Microsoft becoming pro-open source?

hismajesty · July 30, 2004, 11:39 PM

This is drifting into a Linux vs. Windows debate and not a discussion of Microsofts recent open source releases!!!

Anyway, no matter how powerful it is, face it, Linux is too hard for 97%+ of the worlds population. There's no point in arguing about that, until Linux has more native support for things (hardware, applications, etc.) and a more friendly native user interface (meaning not having to type a command just to boot a front end) it's not going to surpass Windows. Even if it is, or isn't, better Linux wasn't made for the general public, Windows was, stop beating a dead horse..

Eli_1 · July 30, 2004, 11:41 PM

No OS is excessivly user-friendly. My parents/grand parents still can't operate the "double-click" feature correctly.

Eli_1 · July 30, 2004, 11:43 PM

Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on July 30, 2004, 11:39 PM
... stop beating a dead horse..

This bastard just won't die!

Maddox · July 30, 2004, 11:56 PM

I think Linux functions just as well as Windows for everyday computing. I don't game much anymore, and if I need to I can just use Cedega or boot into Windows 2000 if absolutely neccessary. It supports all of my hardware and peripherals. I like the ability to choose my window manager and access my computer remotely. Plus, it's something different.

quasi-modo · July 31, 2004, 01:50 AM

Why is the fact that you can access your pc remotely a big deal? I mean windows can do it. Even if there were not an integrated way to do it, there are now light weight servers that act like big file managers and all.

Maddox · July 31, 2004, 02:26 AM

Because I can send files, install programs, update my system, reboot, etc, all without having to be there.

quasi-modo · July 31, 2004, 02:34 AM

Quote from: Maddox on July 31, 2004, 02:26 AM
Because I can send files, install programs, update my system, reboot, etc, all without having to be there.

yes but you can do that with windows too... remote desktop.

Newby · July 31, 2004, 02:36 AM

Hell, get VNC.

Maddox · July 31, 2004, 03:03 AM

Quote from: peofeoknight on July 31, 2004, 02:34 AM
Quote from: Maddox on July 31, 2004, 02:26 AM
Because I can send files, install programs, update my system, reboot, etc, all without having to be there.
yes but you can do that with windows too... remote desktop.

Can I run remote desktop on Linux, BSD, OSX, or Solaris?

iago · July 31, 2004, 03:23 AM

You can run vnc, if you don't mind very slow updates.

I do stuff remotely all the time. When I'm on my breaks at school, I'll compile/install software at home. It's really handy.

Mephisto -- most of your points are pointless, basically "windows is better so this point doesn't matter". The only thing I really want to respond to is using Linux as a router (gateway).

I used to have Windows set up with internet sharing before Tmp sent me a router. It was pretty crappy, it didn't handle usb properly (I couldn't play Starcraft) and there was no way to forward ports. On Linux, you can do neat things like forward ports, and other router functionality. Additionally, you can have filters, IDS's, and other things. If you put a Linux box between your network and the Internet, you get an extra highly-configurabe level of security. Part of my job (this fall) is to maintain the IDS system.

hismajesty · July 31, 2004, 07:57 AM

I agree with iago on that point, it's much easier to make your own custom firewall for Linux than Windows. However, the majority of the world would just rather get Norton.

Banana fanna fo fanna · July 31, 2004, 08:59 AM

linux is easy to use for the general public/

cefx- · July 31, 2004, 10:07 AM

I can speak affirmatively about this.

The group of people that would use Windows alone is decreasingly small.

I have reccomended, several times, people use Linux -- no particular distrobution or kernel, just Linux.

I've seen an increased number of people that call in with LILO or A dual boot situation.

So, Mephisto, coming from a technical support aspect, Windows popularity is dieing.
People just have way too much trouble with it.

cefx- · July 31, 2004, 10:08 AM

Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on July 31, 2004, 07:57 AM
I agree with iago on that point, it's much easier to make your own custom firewall for Linux than Windows. However, the majority of the world would just rather get Norton.

If you only knew how much shit Norton breaks.

hismajesty · July 31, 2004, 10:52 AM

Quote from: cefx- on July 31, 2004, 10:08 AM
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on July 31, 2004, 07:57 AM
I agree with iago on that point, it's much easier to make your own custom firewall for Linux than Windows. However, the majority of the world would just rather get Norton.

If you only knew how much shit Norton breaks.

Who's to say I don't. I wasn't talking about me getting Norton, I don't use a software anti-virus or firewall and I've never had a problem. Anyway, the majority of people see and know of Norton/McAfee and would get those just because of their popularity. Just like with AOL.

Microsoft becoming pro-open source?

hismajesty

Eli_1

Eli_1

hismajesty

hismajesty