Re: Linux is free...So where is it?

From: Mark (muilak_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/23/04 

Date: 22 Aug 2004 22:51:39 -0700

> Because Windows is easier to use on the desktop.

Since KDE 3.2 I'm not sure of that anymore. If it weren't for the
computer vendors fitting their hardware for WinXP, Linux could be
better. Or does Windows provide an organizer right away by a primitive
installation without Office? Or does Windows save all your browser
windows and editor windows and restore them when logging back in
_exactly_ like you left them? Or does Windows deliver Photoshop with
it? Linux has Gimp. It is not as complete as Photoshop, but the only
thing I'm missing, that is a macro recorder there.

> > Wonder why that is?
> > Why doesn't it say Linux?
> > Because nobody wants linux that's why.
> >
> >>> Why do we not see users quickly converting to Linux?
>
> You don't convert to Linux, its not a religion. You use Linux.

Hmmm, well, to many users it is actually something like a religion.
But they had not to be converted. They just got stuck to it :-))).
Like you said, Linux is for using. I say: Windows is for playing
("playing" taking as a general expression for tasks requiring low
technical expertise: text editing, playing 3D games, learning foreign
languages using multimedia training material...).

> Sorry, lots of those apps are also free on Windows. OpenOffice, Gimp, etc.

Yes. And these are already replacing many commercial products. And
they have probably replaced many more illegally owned software. Btw:
how do they measure how many PCs have Linux installed? I copy it just
from one PC to the other :-).

> Obvious. Use Windows when the Software, usability, ease of installation,
> etc. dictate Windows. Use Linux when cost, software availability, fast
> updates, etc. dictate it. No reason to choose on a religious basis. Use
> pragmatism. Dual Boot and save the world.

Please do not recommend dual boot installations :-).

> >>> I suspect the real reason is because Linux sucks and Windows does
> >>> everything a user needs.
>
> Question: If Windows does everything a user needs, why does that mean Linux
> Sucks? Are these the only options? Can't Linux do some things users want?
> Can't Windows suck just a little?

I would put it that way: contrary to Linux, Windows doesn't suck for
suckers. Windows is dumb and streamlined. Use Windows if you need to
be told what you might do. Use Linux if _you_ know what you can do --
and just do it.

Write texts. Stick to Windows.
Play games. Stick to Windows.
Hack a kernel. Switch to Linux.
Hack a database. Switch to Linux.
Hack some hardware. Switch to Linux.
Code your own game. Switch to Linux.
Improve your web browser to your own taste. Switch to Linux.
Write maths or physics scripts. Switch to Linux.
Breed your own viruses? Please stick to Windows and let them spy you
out.
Need state-aware, free und fully configurable firewalls? Linux is your
choice.
Need a proper tv app with deinterlacing? tvtime on Linux.
Need free realtime encoding of video? Linux.
Need to send your TV card's picture in full resolution over WLAN to
your wireless notebook without opening additional ports (leaks in your
firewall)? No problem under Linux. Probably almost impossible under
Windows.

> Nobody, including Microsoft(or Linus Torvolds) believes that any software is
> the final version.
>
> Question: If Windows software is not beta software, why do we need a new
> version every year? Cash flow-theres a good reason to upgrade!

Beta software means there are bugs to be expected. WinXP has proved to
be VERY stable. Most system instabilities are due to bad RAM or bad
drivers not originating from Microsoft (or Viruses...)

Not that I am a Linux advocate, but WinXP really isn't beta soft.

> Can't buy that. If Windows disappeared, and only Linux was left, all those
> Windows attackers would find plenty of holes in Linux.

Yes, but because Linux is open source, better security models could be
much faster developed and adopted.

> The important thing is not whether Windows or Linux is better. That will be
> worked out by the market and the users. The important thing is to preserve a
> system in which we actually have such a choice, and that one of the choices
> is free.

You would have plenty of choices even if Microsoft wouldn't be there
any more. Think of FreeBSD, for example. Or Mac OS. Or the HURD
kernel. And I don't think that has much to do with being 'better'. You
just cannot reinvent the wheel again and again. And inventing new
software which is actually useful, well, I doubt that this can be done
at such a scale Microsoft is needing to sustain its operations. MS
will probably struggle a lot like IBM. But because of Microsoft's
dependency on software, I don't expect them to survive as IBM did. I'm
typing on an IBM Thinkpad running Linux. Contrary to software, you
just cannot have great hardware for free.... there is just no "cp -R
*.*" for cloning Thinkpads...

Best regards,
Mark