mac of pc?

[Tulsileaf]

open source is no better than closed source. sure its cheaper, but there have beeen countless freeware closed source software. as someone mentioned earlier, there are open source software where money is charged. in fact no where in the gpl does it say that all copies must be distributed without any fee.
which is of better quality? either can be. usually poor quality stuff looses its customer base and goes out. its true for open source just as much for closed source.
with open source there is also an element of popularity. the more popular a project the more developers it has. however this means a small obscure project will have a poor developer base and can easily loose its future. with closed source (mostly in a corporate environment) it can be maintained and improved until it gains a strong user base. popularity has nothing to do with quality though. the hurd is said to be much better than linux but how many people use it? linux itself cannot be a viable threat against windows until it fixes the problems it inherits from unix, mostly in the user interface.

as for if linux is better than windows, windows has improved greatly in the past 2 decades (yes! windows has been around for almost 2 decades!). with longhorn it will be far more difficult to remove it from its dominance. anyways i believe strongly in the democratic process, i can't say that over 1 billion people are complete imbeciles. if they want windows, windows they'll get. if they think linux is better, then it might be.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

open source is no better than closed source. sure its cheaper, but there have beeen countless freeware closed source software. as someone mentioned earlier, there are open source software where money is charged. in fact no where in the gpl does it say that all copies must be distributed without any fee.
which is of better quality? either can be. usually poor quality stuff looses its customer base and goes out. its true for open source just as much for closed source.
with open source there is also an element of popularity. the more popular a project the more developers it has. however this means a small obscure project will have a poor developer base and can easily loose its future. with closed source (mostly in a corporate environment) it can be maintained and improved until it gains a strong user base. popularity has nothing to do with quality though. the hurd is said to be much better than linux but how many people use it? linux itself cannot be a viable threat against windows until it fixes the problems it inherits from unix, mostly in the user interface.

as for if linux is better than windows, windows has improved greatly in the past 2 decades (yes! windows has been around for almost 2 decades!). with longhorn it will be far more difficult to remove it from its dominance. anyways i believe strongly in the democratic process, i can't say that over 1 billion people are complete imbeciles. if they want windows, windows they'll get. if they think linux is better, then it might be.

Well said, well said.

Longhorn will be a bugger for Linux; and I thoroughly believe it will practically crush all but the hardcore Mac-Brigade.

But as you said, its up to the Users, they can now all get Linux - and the idea that Microsoft has a Monopoly is not a good thing to hide behind to say why they aren't the biggest. Its because people aren't installing it, aren't using it, and don't want it.

If they did, they would and can easily.

 

[root]

I don't think the 'mac brigade' will ever be truely crushed, Mac is a huge company, the do have a large share of corperate IT platforms, and a sizable share of home IT platforms, people who use them love tem and the way they work.

I don't think the longhorn will be the be all and end all of all OS's I think it could be the death of MS, they are trying too hard with licensing. People pirate software it's afact of life, and it has helped MS get the huge market share that it has, Certainly I'd say that perhaps 25% of all windows installations are pirated. and in turn people use and like the OS, and are keen to get that Os else where.

If your pirate copy of windows is all you've used, in all likely hood given the choice at work, or ni the event that you buy an OS chances are you'l buy windows because it's what you know.

By introducing such tough antipiracy laws microsoft are 'cutting off their nose to spite their face'

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

I don't think the 'mac brigade' will ever be truely crushed, Mac is a huge company, the do have a large share of corperate IT platforms, and a sizable share of home IT platforms, people who use them love tem and the way they work.

I don't think the longhorn will be the be all and end all of all OS's I think it could be the death of MS, they are trying too hard with licensing. People pirate software it's afact of life, and it has helped MS get the huge market share that it has, Certainly I'd say that perhaps 25% of all windows installations are pirated. and in turn people use and like the OS, and are keen to get that Os else where.

If your pirate copy of windows is all you've used, in all likely hood given the choice at work, or ni the event that you buy an OS chances are you'l buy windows because it's what you know.

By introducing such tough antipiracy laws microsoft are 'cutting off their nose to spite their face'

Good point; but people can still bye cheap copies of non-Pirated Microsoft Software. Un-licenced Software is still sold by Microsoft for about 10, sometimes more sometimes less times the price of the original. This software can be installed onto as many computers as is wanted; and although Support is not available on them it is always possible to use them well. Why Pirate when it can be that cheap, sold to enough people?

Microsoft will probably have to realise this the hard way; but in no way did I say that Longhorn was to be the destruction of the Mac-Brigade - I said it would probably beat down every Mac user but members of this elite clan of scientifically interesting creatures. I also never said that it would the end of all OSs except Windows - I meant it could be the beginning of the end of all OSs except Windows. Either that or the beginning of the end of all OSs - if Microsoft loose.

Because in all, Microsoft represents a will for an Operating System to be as good as it can be; Linux represents the downfall of organisation and Operating Systems - homing a new day of non-universal OSs and constant compatability problems. Linux winning the war would mean the end of all OSs - because it represent Anarchy - whereas Microsoft represents all that is good and peaceful and innocent.

 

[Tulsileaf]

linux does not represent anarchy nor does it lack organization. it fails not because of any philosophical reasons but that it has flaws.
when people buy a product they will ask the question, "will it do what i need it to do?" if they are comparing products they'll see which does the work best at the most appropriate price without unnecessary hassles. most need to just view the web, share media (pics &/or music), play games, chat, etc. windows is able to do this quite well and so is linux. but linux does give the additional work of installing and configuring. by far, configuration is the worst. as for monetary gains, there are none, one still pays for windows when one buys a computer.

now that i think of it, its surprising that linux has far more developers yet it is not as "intelligent" as windows which practically configures itself. this stems from the lack of central management that most other operating systems have. this role can be taken by those managing the distros but to date has not been done.

as for apple, the same rules apply. the mac does everything any pc can do but at a higher price. unless one wants lots of eye candy or needs extra flops to power his research, there really isn't any reason to spend the extra money.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

linux does not represent anarchy nor does it lack organization. it fails not because of any philosophical reasons but that it has flaws.
when people buy a product they will ask the question, "will it do what i need it to do?" if they are comparing products they'll see which does the work best at the most appropriate price without unnecessary hassles. most need to just view the web, share media (pics &/or music), play games, chat, etc. windows is able to do this quite well and so is linux. but linux does give the additional work of installing and configuring. by far, configuration is the worst. as for monetary gains, there are none, one still pays for windows when one buys a computer.

now that i think of it, its surprising that linux has far more developers yet it is not as "intelligent" as windows which practically configures itself. this stems from the lack of central management that most other operating systems have. this role can be taken by those managing the distros but to date has not been done.

as for apple, the same rules apply. the mac does everything any pc can do but at a higher price. unless one wants lots of eye candy or needs extra flops to power his research, there really isn't any reason to spend the extra money.

Too true, but in all everything is down to Philosophical Reasons. I said they lacked organisation. You said the same, but instead said that they lack central management - which is the same thing.

Anachist is down to personal ideals, an Anarchist does not see an anarchist as an anachist, they see a person who is doing what should be done. I am, lets say, Stalinist; therefore I see something that will bring the Operating System world into a Civil War (if Windows Falls, then all the Distributions will want to be the best, they no it now! let alone if Windows is gone) with everybody able to get at everybodies code and stealing ideas and hacking will be even more of a problem as Distributions try to destroy one and other. That, I see as Anarchy.

Open Source in itself represents Anarchy, the loss of control from a Central place and the handing of ALL of that control to the individual for whatever they wish to do with it and no restraints of Law or Order - is Anarchy.

I realise your point, deeply agree with it - I just think its more fun you argue with what we disagree on than what we agree on. I do see your point about Windows being all around easier - which it is - graphically easier - User Interface is much easier - installing and configuring easier. This is because Linux is built by Computer Programmers who do what they want; so they build the OS they want, as trained Computer Professionals. Computer Programmers build Windows; and are told to do one thing - Ease of use. They build it for the people.

 

[iamroot]

There's nothing wrong with Microsft "building for the people". But in its bid to make itself more user-friendly, it has sacrificed security and other important matters. That's something no-one can deny. Linux can never topple Microsft and become the ultimate OS but at least the people now have a choice. It can be very frustrating for an expert computer whiz to face Windows.

 

[root]

What do you define as an expert computer whiz?

Just using Linux doesn't make people exert computer whiz's.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

There's nothing wrong with Microsft "building for the people". But in its bid to make itself more user-friendly, it has sacrificed security and other important matters. That's something no-one can deny. Linux can never topple Microsft and become the ultimate OS but at least the people now have a choice. It can be very frustrating for an expert computer whiz to face Windows.

Good point, what do you mean by an Expert Computer Whiz?

 

[Tulsileaf]

I just think its more fun you argue with what we disagree on than what we agree on.

hahahaha! *bows deeply before Lord Kalthorn*

I see now what you mean by anarchy (i use a different definition of the word)

It can be very frustrating for an expert computer whiz to face Windows.

do you mean that because of its ease of use its actually harder for more experianced techs to use? how does that work? one can always 'hack' windows if they'd like. they do it in the WINE project and there is always the command line which is harder to use than that of Linux.