Discussion in 'Other Operating Systems' started by Iroquois, Jul 1, 2009.
Can i add a supplementary request? What do people mean when they criticise MS for stifling innovation and development? Serious question
The MSFT of old were potent in shipping non-standard and closed source systems. Only the most recent version of Office has shipped with support for a globally recognized document standard. This argument is now almost a moot point because they have improved substantially in the past two years to the point where many criticisms are based on legacy.
I believe they still have a lot of work to do. They could release SMB 2.0 into the Samba community, for example. The whole Vista thing didn't change many views either when the FOSS community watched MS release such an underrated Operating System. Windows 7 is anticipated to change these views, but I'm sure the $300+ price tag will quickly renew any anti-MS campaigns.
That being said, the majority of Linux developers have a hatred for MSFT because they consider there time free and find it impossible to justify how Microsoft can charge for a product.
Just as Linux has a lot of work to do when it comes to Enterprise and Desktops, MSFT have just as much when it comes to Open standards and anti-competitive practices. The irony here is MSFT can't criticize Linux for their short falls due to obvious reasons.
A side note - I personally love Mac people who bemoan that Microsoft is a monopoly, as they use their Apple Hardware with Apple Software using Apple Approved Peripherals
I find the strong anti-MS sentaments are most common in people who are relatively new to Linux - say less than 4-5 years. Anyone who makes it through that initial period is using Linux because it's a good OS, not because OS <whatever> is crap.
Me - I haven't had a windows box for a long long time, but i'll happily recognise that MS has the most comprehensive software suits for many tasks and recommend most people use MS over either Linux or Mac.
It usually comes down to people having very narrow mindsets - unwilling to go outside of their comfort zones, unwilling to look at other options. I tend to just look it as Windows provides a very wide range of options, while Linux will usually give you something very specific. Both have their ups and downs - MS tend to be easier to support thanks to being so widely used, etc.
I don't really have a preference, which is probably a preference of its own
I like tinkering with Linux, plus there always something new and exiting It like there always way to improve "my" Linux somehow. Its just like a lego! Plus Linux got pizzazz...
Microsoft are knobs who get in everyones business. If they don't have it they try and buy it. If that doesn't work they do a half arsed copy of it and expect you to use it (buy it). I'm glad linux and apple are hitting their market share.
If you don't believe this statement look at msn/live/bing (what ever it's going to be a year later). If I even may mention stupid generic software patents. Microsoft licensing should have it's own certification. Add the IE6 rendering engine and a wide range of security holes and you could see the point.
It's not that I hate their operating systems so much. I just hate being treated like a wallet.
sidenote comment: amen to THAT. remember the big brother-esque ads that apple made 20 years ago? smashing through the screen that was broadcasting the big brother image? the wheel has turned. apple is the new big brother.
sorry about the thread micro-hijack
There are three primary reasons I chose Open Source. The first one is as a protest against the anti-competitive practices of Microsoft. I've never been one to accept a clear injustice, to the point I'd rather go without. Microsoft's inability to promote open standards and interoperability is clearly wrong no matter which way you look at it. Their latest token efforts are unconvincing. The Office OpenXML is a joke within the industry and we won't ever see any movement with regards to DirectX and other productivity applications (such as Visual Studio etc.).
With Open Source I can be sure relatively guaranteed that the software I use will conform to open standards and I won't have to worry about vendor lock-in.
The other reason I have is legitimacy. I simply can't justify spending all that money on Windows when I have a perfectly capable alternative available for free. I can't find alternatives for Evolution or Ardour on windows. Gimp sucks on windows. What free graphic editor on windows can compare to the GIMP?
If I wanted to be productive in Windows I'd need to outlay a considerable amount of money. Not just once, but for each instance of an install. That's crazy stupid.
The last reason is usability. Installing Linux and the applications I use is a no-brainer. Automatic updates does everything. When I boot into my windows partition, I usually have to reboot because iTunes, windows, AVG or some other god awful program wants to update and consider themselves so important that they demand a reboot. Having to reboot each time an application decides to check online for an update is infuriating.
I mentioned to capable free software on Linux in my previous point. You could argue it is a relatively 'moot point' because a lot of the productivity software I use (OpenOffice, Eclipse, RawTherapee, Inkscape, Blender etc.) is also available for free on Windows. The problem there is installing the applications and keeping them updated is a chore. I don't want to spend two whole days (and a bajillion reboots) downloading applications, drivers and utilities just to get my desktop up and running. I'd rather just hit a few checkboxes, click the install button and make a cup of coffee.
In short, Windows is just too painful an experience for me to use. The apt based linux distro's just slaughter Windows in this regards, all for the sake of identical software.
7 replies in, and not a single answer to the OPs question.
The problem I see is, the question is valid and the behaviour is obviously irrational. Even worse, you've explained the situation so well that someone guilty of this type of behaviour can't help but see how irrational it is.
Nobody likes to admit to being irrational though, therefore I would be surprised if you get an actual response.
I don't hold out hope for this thread to reveal any mystery, but I'll give it a bit longer before I lock it...
Well, this topic is usually contentious, so /flame_suit_on
For me, it's that I like doing something different. I started in IT with Windows, and sure, some of Microsoft's behavior and their position in the marketplace gives them a lot of power. Some people will dislike that on general principle, even if they don't admit it.
I like using Ubuntu, as it's quite user friendly (for me) and I enjoy it. Setting some things up are a challenge (my most recent effort was setting up a rotated monitor on a dual-head ATI video card and that was pain) but I still use a Windows VM because the work environment I am in uses Exchange and Outlook still has more native functionality talking MAPI to the server than Thunderbird does talking IMAP. (I use Thunderbird as my primary mail client via IMAP, I just start Outlook when I need to.)
I hope you gain some more insight into the attitude of some, I know what kind of attitude you come across in this space as I work with some people who hold these kinds of attitudes
The mindset that the originating poster is talking about certainly exists, I don't however think that its a majority opinion.
People with this fevered zealotry exist behind every product, concept, ideal and company, it's just a part of the human psyche to attempt to affirm your own opinion and to attempt to garner support for it.
My personal reason for using linux (some times, i use windows on my gaming machine at home because i enjoy a wide variety PC games and linux as an operating system doesn't offer access to that yet, it's not Linux's fault, its not the game developers fault, they're just doing what makes them money like any company).
I use linux at work and on my laptop, the reasons are many, it offers more tools with more flexibility to do my job, (system administration) i can admin windows servers from linux just as well as from windows(rdesktop, samba client) the reverse is not exactly true, putty & the windows shell don't cut it for operating on large numbers of terminal windows (no tabs, no mouse-over focus & a few other things), as for my laptop, it does everything i need it to do, and i consider it a better experience, i prefer Linux's philosphy.
As you'll notice a lot of my reasons either apply to my job and my personal tastes, and this is in my opinion why Linux lacks mass market appeal, because its made by people with a particular mindset, for that same group and there aren't that many geeks out there. It's not a bad thing.
Now thats the kind of mindset I'm talking about - sure theres issues, but I'm perfectly happy with an IT environment of Windows Servers (for AD and Exchange), and Windows desktops. Use the tools that are there (Group Policy etc) to manage it.
Edit: And for the record I'm also perfectly happy with an all Linux environment. If someone wants to pay and use Windows - hey, its not my money.
Poor Microsoft. Why isn't the same sentiment extended to Google. Surely they hold as much of a monopoly in their area of expertise now. People place too much trust in Google and by the same token, Linux.
Why is Microsoft's pricing considered anti-competitive? When I was an IT manager the cost per host for a Windows 2003 server vs a RHEL 4 server was almost identical.
I wonder if that's a Linux culture or an ex-windows culture, they are not the same thing.
It may sound silly but it's the freedom, freedom to run what I want, have it do or not do what I think it should do and know I/we can change it for fellow users everywhere without issue - yes there is the warm fuzzy feeling. Windows has changed a lot over the years but it's still very confining.
No, OK maybe a little. Not for Windows though. All hail the mothership! But then I hate the USA for changing English spelling, versions of historical events and sticking with imperial measurements when the rest of the world is metric. <just a grumpy old man> Maybe not these days, but in the past I have encountered strong anti-microsoft sentiment from educators in tertiary studies. Are we poisoned by our peers?
Yes. The Windows escape culture does wear thin though, as you've mentioned. If you like using it and it works for you good ( be it any OS), I'm not fussed to hear about it endlessly over coffee, beer and what do you mean you missed the curves on that one??
7 machines no Windows. Exception, one VM of Win XP to use IE6 to access the web management page of the Satellite modem (written in Frontpage, thanks IPStar)
Give it time and yes they do.
Glad I can help.
Now to answer the op properly.
My motivation for running Linux started just because I wanted to learn something new. I played around with a few distros and at first I wasn't enjoying Linux at all. There was a steep learning curve. Since I heard lots about servers running Linux I decided to persist. I learned some on the command line and realized the power of shell scripts. I then moved to Mac OS X for a while then realized looks are not everything. Since then Linux has become prettier and I like that people have choices on their desktops now. Which brings me on to Microsoft and why I dislike their anti-competitive behavior and their disregard for open standards. I believe competition is healthy. I really don't understand why Microsoft needs to branch out and dominate most aspects of computing when they spend that energy on their pre-existing products and make them better and more reliable. It's not that I'm against people making money or anything.
I genuinely like Linux. I honestly feel that I'm in control of my system. I feel that it runs faster on my hardware and I can do anything with it. The Linux culture is also a big bonus. It's terrific to read a blogs or forums about peoples experiences or guides that they have written. I wouldn't even be using Linux without these people.
I actually don't dual boot with Windows. Not for about a year and a half. I have Wine installed. It has Microsoft Office 2003 and StarCraft (the only game I play). MS Office was originally used for compatibility. Now it's just their to show my friends it can run on Linux. My wife's computer still has Windows XP running on it, mainly for Photoshop CS3. She has already voiced about using Linux cause it 'looks cool!' and 'it's free'. However she regularly does NX in to my machine to play Frozen Bubble.
I can not explain anything to you about Linux Culture because I'm in the "not all of them" group.
ndiswrapper is a means to an end to get a piece of hardware to work when the vendor is reluctant to supply the necessary information for a driver to be written as they are unwilling to do so themselves.
No I do not hate Windows the technology, Microsoft the monopoly is another thing, even in the US of A MS has been sued by the government for anti-competitive practices and monopolistic trading. Research the history of the Windows OEM licensing and you will understand how a vibrant software industry was turned into a monopoly controlled by 1 company.
I use it everyday as my primary desktop and preferred platform for development and administration of company systems.
No, I dont need to, I use Windows for gaming because that is the prefered platform by developers, if Linux had a bigger install base Im sure they would release games with native support for OpenGL instead of DirectX like ID did.
The actual developers, not the users of OSS (Open Source Software) see things very differently from the fanatics, read any thing by Bruce Perens and you will only hear rationale debate as to why OSS is better for the community and business.
My main gripes with MS is their closed proprietary formats that make computer interoperability an impossibility, yet open standards like the ones used on the internet support openness and sharing. Computing would be alot further advanced today if MS didn't exist, because it didn't exist in 1986 when I first started my career in the UNIX world where sharing was a given.
/me waits for Elvis
He sez it sooo much better than me.
But basically I will not support convicted felons.