Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #3127 > unrolled thread

OS wars in the mainstream

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  OS wars in the mainstream Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-25 09:38 +0100
    Re: OS wars in the mainstream mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2014-05-25 11:25 +0100
      Re: OS wars in the mainstream Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2014-05-25 11:19 +0000
        Re: OS wars in the mainstream Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-25 12:45 +0000
        Re: OS wars in the mainstream Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-25 18:11 +0100
          Re: OS wars in the mainstream Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-25 17:47 +0000
            Re: OS wars in the mainstream Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-26 07:00 +0000
              Re: OS wars in the mainstream Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2014-05-26 15:07 +0000
              Re: OS wars in the mainstream despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-26 11:43 -0400
          Re: OS wars in the mainstream Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2014-05-26 02:42 +0000
          Re: OS wars in the mainstream mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2014-05-26 09:26 +0100
          Re: OS wars in the mainstream "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-26 11:28 +0100
            Re: OS wars in the mainstream Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-05-26 12:55 +0200
              Re: OS wars in the mainstream Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-26 12:48 +0100
      Re: OS wars in the mainstream Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-25 17:27 +0100

#3127 — OS wars in the mainstream

A surprisingly good piece and discussion here in a non-tech medium,
primarily about Micro$oft monoculture and Windoze XP's persistence.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/25/still-running-windows-xp-bill-gates-planned-it-microsoft

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3138

On 25/05/2014 09:38, Hils wrote:
> A surprisingly good piece and discussion here in a non-tech medium,
> primarily about Micro$oft monoculture and Windoze XP's persistence.
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/25/still-running-windows-xp-bill-gates-planned-it-microsoft
>

I'd take your post much more seriously if you didn't refer to Microsoft 
as Micro$oft.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3141

2014-05-25, mm0fmf wrote:
> On 25/05/2014 09:38, Hils wrote:
>> A surprisingly good piece and discussion here in a non-tech medium,
>> primarily about Micro$oft monoculture and Windoze XP's persistence.
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/25/still-running-windows-xp-bill-gates-planned-it-microsoft
>>
>
> I'd take your post much more seriously if you didn't refer to Microsoft 
> as Micro$oft.

It's a tad fanboi'ish, true. +1 from this casual D€bian GNU/Linux user.

-- 
:q!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3144

On Sun, 25 May 2014 11:19:22 +0000, Kara M'bola wrote:

> 2014-05-25, mm0fmf wrote:
>> On 25/05/2014 09:38, Hils wrote:
>>> A surprisingly good piece and discussion here in a non-tech medium,
>>> primarily about Micro$oft monoculture and Windoze XP's persistence.
>>>
>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/25/still-running-
windows-xp-bill-gates-planned-it-microsoft
>>>
>>>
>> I'd take your post much more seriously if you didn't refer to Microsoft
>> as Micro$oft.
> 
> It's a tad fanboi'ish, true. +1 from this casual D€bian GNU/Linux user.

Ah, Linux...the jumped up UNIX wannabe....

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3168

On 2014-05-25 12:19, Kara M'bola wrote:
> 2014-05-25, mm0fmf wrote:
>> On 25/05/2014 09:38, Hils wrote:
>>> A surprisingly good piece and discussion here in a non-tech medium,
>>> primarily about Micro$oft monoculture and Windoze XP's persistence.
>>>
>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/25/still-running-windows-xp-bill-gates-planned-it-microsoft
>>>
>>
>> I'd take your post much more seriously if you didn't refer to Microsoft 
>> as Micro$oft.
> 
> It's a tad fanboi'ish, true. +1 from this casual D€bian GNU/Linux user.

It has become automatic after so many hours spent (re-)installing,
(re-)authenticating and trying to get useful results from MS software.

Now a happy Debian user.

Feel free to explain what Windoze 8 will give me which Debian 7 doesn't. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3170

On 2014-05-25, Hils wrote:
> On 2014-05-25 12:19, Kara M'bola wrote:
>> 2014-05-25, mm0fmf wrote:
>>> On 25/05/2014 09:38, Hils wrote:
>>>> A surprisingly good piece and discussion here in a non-tech medium,
>>>> primarily about Micro$oft monoculture and Windoze XP's persistence.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/25/still-running-windows-xp-bill-gates-planned-it-microsoft
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd take your post much more seriously if you didn't refer to Microsoft 
>>> as Micro$oft.
>> 
>> It's a tad fanboi'ish, true. +1 from this casual D€bian GNU/Linux user.
>
> It has become automatic after so many hours spent (re-)installing,
> (re-)authenticating and trying to get useful results from MS software.
>
> Now a happy Debian user.
>
> Feel free to explain what Windoze 8 will give me which Debian 7 doesn't. :-)

1) More games written for the platform

2) A corporate giant to blame when things go wrong (and with
   Microsoft software, they always do)

Not saying they're good reasons, but there they are.  I sometimes
use 'Micro$oft Windoze' myself, but generally keep it to chat logs
and out of emails and posts.  I've annoyed people that way in the
past, and they were less inclined to hear what I had to say as a
result.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3195

In message <lltacd$cqk$1@dont-email.me> 
  Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-05-25, Hils wrote:
>> On 2014-05-25 12:19, Kara M'bola wrote:
>>> 2014-05-25, mm0fmf wrote:
>>>> On 25/05/2014 09:38, Hils wrote:
>>>>> A surprisingly good piece and discussion here in a non-tech medium,
>>>>> primarily about Micro$oft monoculture and Windoze XP's persistence.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/25/still-running-windows-xp-bill-gates-planned-it-microsoft
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd take your post much more seriously if you didn't refer to Microsoft 
>>>> as Micro$oft.
>>> 
>>> It's a tad fanboi'ish, true. +1 from this casual D€bian GNU/Linux user.
>>
>> It has become automatic after so many hours spent (re-)installing,
>> (re-)authenticating and trying to get useful results from MS software.
>>
>> Now a happy Debian user.
>>
>> Feel free to explain what Windoze 8 will give me which Debian 7 doesn't. :-)

> 1) More games written for the platform

> 2) A corporate giant to blame when things go wrong (and with
>    Microsoft software, they always do)

3) Much simpler updating of the OS

4) More included tools that are supported as part of the OS

5) More consistent (and simpler) notifications of security patches

6) Much easier to find support

-- 
"Here comes sunrise. Yeah, here's your sunrise. I used to hide from the
sun, tried to live my whole life underground, why'd you have to rise and
ruin all my fun? Just turn over; close the curtains on the day."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3221

On 2014-05-26, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 3) Much simpler updating of the OS
> 4) More included tools that are supported as part of the OS
> 5) More consistent (and simpler) notifications of security patches
> 6) Much easier to find support

I have not found any of the above to be true. Of course, your mileage
may vary.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3223

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

> In message <lltacd$cqk$1@dont-email.me> 
>   Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2014-05-25, Hils wrote:
>>> On 2014-05-25 12:19, Kara M'bola wrote:
>>>> 2014-05-25, mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>> On 25/05/2014 09:38, Hils wrote:
>>>>>> A surprisingly good piece and discussion here in a non-tech medium,
>>>>>> primarily about Micro$oft monoculture and Windoze XP's persistence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/25/still-running-windows-xp-bill-gates-planned-it-microsoft
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd take your post much more seriously if you didn't refer to Microsoft 
>>>>> as Micro$oft.
>>>> 
>>>> It's a tad fanboi'ish, true. +1 from this casual D€bian GNU/Linux user.
>>>
>>> It has become automatic after so many hours spent (re-)installing,
>>> (re-)authenticating and trying to get useful results from MS software.
>>>
>>> Now a happy Debian user.
>>>
>>> Feel free to explain what Windoze 8 will give me which Debian 7 doesn't. :-)
>
>> 1) More games written for the platform
>
>> 2) A corporate giant to blame when things go wrong (and with
>>    Microsoft software, they always do)
>
> 3) Much simpler updating of the OS
>
> 4) More included tools that are supported as part of the OS
>
> 5) More consistent (and simpler) notifications of security patches
>
> 6) Much easier to find support

Did you intentionally just shift from good things about Windows to
good things about Linux?  If so, you should have started numbering
at 1.  If not, you're wrong.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3190

On 2014-05-25, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> Feel free to explain what Windoze 8 will give me which Debian 7 doesn't. :-)

The pleasure of spending time on the telephone with Microsoft to
reactivate when their software "thinks" a license violation has
occurred.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3200

On 25/05/2014 18:11, Hils wrote:
> Feel free to explain what Windoze 8 will give me which Debian 7 doesn't.

A touch screen interface?

I put the "my OS has a bigger willy than your OS" behind me years ago 
and use whichever OS does the job. Windows/Linux - I use them all and 
develop for all of them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3201

"Hils" <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote in message
news:llt87p$bhc$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 2014-05-25 12:19, Kara M'bola wrote:
>> 2014-05-25, mm0fmf wrote:
>>> On 25/05/2014 09:38, Hils wrote:
>>>> A surprisingly good piece and discussion here in a non-tech medium,
>>>> primarily about Micro$oft monoculture and Windoze XP's persistence.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/25/still-running-windows-xp-bill-gates-planned-it-microsoft
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd take your post much more seriously if you didn't refer to Microsoft
>>> as Micro$oft.
>>
>> It's a tad fanboi'ish, true. +1 from this casual D€bian GNU/Linux user.
>
> It has become automatic after so many hours spent (re-)installing,
> (re-)authenticating and trying to get useful results from MS software.

Other people's experiences can be different.

MS Windows usually came pre-installed and ready-to-go. Pretty much any
add-ons were supported (USB, printers, networking, screens) because the
manufacturers provided Windows drivers.

There weren't a myriad different, slightly incompatible variations of the
same OS (ubuntu, red hat, fedora, debian, etc etc) (however I don't really
understand what's different about them).

You could also (more true some years ago), buy a Windows PC in any computer
store; you were unlikely to find a Linux one. (If you were selling software,
you developed for a platform that 99% of clients would already have or could
easily obtain.)

By contrast, all I remember of Linux  is delving into it from time to time
(because everyone said it was so great), and wasting a huge amount of time
tinkering to the most basic things working (such as a display screen! But
with low-res, low-bit-depth, washed out colours, and poorly driven LCD
display). I think it was 20 years before I had a Linux system where enough
things worked for it to be useful (mouse, screen, USB drive, internet). But 
it's GUI still looked amateurish.

In Windows most of these things just worked (you could also type either dir 
or DIR at the console, and it would understand what you meant. But type LS 
instead of ls, and Linux apparently wouldn't have a clue what you were 
trying to do. Which is more user-friendly?)

-- 
Bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3204

On Monday 26 May 2014 12:28, BartC conveyed the following to 
comp.misc...

> "Hils" <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote in message
> news:llt87p$bhc$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> It has become automatic after so many hours spent (re-)installing,
>> (re-)authenticating and trying to get useful results from MS
>> software.
> 
> Other people's experiences can be different.
> 
> MS Windows usually came pre-installed and ready-to-go. Pretty much any
> add-ons were supported (USB, printers, networking, screens) because
> the manufacturers provided Windows drivers.

But you needed the latest Service Packs for those drivers to be able to 
work, and then some.  Good luck if you didn't have an Internet 
connection.  And dealing with Microsoft themselves was an abominable 
experience.

Also, the same drivers would prove incompatible between different 
Windows versions - I know this because I've done lots of on-site 
assistance for Windows users.

> There weren't a myriad different, slightly incompatible variations of
> the same OS [...

Yes, there were.  There were multiple versions of Windows 95, which were 
all incompatible with one another.  In addition to that, Windows NT 4.0 
- which what I was using - was released in 1997, two years after Windows 
95, and it did _not_ have FAT32 support.

> ...](ubuntu, red hat, fedora, debian, etc etc) (however I
> don't really understand what's different about them).

1. Version differences.  RedHat and (the official) Debian are the
   "stable" and "long term support" releases.  Fedora is RedHat's
   bleeding-edge testbed.  Ubuntu is based upon the bleeding-edge
   version of Debian.  Many distributions also share the same basis
   but carry subtle version differences between individual packages.

2. Package management.  RedHat invented the RPM (RedHat Package Manager)
   format, and many distributions stick to that.  Debian invented the
   other main package format, .deb, which is installed via the APT
   (Advanced Packaging Tool).  Both package managers have their pros and
   cons, and both have their fans and haters.

3. Configuration.  Some distributions favor one desktop environment over
   another, and although you can install multiple desktop environments
   side by side in the same distribution, Ubuntu started the practice of
   offering downloads for installable media with only one desktop
   environment, with other distributions following their example.  As a
   corollary, people didn't understand anymore that you can have
   multiple desktop environments installed side by side in the same
   operating system.

4. Purpose.  Some distributions are general purpose, others are more
   server-oriented, some are more multimedia-oriented, some are
   specifically tailored at educational use, others at scientific use,
   and so on.

There are more differences in vantage, but by combining only the above 
four vantages, you can understand why there are so many different 
distributions.

> You could also (more true some years ago), buy a Windows PC in any
> computer store; you were unlikely to find a Linux one. (If you were
> selling software, you developed for a platform that 99% of clients
> would already have or could easily obtain.)

Given that GNU/Linux is Free & Open Source Software, the culture within 
that community is usually also such that most GNU/Linux users will 
reject proprietary and/or commercial software either way.

> By contrast, all I remember of Linux  is delving into it from time to
> time (because everyone said it was so great), and wasting a huge
> amount of time tinkering to the most basic things working (such as a
> display screen! But with low-res, low-bit-depth, washed out colours,
> and poorly driven LCD display). I think it was 20 years before I had a
> Linux system where enough things worked for it to be useful (mouse,
> screen, USB drive, internet). But it's GUI still looked amateurish.

There are many different fully-fledged desktop environments to choose 
from, and some - like KDE - can be tailored to look like whatever you 
want, and behave in whatever way you like.  In fact, Microsoft looked 
quite heavily at GNU/Linux - and most notably at the Compiz window 
manager and at the KDE 4 desktop environment - as inspiration for the 
graphical effects in Windows Vista.  And then Vista still needed a 
machine with much heavier specs than GNU/Linux in order to offer the 
minimum of those effects and the same level of performance.

> In Windows most of these things just worked [...

If you were lucky.

> ...] (you could also type either dir or DIR at the console, and it
> would understand what you meant.

Because Windows is case-retentive but not case-sensitive.

> But type LS instead of ls, and Linux apparently wouldn't have a
> clue what you were trying to do. Which is more user-friendly?)

Case-sensitivity is important.  GNU/Linux isn't user-unfriendly.  It 
merely asks of its users that they'd be a little more computer-friendly.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3206

On 2014-05-26 11:55, Aragorn wrote:
> On Monday 26 May 2014 12:28, BartC conveyed the following to 
> comp.misc...
>> By contrast, all I remember of Linux  is delving into it from time to
>> time (because everyone said it was so great), and wasting a huge
>> amount of time tinkering to the most basic things working (such as a
>> display screen! But with low-res, low-bit-depth, washed out colours,
>> and poorly driven LCD display). I think it was 20 years before I had a
>> Linux system where enough things worked for it to be useful (mouse,
>> screen, USB drive, internet). But it's GUI still looked amateurish.
> 
> There are many different fully-fledged desktop environments to choose 
> from, and some - like KDE - can be tailored to look like whatever you 
> want, and behave in whatever way you like.  In fact, Microsoft looked 
> quite heavily at GNU/Linux - and most notably at the Compiz window 
> manager and at the KDE 4 desktop environment - as inspiration for the 
> graphical effects in Windows Vista.  And then Vista still needed a 
> machine with much heavier specs than GNU/Linux in order to offer the 
> minimum of those effects and the same level of performance.

After years of using Windows primarily for application software which
wasn't available for GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux has--for my
purposes--overtaken Windows.

I had some trepidation about installing Debian, especially for the
package system which was a mess the last time I tried it (several years
ago), but everything just works. Installation was smoother and faster
than any Windows installation I can recall. The updates, repositories,
and the desktops just work. Updates rarely demand a reboot. USB works
perfectly: flatbed scanner, DSLR, audio interface, sound recorder, MIDI
interface, DMM, even an old webcam which I couldn't find any Windows
drivers for at all--all plug and play under Debian.

>> In Windows most of these things just worked [...
> 
> If you were lucky.
> 
>> ...] (you could also type either dir or DIR at the console, and it
>> would understand what you meant.
> 
> Because Windows is case-retentive but not case-sensitive.
> 
>> But type LS instead of ls, and Linux apparently wouldn't have a
>> clue what you were trying to do. Which is more user-friendly?)
> 
> Case-sensitivity is important.  GNU/Linux isn't user-unfriendly.  It 
> merely asks of its users that they'd be a little more computer-friendly.

I was exposed to case-sensitivity at an early enough stage to find
Windows the aberration. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3163

In article <2yjgv.144094$b96.143220@fx09.am4>, mm0fmf
<none@mailinator.com> wrote:

> On 25/05/2014 09:38, Hils wrote:
> > A surprisingly good piece and discussion here in a non-tech medium,
> > primarily about Micro$oft monoculture and Windoze XP's persistence.
> >
> > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/25/still-running-windows-xp-b
> > ill-gates-planned-it-microsoft
> 
> I'd take your post much more seriously if you didn't refer to Microsoft 
> as Micro$oft.

It's not his post he wants you to take seriously. It's the article
linked to and the problem it describes.

Personally, I'd have no sympathy for any fathead running windows who
finds their machine hacked if it weren't for the fact that inevitably
parts of my life depend on other people servers running the shite.

And see my .sig while you're about it.

-- 
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
 lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores 
 the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
 into it in the first place."                             - Douglas Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web