HP has "HP Reccomends Windows XP" on every page including the ones that
offer Linux as an alternative OS.

IBM has the same thing.

HP offers Mandrake 9.2 Linux which is a very old version.

OpenOffice 2.0 install is easy for Windows users but a mess for Linux
users.

Hardware gets released every single day and assuming it is for an
Intel/AMD system, includes Windows drivers right inside the box.

Linux?
Better hope the hardware manufacturer has pity on Linux users or that some
pimple faced geek decides to reverse engineer a driver.

We have been hearing for years that this year "insert year here" is the
year of desktop Linux and still it hasn't happened.

Microsoft has screwed up left and right with one security problem after
another but yet it is still #1 and Linux isn't even on the radar screen
despite Linux being free.

So why?

Answer: Linux sucks for a desktop system for anyone other than a
vi/emacs/LaTex worshipping geek.

It's obvious.
A free product that has no market share?
Conclusion: it sucks.

Corrie <Corrie51.j@yahoomail.com> writes:

One of these days, Flatty's gonna run out of names.

George Ellison wrote:

I'd like to <plonk> him...but I can't do that twice.

--
Tom Wootten, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.

Today Corrie spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
edification:

I follow the trends somewhat, as my computer guru nephew is in
love with Linux as well as all versions of Windoze. But, even
though he knows what he's doing and has all the "open" apps,
he still says that Linux is a ways off on the desktop. He
cites lack of drivers for new hardware as well as some lack of
drivers for older, legacy HW, such as scanners and printers.

Well, Linux /is/ making headway, including - so I've heard -
DOD, who allegedly went/is going to it because so few nasti-
ware is evident. My cynical take on Linux's lack of credible
threats has a lot more to do with so many people who hate Bill
the Gates and take delight in finding new holes to exploit
after the daily "critical updates"/"security patches" we're
all familiar with, than any inherent ability to resist
attacks.

Agreed, but as the advertising industry used to say "nobody
gets it until everybody wants it", meaning that Linux is in an
infinite loop/circular proof where no one will write
commercial apps or drivers for it until it is a viable O/S,
yet it will never become viable without apps and drivers...

--
ATM, aka Jerry

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:22:20 -0400, Corrie wrote:

(snip)...

... a really lousy troll attempt.

--
Rick

though he knows what he's doing and has all the "open" apps,
he still says that Linux is a ways off on the desktop. He
cites lack of drivers for new hardware as well as some lack of
drivers for older, legacy HW, such as scanners and printers.<<

as someone going through the first steps of setting up a linux box, it
does appear that linux installs take some forethought, as opposed to
blindly buying an old combination of hardware.

i'd suggest that MS only shops buy win / linux capable HW starting NOW
so that they have options. options is what keeps you from bending over
and saying thank you after being assaulted. you *can* fight back.
unfortunately, not many folks value IT (thanks to MS???) to see it as
something critical to the underlying business. they need education. i
do my best.

ware is evident. My cynical take on Linux's lack of credible
threats has a lot more to do with so many people who hate Bill
the Gates and take delight in finding new holes to exploit
after the daily "critical updates"/"security patches" we're
all familiar with, than any inherent ability to resist
attacks.<<

this is partially true... but can you imagine the *fame* of shutting
down linux worldwide? such a person would GRAND PUHBAH HACKMEISTER for
a long time and be written in the logs of history. some crackpot is
out there trying it... they have to be.

from what i understand, the turn off for linux virus' is that they
don't spread easily in the wild due to proper security implementation.
sure, you can screw over a single computer... but how do you then take
over that computer and multiply your efforts?

that is only easy on microsoft... no hacker wants to waste time
thrashing one machine unless it is personal, of course. but they will
put the effort in if it can shut down hundreds of thousands of
computers and pile egg on bill gates' face.

infinite loop/circular proof where no one will write
commercial apps or drivers for it until it is a viable O/S,
yet it will never become viable without apps and drivers...<<

i think you are usa-centric. i don't see the usa will lead the charge
on linux - we are too fat and happy at the driver's wheel. however,
when brazil, germany, china, korea, etc have tens of millions, moving
toward hundreds of millions, of fertile linux desktops waiting for
applications and drivers...

they will be created... and microsoft will be spending billions to
manipulate smaller and smaller territory.

i do expect the usa will be ahold out in this revolution for some
time... then again, given the fact the federal government is bankrupt,
the states are bankrupt and the cities are almost all bankrupt... at
some point someone will bring up the cost issue... even if it is as
they tied to a stake as the general public lights the fire.

I don't agree with your assertions or your conclusion, and you have
several facts wrong - other than that, a great post!.

I've installed Mandrake 10.1 on the public access internet computers at
the local library and the patrons are having no difficulty adapting to it.
A customer satisfaction survey conducted after six months of use found NO
complaints.

Most computer experts concede that Linux passed MAC for total number of
desktop installs sometime in 2004 - estimates of the market share run,
generally, between 7 and 10 percent.

All Things Mopar wrote:

YHBT. Feed less; bin more.

--
Blinky
Killing all Google Groups posts.
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
newsan.2005.10.23.03.21.54.367941@zianet.com...

A customer satisfaction survey conducted after six months of use found NO
complaints.

Typical response of welfare pukes, using a service that taxpayers
are providing. Don't complain about using a service that other's must
pay for.

"HP has "HP Reccomends Windows XP" on every page including the ones
that
offer Linux as an alternative OS.

IBM has the same thing."

Yes, they get a nice little bit of payola from Bill for stating this.
If however they misbehave like pushing Linux too hard on consumer
computers or selling 'bare bones' consumer machines, that nice little
payola may just dry up.

Moreover the IRS, ATO, Commissioners of the Inland Revenue and other
tax offices around the world may be interested in the transfer pricing
tax implications of this payola.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:15:48 -0700, mose wrote:

Who's complaining? Read it again.

In article <djel3k$kau$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Corrie
<Corrie51.j@yahoomail.com> wrote:


That's the worst, most obvious error you could possibly make.

Market share is NOT determined by a product being good or others being
bad. Windows has NEVER been at the top of the lot in quality or
ability. Most Windows users don't believe there are any good options.
Most Windows users have a hard time even admitting there _might_ be
another choice.

Today Skeets spoke these views with conviction for everyone's
edification:

[snip]
Yep, I am - and damn proud of it! And, yes, the gooks can out-
program us easily, if they want to. And for only $1/hour instead
of $30+...

BTW, is your shift key broken?

[snip]

--
ATM, aka Jerry

Corrie wrote:
Microsoft has an OEM license agreement, which makes the End User
License Agreement (EULA) look simple.

The OEMLA has clauses which cover advertizing, web pages, use of
trademarks on everything from ads to packaging to the desktop. It
allows Microsoft final approval authority over the content and
placement of the trademarks. For example, if Microsoft doesn't want
Dell computers being advertized as running Microsoft Windows when these
ads are being placed in Linux today, Microsoft can demand that the ad
containing Windows logos and trademarks be removed. Today, Dell will
often place the ad anyway, without the Windows logo.

Microsoft has also been hauled into court before Judge Kolar-Kotelly
over this very issue. Microsoft's defense was "We want these OEMS to
reccomend XP instead of Windows 2000, Windows 98, or Windows 95. This
was a classic example of a diversionary tactic, telling the judge one
thing while telling the OEMs something very different. Keep in mind
that none of the contracts say "you will not advertize Windows and
Linux on the same web page", but in practice, Microsoft will reject any
ad which contains both the Windows logo/trademarks and the Linux
logos/trademarks.



There isn't an RPM?

On Windows, the application is responsible for installing all special
libraries in addition to the application itself. On Linux, the package
identifies which libraries are needed, and then allows the user to
either find and load that library, or "force" the installation to use
the libraries already installed.

With Windows, you often MUST have the EXACT version of the library
desired. If you want to run Windows 95 software on Windows XP, you
might have to install your own VBRun software, because the current
VBRun may not be compatible with the API's used on 95.

With RPM, the software publisher has the option of specifying the exact
version library needed, the top version of the library needed, or the
earliest version of the library needed.

The usual culprit has been the C++ libraries, which use name-mangling
to handle complex hierarchies of classes, methods, and inheritance.
Until recently, this name mangling could make the same class/methods on
one version of a library look completely different from another version
of the same library.

Linux LSB-3 has directly addressed this issue. It appears that
Microsoft might want to use this technology, but they don't want to
have to use Open Source licenses to do so.

Microsoft will not allow the OEM to distribute the hardware line
without an OEM license without that specific line. Each line must be
tested to make sure that all drivers will run with the licensed version
of Windows. Furthermore, EVERY product in the PC line MUST be licensed
to run Windows. If it uses an Intel or AMD chip, the OEM must license
a version of Windows for it. Failure to do so could mean that ALL OEM
licenses on ALL lines could be revoked or not renewed under favorable
terms.

Microsoft also subsidizes hardware vendor's research into "Windows
Only/Linux Hostile" hardware. By definition, the hardware vendor must
ONLY release drivers for Windows and must take legal actions against
anyone who attempts to publish a driver for Linux.

Actually, most OEMs are now producing "Linux Friendly" lines. They are
typically more expensive than the "Windows Only" lines, because the
"Windows Only" lines haven't been as popular as expected and OEMs are
cutting prices to dump the unsold surplus inventory. Demand for Linux
Friendly machines seems to be very well-matched to the supply.

Machines with graphics cards that have "GL" in the name are optimized
for the OpenGL library contributed by Silicon Graphics Incorporated.
Microsoft also supports OpenGL, but has been promoting DirectX instead.
There is a DirectX to OpenGL library which is so good that this can be
used to provide XP compatibility. Ironically, this library was written
to make Windows games available to Linux.

People keep thinking that Linux will suddenly take over the desktop,
without ever being displayed on retailer shelves. Most people want to
"test drive" Linux before they go out and buy it.

The good news is that LiveCDs have made it possible to see whether a
Retailer PC will run Linux - BEFORE it is taken home. Furthermore,
more OEMs are offering "Linux Friendly" systems along with Windows XP
installation media to retail customers.

In addition, Linux has vastly improved it's support for virtual
machines and recently VMWare has provided far less expensive versions
of VMware. Corporations can provide corporate controlled VMs to
workstations running Linux which gives excellent security while
providing full Windows compatibility.

Roughly 1 Linux workstation is configured for every 2 Windows OEM
machines sold in the last year. It used to be that people would buy a
new computer that ran Windows and put Linux on the old box. Today,
with 64 bit chips, dual-core chips, and 2-4 Ghz chips, many users are
installing Linux then installing Windows XP as a client. Running XP as
a client limits the memory available to a single instance of XP,
enables Linux to provide firewall, damage control, and back-up/recovery
capability, and the ability to move an image from one environment
(desktop) to another (laptop), and move it back.

This is a win-win scenario. Microsoft still sells millions of licenses
to OEMs, and is still installed/licensed on 95% of the machines.
Customers get the security, stability, and managibility of Linux.
Corporate customers are able to get TCO benefits not available in
Windows-only environments.

This of course does make statistics such as OEM licenses less relevant.
The machines are sold with OEM Windows, but then optimized with
customer configured Linux. The difference is that the "Linux Friendly"
machines can be configured in about 30 minutes with no searching for
drivers and configuration tools.

Ironically, one of the huge breakthroughs for this "Linux as host, XP
as Client" configurations was the widespread use of Knoppix for back-up
and recovery of Windows partitions. Another driver has been the need
for multiple windows images to prevent "DLL Hell". Initially, users
might use VMWare for Windows then realize that Windows is sucking up
memory for functions not being used by the "host". Linux on the other
hand, has a more effecient use of memory, so it's even possible to have
a Linux host and then have a Linux client and a Windows client.

Linux is far more than vi/emacs/LaTex, and the fact that you focus on
those items, completely ignoring the other capabilities of Linux shows
how totally ignorant you really are.

On the other hand, a Linux-Only solution isn't for everyone. People
who want to play video games, often need more than "pure Linux".
People who need to use MS-Project, Visio, and other "Microsoft-only"
applications need more than "pure Linux". This is why Linux provides
support for Windows Applications based on the requirements of the
application. Many Third-Party Windows applications, especially those
not using .net, can run under WINE. Many others can be run under Xen
or VMware with very little performance penalty. And for true "hard
core Windows" applications, you can run under Bochs which can run 32
bit Windows XP applications on ANY computer chip (but at a 30%
performance penalty).

Actually, Linux has had huge penetration world-wide. The 7-10% market
shares being observed as "machines sold with Linux" are mainly the
"Linux Only" users, and in countries which have never had Windows
machines, or environments where only certain tasks are required (point
of sale, telemarketing, telephone customer support, network management,
CAD/CAM,...) Linux-Only solutions are quite workable.

On the other hand, the 90-95% of the PCs sold with Windows preinstalled
may not be Windows-only boxes in their final configuration. They are
just machines which need Windows licenses to legally run libraries used
by WINE, access remote Windows servers using remote access, and run
Windows VM Clients.

In addition, Windows machines that really do continue to run Windows
are often getting more and more Open Source and Linux software through
cygwin, Qt, Java, and ported Linux applications. Users don't get the
security, managability, backup/recovery capabilities, and reliability
of Linux, but for many, especially people who only need to run Python
applications (GUI applications written in python often provide GUI
interfaces to *nix command-line applications), Java applications, and
some crontab backup utilities, Windows may still be the host.

Your conclusion, based on the information you have presented, shows
your complete contempt prior to investigation. You appearantly haven't
even used a live-cd version of Linux on a Linux-friendly Windows
machine. You appearantly haven't studied any of the available
statistics. You appearantly haven't even bothered to see which
capabilities Linux has available.

But that's OK, you aren't alone. There are hundreds of Windows
Advocates posting in COLA who seem to think that they should publish
their "expert opinion" based on a total lack of information.

This reminds me very much of the Vietnam War. Enemy strength was
estimated, body counts were taken, and when the body count totalled
nearly 3 times the strength originally estimated, and the enemy was
still hitting back, the United States realized that they were in a war
the couldn't win.

The enemy was hiding in tunnels, out of site, moving supplies by
bicycle, foot carriers not wearing uniforms, and getting food and water
from the jungles and villages of South Vietnam.

Linux has been using similar tactics, staying below the radar, yet
growing at phenominal rates. Only 7 years ago, the number of Linux
survers were unknown, most CIOs and CEOs didn't even realize that they
had Linux in their computer rooms. They didn't know that their e-mail,
web site, file servers, print servers, and firewalls were all running
on Linux. In one year the number of Linux servers went from something
like 3% ot 17%, primarily because CIOs got very interested in Linux and
really wanted to know how many Linux servers there were, what they were
doing, and how well they were working. There were millions of Linux
servers sitting in the farthest back corners, running without even a
monitor, and running for months, even years, without rebooting, and
with relatively little maintenance.

This year, many CIOs began actively researching how many of their
employees were using Open Source. They suddenly found that millions
were using cygwin, OpenOffice, FireFox, and Thunderbird as well as many
other popular open source applications.

flatfish wrote:
First you have to prove that Linux is in fact going nowhere on the
desktop - and you can't. Because it *is* on the desktop, now. It may
not be as widespread as some of us would like, but it's definitely
going places at a rapid rate.

Perhaps, just possibly, by bothering to learn something? 'Joe' is not
universally stupid. There are dozens of Linux books out there now,
which will tell him pretty much all he needs to know, if he's willing
to learn a bit. Most of it isn't hard to learn, either. And in many
cases, it's just a point and click experience, like any other
mainstream OS.

Since when did a nasty, lying troll like you consititute the 'real
world', flatfish? You are so far from being real that you might as well
be in another *Universe*. You're not fooling anyone.

--
Kier