be done so that corporates realise what they can get on standard stations (most pcs only run office and outlook).

There is a lot more that need to be outlined and packaged as a product. Then maybe linux stands a chance.

Linux won't make it by being like windows. Windows is much better at that.

#

Right. Linux will make it by being like linux. (But we do need some things simplified in the sense that it's quicker to take care of, not more brain dead like windows counterparts)

#

I am not talking about conquering the IT world with Linux, or financial issue, or whatever here. What I want to point out is that, it is very important for Linux to hit the mainstream.

If Linux developement is meant to serve user better, dominance is important.

The logic is simple. So many of you out there spending so much time to write drivers for linux to support some hardware under Linux. Why waste the time? If you really got the time, put more forces on developing other features. Just let the manufacturer do it for you. They know their hardware better than you. What? They won't do it for you? Why?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Well, now you get the point - because Linux is not the mainstream!

So, very simple. Make Linux the mainstream, more people will work together automatically. Then spend valuable time on doing more right thing to make Linux more and more powerful!

#

With comments like ''standardization'' and ''domination'' I think it's best if you continue to use MS Windoze products and leave the Linux community alone.

It is obvious to me that a person with these thoughts does not understand the Open Source movement or the concept behind the creation of Linux in the first place.

#

If you want something done, either do it or find someone else who can do it for you. I see so many articles like this on here: linux needs this and this, blah blah blah. Talking about something doesnt make it happen.

#

making another M$ monster is another. The article takes a different slant on a boring old theme, M$ users won't convert until it looks like M$. Well leave them where they are then.

And where are they ?

They have an OS they can't trust... Have you read the MSN messenger T&C's? Or the WMP EULA? Nice touch from our "Trustworthy computing" friends at Redmond.

They have a browser that isn't secure - so Konqueror and mozilla aren't fully either, but I believe we are still waiting for the SSL (aka. MIM untrusted certificate chain) fix for IE that was patched within hours by both the other 2 camps (and Opera as well)

They have countless pieces of software and libraries that you simply can't remove, even if they serve no purpose (try uninstalling windows media player and watch your next windows update<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "updating windows media player components" - uhmmm). The result - a launchpad for priviledge escalation unrivalled in modern times. Linux has the same problem with default installations of major distributions. People need to learn to remove the stuff they don't use. On Linux (and other *nix) you can. On M$ OS.. no way, the newer versions of the OS even put it back for you "repairing OS!!".

There are countless other problems - open ports that are outside user control, firewalls you can't control easily. System processes that need to be running for some bizarre reason. File formats that change with the latest "updates", and on and on, agreements that change from the one you signed when you "purchased" your OS. It just sucks...

Why should Linux offer interoperability when M$ can get away with it in countless number of ways. Project 2000 - > not backwards compatible without export/import cycles. You ever tried running some of those old 'doze games on XP. Not pretty.

Why should Linux become anything other than the stable platform it is, with all it's variety and all it's freedom just to please the corporate world.

Leave them where they are - I dread to think what some corporates pay for the M$ support contracts (well, I actually know but I'm not saying!), and leave the decisions where they are... on the golf course - that's where most software is bought. You can't fight that. It doesn't matter how pretty you make it look, you can't make the "golfies" think any different.

You are free to choose whichever OS you like, choose wisely, but make sure it fits your purpose. Make sure you know what you want, and make sure the OS you choose delivers it. I don't like an OS because it's "trendy". I like it because I am in control - until I get trojaned anyway<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) - other people like an OS because they don't have to think, well good for them!

I feel safe in the knowledge that I haven't upgraded my motherboard and CPU for 2 years and I still have no problems doing what I want with it. I have a "free" OS, that occassionally I like to add a contribution to, and free or open source software that does what I need. I don't care if I can't open a Word document because I know how to export a word document as "rtf" or some other format that I can open. My email client interoperates with everyone I talk to, and everything else works just fine and dandy!

I also have patches available as soon as possible and with a little recompiling I have a non-vulnerable system again.

You can't pay for service like that!

I would like to thank the entire Free Software and Open Source world who have made it possible for me to use a crappy old "please upgrade your system" box to be truly productive. I can even play UT and Quake3 on it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

I agree with the document above in some things - some people just ain't cut out to be placed in front of anything more powerful than a battery-less remote control. Hell, my kids have more computer savvy than most people I work with - and the youngest is 2 !!

But at the end of the day, let Linux be Linux and let Windows be Windows ( I was gonna put crap there, but it does have some good things, like the "shutdown" feature). I like the linux world where it was, it's now starting to get that "bastardised" feeling about it as more people jump on the bandwagon which is said, but inevitable. However, at the end of the day, I can still take the components that "I" like, and "I" am comfortable with and build them into a system that "I" can use.

A Happy Tux Loving Essay Writer.

#

The biggest reason that Linux replacing Windows on the desktop is a good thing is because of the choices Linux gives the user and the stability that can be achieved. Making the default interface standard and at least somewhat familiar will help users become more comfortable with Linux, but just copying Microsoft's interface will not help.

You offer someone a new operating system that looks and acts basically the same (at the highest level anyway) as what they already have. The user will ask, "Why should I switch? This already works for me. Sure it crashes every once in a while, but it's no big deal. The computer probably needed a break anyway."

Imitation does nothing other than fooling the user. There has to be a clear advantage to switching other than just "it looks the same and it's more stable."

#

The Windows user is about as good a fit for Linux as is the Apple user. Making Linux more "friendly" to Windows (or Mac) users is a waste of everybody's time. Remember when old DOS die-hards were saying, "If I wanted Windows I'd have bought a Mac?"

Windows has its place. The problem is, Windows (Microsoft) doesn't see that other OS-es have theirs too.

#

Network: Linux handles a Windows-based network very nicely, through the available GUIs. In <A HREF="http://www.gnome.org/">GNOME</a gnome.org>, try browsing a resource such as <tt>smb:</tt> and see what you get; it's a little slow, but it works. And I know that <A HREF="http://www.kde.org/">KDE</a kde.org> has similar functionality. All somebody has to do is set up appropriate links on the desktop and the average user is set. Of course, this assumes that all dependant packages are installed, but that's another issue (and before somebody suggests "... just install everything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...", look at how well that really works for Windows. It may be convenient, but it's also very annoying).

Office: Word has become the dominant format through ubiquity and strong-arm tactics. Supporting it only encourages its continued dominance, and puts us in the position of constantly catching up to the latest revision. Sadly, I don't see any real solution to this, except switching to an alternative (of course, this is easier said than done).

E-mail: Linux does, and always has, support e-mail far more effectively than Windows, and probably always will.

Desktop: I don't even want to go there.

Standards: Since when did Microsoft ever care about any standards but their own?

Linux needs to succeed on its own merits. Imitating Windows is a step along the way, not the entire journey. If we follow what you're suggesting here, Linux will never become the dominant force on the desktop simply because people will say "What't the point? I might as well use the original, rather than the imitator."

Education, rather than imitation, is the key. People need to learn that Linux is just as capable, if not more so, than Windows could ever be. Granted, this may involve learning a little, but that's really not that difficult.

And if that's still too much for people to swallow, how difficult would it be to follow the model of another <A HREF="http://www.amiga.com/">operating system</a amiga.com> and simply design acceptable defaults into the environment, while still allowing the flexibility enjoyed by advanced users?

It seems to work for <A HREF="http://www.apple.com/">OS X</a apple.com><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

#

I have to tell you, the upcoming Mandrake 9.0 will go a LONG way in addressing all the issues you have brought up.

All you points are valid, IMO, and Mandrake has figured this out. I urge you to try 9.0 when it is released.

#

I think the overall point of this is that if we can make linux more user friendly to the people who have grown and learned the windows interface, then everyone will be successfull

Windows is not really the enemy, when it comes down to it. Microsoft are just the big boys who got there first and are fighting to keep their product and compatibility with other programs number 1.

Im a windows user. and I can hear a lot of you abandoning this post and scrolling down to the next one now that i've said that.

I have my reasons for being a microsoft user at this stage,

I do run a successfull Samba server with my mp3's and archived downloads for sharing through my pc's. I also have my linux box configured to internet share with a pretty nifty firewall (that I spent ages configuring to block out pop ups) the box is also configured so I can send mail to all my internally networked pc's.

besides that i also have a web server setup with a few of my friends homepages as well as my own. And I am soon looking to expand my network by hooking up a wireless base station with the transmitting power of upto 15km (enough to reach all of my local friends house's)

The point is though, sure I have enough knowledge of linux to get by with a linux server, but for my day to day operations I just find that it is so much easier to use windows, Im an avid game player, sure I see on the net lots of games for linux, but Im better off walking into my local pc shop if I wanna buy them

sure linux has the right price, and good stability but if developers want more users then compatibility and usability is the key.

-=Daniel Rutter=-

#

Ease of use. In case you forgot...a computer is a tool to get things done. I love computers and computing but Linux doesn't make things easier for me...it complicates matters moreso than Windows.

I like to create things...Windows allows me to create very easily and Linux does not. I'm a musician....so Windows is my choice over Linux because of the breadth of easy to use apps.

I think the Linux community needs a good foot in the ass. Linux needs a leader...someone to guide the development of a great OS.

Ease of use, easily customizable, readily expandable, and low cost.

If I were the leader...the above would be my themes.

the majority of the world doesn't care how computers work...they just want to get things done

#

I am a musician too and the lack of multitrack recording and/or sound editors in Linux is the ONLY thing holding me back from going completely Linux. I have to dual-boot for that reason. There is no comparable app to things such as Sound Forge, Vegas, and Sonar.

As far as ease of use is concerned, you have an excellent point, and I think then next version of Red Hat will solve that for you. Mandrake is well on it's way too. I have the newest Red Hat beta and, although it is quite different from their previous offerings, is going all out on useability.

#

Migration won't happen unless some IT people are there in companies that feel confortable with Linux. I had startling conversation with PC support people who, whilst pestering about windows problems and acknowledging that Linux does a number of things better, have never installed it on a spare box to see how it looks and behaves.
I am talking about people who build boxes all the time and are confortable installing OSes.

The end user won't go anywhere until their IT people are able and willing to let them do so. A large number of companies still run (and crash) win95/98. They don't even do the wise move to go to win2000 so how on earth are they going to test drive linux ?

#