[neoterran]

If you guys think security was beefed up in SP2, wait until you see vista.

It's WAY, WAY more secure by default. You aren't an admin by default anymore and you have to okay most tasks
that require admin privs, so you can see if something is trying to get in your system. The networking stack was rewritten. audio subsystem was rewritten. the display subsystem is now hardware accelerated and rewritten. The way drivers work is rewritten. Graphcis drivers no longer work in Kernel space for example.

It's really a much much better operating system, once the bugs have been worked out, I'm excited to use it. Of course, i'll be disabling half the services than run by default, but hey, at least I can do it.

[Martinus]

If you guys think security was beefed up in SP2, wait until you see vista.

It's WAY, WAY more secure by default. You aren't an admin by default anymore and you have to okay most tasks
that require admin privs, so you can see if something is trying to get in your system. The networking stack was rewritten. audio subsystem was rewritten. the display subsystem is now hardware accelerated and rewritten. The way drivers work is rewritten. Graphcis drivers no longer work in Kernel space for example.

It's really a much much better operating system, once the bugs have been worked out, I'm excited to use it. Of course, i'll be disabling half the services than run by default, but hey, at least I can do it.

Sounds like linux...


BTW Nix, you're not really doing anything for your case by ignoring everyone else's points. So you had a bad experience with a linux webserver and you're pretty much writing the whole OS off (check the number of private webservers that run on linux/apache sometime). Every single install of Apache I've done (including on an xbox) has gone flawlessley, it really is quick and easy to get it running and I can point you in the direction of a lot of people who can also say the same.

What does the difficulty of running Netware have to do with anything? Everybody knows to avoid it.

The reason I don't like Microsoft is that they don't play fair, they ignore the greater good to make a buck. I can't speak for those who don't like it based on bad experiences or the rabid fanbois who just love to hate Microsoft for the sake of it. Microsoft is the bully who doesn't want to share the toys with the other kids, if it simply stopped pushing its propietary formats (something it's currently paying for as more than a few governments are getting tired of having their old file formats become potentially unusable because Microsoft says so) and started pimping its product based on its merits (of which there are a good number) it would lose many of its critics. But that's not going to happen because that would mean they'd actually have to compete.

[Kamikaze]

Not all Linuxes are equal. A single anecdote that doesn't mention the distro is misleading and uninformative.

In any case, can we keep this thread away from a Linux vs. Windows debate? That belongs in a separate thread. This thread is about Microsoft's unscrupulous business practices, not the quality of its software.

[Scuddie]

Microsoft business practices are indeed shady, but they work...  which is much more than I can say about most of the linux community.  The commercial UNIX and UNIX clones are just as greedy, and just as shady as Microsoft, although in a different way.  You will find this with any business, even the mom and pops.  The reason Microsoft was hit so hard was because of its rapid growth in the consumer field.  They played dirty tricks just like SCO, HP, IBM, etc, but they got all the media attention.  But I would rather Microsoft be in consumer control today than Linux or Apple.  If linux was the dominant market, we would barely be driving 300MHz CPUs, and software would take four hours to configure just to install.  If Apple was in charge, we would be charged $6000 for a moderately performing PC, because we'd be paying so much for shine and smugness.

Yeah, we all have our preferences, but the reason Microsoft is still afloat is because their products work for the most people.  A good balance between productivity and ease of use.  Face it folks, Microsoft got it right.  As much as you would zealously defend your alternate OS's (which may work for you), you have to acknowledge that MS got to the top not only by shooting opponents out of the sky, but by making sure to never allow them to overcome by making sure their software was much better than the alternatives that did pose a threat. That works for me, and in the end, it's all about me.

[Mars]

Windows started out being successful that way, and got lots of money and power so that they can keep their monopoly  now.

[knn]

Microsoft business practices are indeed shady, but they work...  which is much more than I can say about most of the linux community.  The commercial UNIX and UNIX clones are just as greedy, and just as shady as Microsoft, although in a different way.  You will find this with any business, even the mom and pops.  The reason Microsoft was hit so hard was because of its rapid growth in the consumer field.  They played dirty tricks just like SCO, HP, IBM, etc, but they got all the media attention.  But I would rather Microsoft be in consumer control today than Linux or Apple.  If linux was the dominant market, we would barely be driving 300MHz CPUs

Why would we be driving 300Mhz CPUs?

and software would take four hours to configure just to install.

Compiling a program is naturally longer than simply installing it. But that's just in the case of open source programs. Closed source programs like realplayer have a binary installer and install just as fast as on windows. Unfortunately sometimes they are not completely compatible with your distro, for example I had some problems with Skype (it took 30 seconds to start) but I managed to find a better version for a different distro. Linux is not a unified platform like Windows, which has it's disadvantages and advantages as well.

If Apple was in charge, we would be charged $6000 for a moderately performing PC, because we'd be paying so much for shine and smugness.

Yeah, we all have our preferences, but the reason Microsoft is still afloat is because their products work for the most people.  A good balance between productivity and ease of use.  Face it folks, Microsoft got it right.

My problem with Microsoft is not that their software is bad and their programmers cannot write decent apps. It's their mentality. Windows always knows what's best for me, so it refused to install while Linux was on the first partition on my hard drive, because otherwise the Windows bootloader could not load Windows. The fact that I already had a boot loader that could load Windows was irrelevant, because the setup CD automatically replaced my boot loader WITHOUT ASKING ME upon loading. The command to do this manually from the recovery console is fixmbr. The documentation for this command recommends that you only run it if you are desperate, because it could destroy your partition table.
Windows will also warn me whenever one of my partitions is nearly full. It doesn't matter that I only use that partition for storing rarely used backup data, and the amount of free space is irrelevant. Windows will pop up a bubble telling me that I should run some otherwise useful program designed to get rid of unneeded files such as temporary files and internet cache. Of course there was nothing there for windows to free up. But that didn't matter. The only way to get rid of that warning was to edit the registry. Now that is something I do not call user friendly. IIRC there was an option to disable this in W98.
And besides, modern Linux distros are just as user-friendly as Windows. The problem is that people are used to windows. If the close button is not in the top right corner, they'll run away screaming.

As much as you would zealously defend your alternate OS's (which may work for you), you have to acknowledge that MS got to the top not only by shooting opponents out of the sky, but by making sure to never allow them to overcome by making sure their software was much better than the alternatives that did pose a threat. That works for me, and in the end, it's all about me.

Unfortunately their software is not better, but I have to use it. That does not work for me. And it's about me too.

[aceofspades]

Even saying that M$ is "rightfully" a monopoly or whatever isn't really valid, by definition. People wouldn't have as much trouble understanding how to do their stuff on other platforms if M$ wasn't THE OS. What decides as far as OS dominance goes is what works and what doesn't, and that's exactly what Operating System means: it lets other thing operate. Microsoft coercing everyone to make sure their stuff works on M$, and usually not well on anything else, is one of things people mean when they say "I dislike M$'s market ethics", which is anotherway of saying "M$ is the devil and I'm sure not gonna give my soul/PC to them unless they pry it out of my cold, dead, ribcage/keyboard".

OMG Nuke is running an illegal copy of Windows! Everyone jump on him and stab him repeatedly with M$-produced knives that cannot be used/updated by anyone not running Windows! Resistance is futile. You WILL download DirectX.

[Kamikaze]

Microsoft business practices are indeed shady, but they work...  which is much more than I can say about most of the linux community.  The commercial UNIX and UNIX clones are just as greedy, and just as shady as Microsoft, although in a different way.

Give us some evidence of this shady Linux business you refer to. Don't give SCO as evidence either, they are not a part of the "community" that you are referring to. SCO is a litigious company funded by Microsoft that doesn't actually produce any software. They spend more money on lawyers than programmers.

It seems to me that Linux business is doing fine. Red hat's profit has been going up for the past few years. Red hat's also been expanding their business to cover more needs. For example, they recently bought out JBoss so they can offer better enterprise software services.

but by making sure to never allow them to overcome by making sure their software was much better than the alternatives that did pose a threat.

Eh? Microsoft has never innovated software. All of their software is a clone of something else or they bought it (e.g. IE, DOS, Word). When Windows was still young there were technically superior alternative Operating Systems like OS/2 around. These were phased out not by Microsoft's technical superiority, but because Windows was bundled with most PCs.

By the way, you should stop the ad-hominem attacks. Calling me or others zealots doesn't justify your argument. So far you haven't given much evidence to any of your wild claims; some of them are blatantly and demonstrably false (e.g. that Linux programs require compilation during install). I think that most of the people arguing against Microsoft have been fairly rational and presented evidence for their claims. You should try the same.

[WMCoolmon]

If Linux was a viable alternative, I would use it.

However, it's not. I ended up needing 3-4 media players just to play music that I regularly listen to. Sadly, musepack, which is an open-source format, had such poor support under Linux that I repeatedly spent hours trying to configure it.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh. But you know what? I would rather use a copy of Windows that I already have, as opposed to dicking around in Linux for days just so that I can do half the things I could do under Windows. Having 2-3 different sound systems and an emulation layer for a fourth is not efficient programming.

THe idea of having a system custom-tailored for me is attractive, but so far the execution of that ideal has been lacking.

The worst thing is that I hear people talk about Linux being just as easy to use as Windows. It's not. Ease of use stops about the time that you realize that there are a dozen different distros, all of them with limited binary repositories, so that software must be compiled from source sooner or later...and God help you if you're using a different GCC or automake version, or are missing some obscure dependency.

I prefer to use my computer...not troubleshoot it.

[karajorma]

Eh? Microsoft has never innovated software. All of their software is a clone of something else or they bought it (e.g. IE, DOS, Word).

Let's cut to the chase and point out that MS didn't write MS-DOS either.

[Mefustae]

Let's cut to the chase and point out that MS didn't write MS-DOS either.

That is correct. I believe that - if you check the history books - what we know today as 'MS-DOS' was it was in fact invented by Sir William McKenzie Dos back in 1773 while he was trying to create a cheap alternative to holy-water, and he wound up with a system used in millions of personal computers around the world. Indeed, his legend lives on.

[Descenterace]

MS-DOS was made from QDOS, which was a hacked-up port of CP/M.

IBM needed an OS for their new PCs, and they needed it fast. Very fast. They wanted CP/M and they approached Digital Research in the hopes of acquiring a licence, but Gary Kildall was out for the day and everyone was reluctant to sign the nondisclosure agreement.

IBM went to Microsoft next, who they assumed had a licence to sell CP/M. MS didn't, but they didn't reveal that. Nor did they have an OS ready for IBM's 16-bit microprocessors, but they did stumble across Tim Paterson at the Seattle Computer Company, who had written something called QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System), which was basically a clone of CP/M. Microsoft bought it for $50000.
If they hadn't found QDOS, there was no way they could've produced an OS in time. And if Gary had been in the office that day, we'd've been running CP/M on early IBM PCs.

Not that there'd be much difference in terms of the software. DOS got drive letters, backslash path separators and other nasty warts from CP/M.

[karajorma]

Yep. It kind of shows the point that MS doesn't innovate though. Even the thing that really got them started wasn't

a) Programmed by them

or

b) Innovative in any way.

[aceofspades]

Do you realize that everything you said about Linux (possibly rightfully) applies to FS and especially FSO? For the average user, doing anything beyond playing the main campaign or so will involve a troubleshooting phase and an execution phase.
Yet HLP and SCP both still exist...with about 5000 members.

[Kamikaze]

The worst thing is that I hear people talk about Linux being just as easy to use as Windows. It's not. Ease of use stops about the time that you realize that there are a dozen different distros, all of them with limited binary repositories, so that software must be compiled from source sooner or later...and God help you if you're using a different GCC or automake version, or are missing some obscure dependency.

Well, YMMV. Just for the record, I run Debian and can play any music I have with beep media player without doing any extra compilation. That includes APE and MPC.

It's not like Windows media player can play MPC and APE out of the box. The only reason I can easily play music on Windows is because I download foobar2000... which is third party software that you have to download separately. Not much different than beep-media-player on Debian (BMP is in the Debian repository, but I use Rareware's third-party repository for extra plugins).

[NGTM-1R]

Do you realize that everything you said about Linux (possibly rightfully) applies to FS and especially FSO? For the average user, doing anything beyond playing the main campaign or so will involve a troubleshooting phase and an execution phase.
Yet HLP and SCP both still exist...with about 5000 members.

On the rather important contrary, the vast majority of campaigns I put in are very simple "drop folder in, activate -mod via launcher, play without problems". The install is vaguely, very vaguely more complicated then a true game, but much less complex then many mods, and extremely less complex then Linux.

[Martinus]

You do realise that most desktop linux installs have a simple command line tool or gui that gets stuff? Compilation is generally reserved for non-mainstream programs; pre-compiled binaries for firefox, openoffice, KDE, Gnome... are all available. In most cases you look down a list, tick a box, press a button and it connects to a repository where the program is automatically downloaded, installed and configured along with all necessary dependant programs.

Consider the way you'd grab these programs in windows:
Go on internet and google for the website you think the program is on if you don't already know the URL.
Search for a version of the program that runs with the version of windows you're running and the service packs you've installed.
Check to see what other things need installed alongside (java, flash etc.), google them if necessary, download, install and configure them.
Install your program hoping you haven't missed anything.

Now obviously compilation in linux is different but most modern distros take 99% of the work out of that too by pre-fetching everything you need and automatically setting up the build environment but I hope that my first point illustrates that for the most part installing stuff in linux is rather straightforward.

[Scuddie]

What you folks fail is to uderstand sarcasm, sir.  My post was exagerated, and some stuff was outright pulled out of my ass.  Just like most other posts in this thread.  I thought I might bring this to the table by displaying how you zealots (again, exageration) look to experienced veterans in the windows markets.  But since you might actually believe this rubbish about what you say, it's all on my end and I'm off my rocker.

Consider the way you'd grab these programs in windows:
Go on internet and google for the website you think the program is on if you don't already know the URL.
Search for a version of the program that runs with the version of windows you're running and the service packs you've installed.
Check to see what other things need installed alongside (java, flash etc.), google them if necessary, download, install and configure them.
Install your program hoping you haven't missed anything.

Now obviously compilation in linux is different but most modern distros take 99% of the work out of that too by pre-fetching everything you need and automatically setting up the build environment but I hope that my first point illustrates that for the most part installing stuff in linux is rather straightforward.

AAAAHAHahaha !  Wow...  Just wow.  Even with frikkin Ubuntu I have never had a straightforward method nearly as easy as you portrayed.  Information gathering was NEVER omitted, compilation was more often than not required for the non-absolute mainstream programs.  Third party binaries didnt work out of the box 1/3 of the time.  I also had to keep switching between gcc 2.95 and gcc 3.3.  I Windows I NEVER had to check for programs to run along side, as they were all mentioned before hand.  And I hoped I wasnt missing anything because if I did, I would have a corrupt hard drive.  Your post rates just above the PowerMac G5 tower advertizements (Compare the cluttery wires of a PC with extra cables, against an empty G5 case) in the bull**** meter.  Congratulations .

[Martinus]

Heh, you batter all linux distros based on your bad experiences with one?

I've used Debian, Gentoo, Fedora core 2, xebian, knoppix, FreeBSD and slackware. I've run into the odd problem to be sure but lets be realistic here; most people don't really care about anything other than:

Web browsing - Firefox comes as binaries, RPM's and can of course be compiled. I've ran binaries flawlessley under all the above distros. Compiled cleanly in BSD, Gentoo, FC2 and Debian (haven't bothered with the rest). KDE comes with Konqueror which works straight out of the box.

Office tools - Abiword and Openoffice both are available as binaries and I've also ran both without issues and compiled (openoffice is almost as bad as KDE for the compile duration).

IM - Kopete is built into KDE, GAIM has always compiled cleanly for me when I couldn't find a binary in a distro's repository.

Media - Mplayer, xmms and a myriad of other players are available as binaries given their popularity. The only issues I had with mplayer was a lack of codecs which were quickly sourced after a number of distro install guides pointed out the fact that they weren't available under the GPL and had to be downloaded seperately from the player.

CD/DVD burning, games, GIMP and many other programs do require compilation every time (AFAIK) but the likes of portage, ports and apt make that very straightforward.

Hell KDE if fully installed has so much built into it you'd be hard pressed to find something you need to install. (ignoring preference of another program a person is aware of).

Most desktop distros come with a CD (or DVD as the trend goes) full of pre-complies for a range of standard architectures.


I'm not sure why you've decided to take my experience as some kind of personal insult to anyone who's ever run into a problem, you simply can't say I'm lying or attempting to misguide anyone because my setup didn't go the same way as yours.

[NGTM-1R]

Heh, you batter all linux distros based on your bad experiences with one?

I suggest you read that again, more carefully. "Even with" is a plural, not a singular.