Microsoft Fined £484M
Discussion
BMWBen said:
What's the difference between a "workstation OS" and a "desktop OS" then? Sounds like the same thing to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operat...
^ if that's true then linux has well and truly failed. Don't you remember how over 5-10 years ago it was marked as up and coming, a game changer, going to disrupt microsoft's dominance? Well, it's had its chance but it was too crap.
A workstation has a lot more power than a desktop PC and isn't used to run your average bunch of applications, they're used for more specific technical or scientific tasks. My point was that UNIX wasn't designed for desktop use so it hasn't "failed" in that area, so yes, they're different things.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operat...
^ if that's true then linux has well and truly failed. Don't you remember how over 5-10 years ago it was marked as up and coming, a game changer, going to disrupt microsoft's dominance? Well, it's had its chance but it was too crap.
Linux wasn't designed as the next best desktop OS, it was designed as a free UNIX variant. It wasn't and isn't "crap" either, it does its job very well both in desktop and server environments, but it's not as user-friendly as Windows and distributions like Ubuntu still require some technical knowledge. Personally I wouldn't use Linux as a desktop OS because I can't be bothered, but Debian does run on my server.
BMWBen said:
What's the difference between a "workstation OS" and a "desktop OS" then? Sounds like the same thing to me.
You had to ask, didn't you! You should have known from the semantic argument that you were dealing with someone being 'smart' enough to need another tissue. 
For a less adenoidal review of the state of desktop Linux you could try this.Anyway, all getting a long way away from the browser wars. Netscape threw it away with all the various 4.x.x being s
te. IE 4.x wasn't anything to write home about but it was pretty stable. Then Microsoft released IE5, it was "Good Enough", which for users and developers sick of "Not good enough" is a magic point: now only Opera was better, but wasn't ten times better, and the rest was history. Until, maybe now, google with Chrome. Time will tell.rxtx said:
BMWBen said:
What's the difference between a "workstation OS" and a "desktop OS" then? Sounds like the same thing to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operat...
^ if that's true then linux has well and truly failed. Don't you remember how over 5-10 years ago it was marked as up and coming, a game changer, going to disrupt microsoft's dominance? Well, it's had its chance but it was too crap.
A workstation has a lot more power than a desktop PC and isn't used to run your average bunch of applications, they're used for more specific technical or scientific tasks. My point was that UNIX wasn't designed for desktop use so it hasn't "failed" in that area, so yes, they're different things.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operat...
^ if that's true then linux has well and truly failed. Don't you remember how over 5-10 years ago it was marked as up and coming, a game changer, going to disrupt microsoft's dominance? Well, it's had its chance but it was too crap.
Linux wasn't designed as the next best desktop OS, it was designed as a free UNIX variant. It wasn't and isn't "crap" either, it does its job very well both in desktop and server environments, but it's not as user-friendly as Windows and distributions like Ubuntu still require some technical knowledge. Personally I wouldn't use Linux as a desktop OS because I can't be bothered, but Debian does run on my server.
We'll have to disagree about linux on the desktop not being crap - I think the figures speak for themselves, but if you want to narrow it down to very specific cases then yes, I suppose it does have some niches. Linux on the server has been very successful, but it was also being touted for desktop, and that's where I say it has failed.
grumbledoak said:
BMWBen said:
What's the difference between a "workstation OS" and a "desktop OS" then? Sounds like the same thing to me.
You had to ask, didn't you! You should have known from the semantic argument that you were dealing with someone being 'smart' enough to need another tissue. For a less adenoidal review of the state of desktop Linux you could try this.Anyway, all getting a long way away from the browser wars. Netscape threw it away with all the various 4.x.x being s
te. IE 4.x wasn't anything to write home about but it was pretty stable. Then Microsoft released IE5, it was "Good Enough", which for users and developers sick of "Not good enough" is a magic point: now only Opera was better, but wasn't ten times better, and the rest was history. Until, maybe now, google with Chrome. Time will tell.
grumbledoak said:
You had to ask, didn't you! You should have known from the semantic argument that you were dealing with someone being 'smart' enough to need another tissue. For a less adenoidal review of the state of desktop Linux you could try this.
For a less adenoidal review of the state of desktop Linux you could try this.
I have a lot of respect for some of the things Miguel's done and I even contributed code to a project called Dashboard he led with Nat Friedman c.2003.
However, Miguel's spent the best part of the last decade trying to get and keep a platform compatible with Microsoft's .Net working on Linux, whilst hamstrung by Novell. I'm not surprised to hear he's had enough, it was a terrible idea for anyone's sanity from the start. Hardly the average desktop user by any stretch.
And where has he jumped ship to for his desktop? Another UNIX-derivative.
BMWBen said:
Why does it require a different operating system? Some flavours of unix *were* designed for desktop use, and they have clearly failed because they don't exist any more. OS-X would be the only example of one that succeeded, but only because apple transformed it into something else, and it's still a minor bit-player in the OS game.
Which Unices were designed purely for the desktop then?BMWBen said:
We'll have to disagree about linux on the desktop not being crap - I think the figures speak for themselves, but if you want to narrow it down to very specific cases then yes, I suppose it does have some niches. Linux on the server has been very successful, but it was also being touted for desktop, and that's where I say it has failed.
Ok you're just looking at numbers and saying "it's crap", well, then we will agree to disagree. How many vendors bundle Linux by default, and how man bundle Windows? They are different, but one isn't any better than the other. One needs some knowledge and you can't play many games on it, the other is designed purely with "I don't know anything but can still use it" in mind. These are mostly just UI issues, not the OS.grumbledoak said:
0000 said:
I'm not surprised to hear he's had enough, it was a terrible idea for anyone's sanity from the start. Hardly the average desktop user by any stretch.
Yeah, I didn't envy him that job. A shame really, as .Net is a very good platform.t at updating itself though. Biggest Windows Update failure by a country mile.rxtx said:
BMWBen said:
Why does it require a different operating system? Some flavours of unix *were* designed for desktop use, and they have clearly failed because they don't exist any more. OS-X would be the only example of one that succeeded, but only because apple transformed it into something else, and it's still a minor bit-player in the OS game.
Which Unices were designed purely for the desktop then?BMWBen said:
We'll have to disagree about linux on the desktop not being crap - I think the figures speak for themselves, but if you want to narrow it down to very specific cases then yes, I suppose it does have some niches. Linux on the server has been very successful, but it was also being touted for desktop, and that's where I say it has failed.
Ok you're just looking at numbers and saying "it's crap", well, then we will agree to disagree. How many vendors bundle Linux by default, and how man bundle Windows? They are different, but one isn't any better than the other. One needs some knowledge and you can't play many games on it, the other is designed purely with "I don't know anything but can still use it" in mind. These are mostly just UI issues, not the OS.2. There's no such thing as "just UI issues" when you're talking about an OS for the desktop. One of the main purposes of it is to provide a UI. That is why linux on the desktop has failed, because it's not part of the core OS so there's fragmentation, complexity, and a generally inconsistent and crap user experience.
BMWBen said:
1. Don't go sticking "purely" in there. It wasn't there before. Solaris, Nextstep... I'd like to point out that windows isn't designed "purely" for desktops either.
2. There's no such thing as "just UI issues" when you're talking about an OS for the desktop. One of the main purposes of it is to provide a UI. That is why linux on the desktop has failed, because it's not part of the core OS so there's fragmentation, complexity, and a generally inconsistent and crap user experience.
As you so condescendingly put it in bullet points:2. There's no such thing as "just UI issues" when you're talking about an OS for the desktop. One of the main purposes of it is to provide a UI. That is why linux on the desktop has failed, because it's not part of the core OS so there's fragmentation, complexity, and a generally inconsistent and crap user experience.
1. I will stick purely in there as I see fit because that's what you were talking about - I see you came up with nothing despite mentioning it. I see grumbled didn't answer my questions either, just went in with an insult. Solaris and NextStep were workstation operating systems, NextStep was great for C++ dev. Solaris was great for massively multi-user stuff despite its Slowlaris nickname. Windows has many variants, some of which are workstations OSes, like NT was.
2. There is such a thing as UI issues. The OS has nothing to do with the UI but you seem to have trouble with that. Fragmentation, as keeps being mentioned, only exists because of the many different UIs available on Linux. Stick to one and you won't have much of a problem. Windows fixes you to one UI, some think it's good, I think that's bad, I like a choice - or to not have one at all. I agree the UI on Linux desktop is poor, that's why I said it needs someone that knows what they're doing. I also agree it is not a Windows replacement, I've said as much.
3. Linux has failed on the desktop not because it is crap as you so eloquently put it, but because it doesn't have the financial backing that MS have put into Windows. There are lots of things you can't do with Linux which you can with Windows, especially when it comes to LAN management. There are also lots of things you can do with Linux you can't do with windows. YMMV. Mine varies so much it doesn't matter what I use, I can make VMS do what I want.
4. I'm out of this thread, I've already been insulted just because I asked a question. You enjoy yourselves.
jesusbuiltmycar said:
How do Apple get away with having complete control over their machines? How have Apple escaped similar anti-trust law suites?
Because Apple have a totally different approach. Apple, designs, and builds its own operating system, which runs on the hardware that they also design and build. MS produce an operating system that is then sold to Hardware manufacturer's who install it into their own assorted Hardware.
JensenA said:
Because Apple have a totally different approach. Apple, designs, and builds its own operating system, which runs on the hardware that they also design and build.
MS produce an operating system that is then sold to Hardware manufacturer's who install it into their own assorted Hardware.
Actually it's because Apple have not yet been convicted of being a monopoly and using that monopoly to force dominance into another sphere.MS produce an operating system that is then sold to Hardware manufacturer's who install it into their own assorted Hardware.
I personally find that browser choice window that pops up after updates or on install quite annoying. Almost as annoying as the bundled crap that comes with laptops especially acer and sony fking vaios. And don't get me started on the sales guys that try to push you to buy Norton/McAfee/Kapersky/ Whatever is flavour of the month and biggest earner at PC World at the time even though your new laptop may have a trial that can be extended that will work out a lot cheaper than the one they are trying to flog.
Clean install is so much easier
Going back to the op post I don't get why a manufacturer has to be punished for including their own product but I am sure I am not as enlightened as other ph'ers.
king vaios. And don't get me started on the sales guys that try to push you to buy Norton/McAfee/Kapersky/ Whatever is flavour of the month and biggest earner at PC World at the time even though your new laptop may have a trial that can be extended that will work out a lot cheaper than the one they are trying to flog.Clean install is so much easier
Going back to the op post I don't get why a manufacturer has to be punished for including their own product but I am sure I am not as enlightened as other ph'ers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff