What Linux-Type are you?
Discussion
Microsoft knows them all.
It's not long ago that MS didn't took opensource software seriously. However, Linux is growing fast and it can't be removed from the market, and not be bought by the competition. The only market-economy alternatives left are competing with or joining opensource. Microsoft has now recognised that they need to 'win' against Linux.
At www.linuxpersonas.com/ Microsoft offers a chart for its partners in which they explain the demography of which they believe will lose business to Linux.
Have they missed you too?
It's not long ago that MS didn't took opensource software seriously. However, Linux is growing fast and it can't be removed from the market, and not be bought by the competition. The only market-economy alternatives left are competing with or joining opensource. Microsoft has now recognised that they need to 'win' against Linux.
At www.linuxpersonas.com/ Microsoft offers a chart for its partners in which they explain the demography of which they believe will lose business to Linux.
Have they missed you too?
Open source is a whole load of tosh
from a support and deployment point of view I really do not understand it. It is no more secure/stable than MS in real terms and there is a lot of issue surrounding patch levels. 2 identical systems can have wildly varying file versions and patch levels - though granted patch management has become better in recent times.
Sure MS fire out a fix and sometimes another but I've seen, in one day, around 12 updates to one issue on Linux which seriously alters ones hopes of quality assurance.
Unless of course you go for one of the commercial variants but isn't that just the same as going for MS in the first place?
The reason that MS is so wide spread isn't just because of its length in service (less actually than *nix) but that it is so very very user friendly and admin friendly too.
Linux will make some in roads to MS but there is a real reason other than the so called monopoly as to why MS is still the king.
from a support and deployment point of view I really do not understand it. It is no more secure/stable than MS in real terms and there is a lot of issue surrounding patch levels. 2 identical systems can have wildly varying file versions and patch levels - though granted patch management has become better in recent times.
Sure MS fire out a fix and sometimes another but I've seen, in one day, around 12 updates to one issue on Linux which seriously alters ones hopes of quality assurance.
Unless of course you go for one of the commercial variants but isn't that just the same as going for MS in the first place?
The reason that MS is so wide spread isn't just because of its length in service (less actually than *nix) but that it is so very very user friendly and admin friendly too.
Linux will make some in roads to MS but there is a real reason other than the so called monopoly as to why MS is still the king.
Stigmundfreud said:
Open source is a whole load of tosh
Windows is a whole load of tosh.
Stigmundfreud said:
from a support and deployment point of view I really do not understand it. It is no more secure/stable than MS in real terms and there is a lot of issue surrounding patch levels. 2 identical systems can have wildly varying file versions and patch levels - though granted patch management has become better in recent times.
Incorrect. Experience has shown *nix (yes I am bringing Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, in to the fray as well as Jr.) to be remarkably stable and highly resilient to a user tinkering, in terms of security *nix is king of the ring and features none of the security flaws that Windows seems to enjoy; for example the bloody web browser isn't part of the Operating System and doesn't double as the principal file browser.
Ending up with two systems running different patch levels while pulling from the same repository at the same time, is... quite funny. Seriously, how'd you manage that one? To be honest I've never had that issue as I don't play fire and forget Russian roulette with Windows Update.
Do you run an anti-virus program on *nix? Yes, but only to keep the Windows machines safe from infecting each other via SMB shares. In a pure *nix enviroment anti-virus/anti-malware is just simply not needed.
Stigmundfreud said:
Sure MS fire out a fix and sometimes another but I've seen, in one day, around 12 updates to one issue on Linux which seriously alters ones hopes of quality assurance.
Unless of course you go for one of the commercial variants but isn't that just the same as going for MS in the first place?
Unless of course you go for one of the commercial variants but isn't that just the same as going for MS in the first place?
I too have seen 12 updates to an issue. But it wasn't to the Linux Kernel (which by defenition IS Linux, just as the NT kernel is Windows and so on) I have seen this number of updates appearing from smaller groups which have yet to organise a release plan; you're quite unlikley to find the Samba, Apache, Kernel, PHP, and indeed any of the other commonly used programs going so fast and furious. Having said that, which would you prefer? Microsoft's approach to patching is very much 'don't ask, don't tell' so long as something doesn't prove to be a popular attack vector then it's left alone... I didn't say "is shown to not be an attack vector" just that nobody has figured out HOW. And more worryingly this is generational code we're talking about, it was in NT4, 2K, XP, 2K3 and you can bet it's in Vista... it should have been patched long ago just to be on the safe side.
Again, you're terminology is throwing me out here; what are you considering to be an update? A patch to a source file (either a CVS commit or similar) or something like "up2date" saying their are 12 new updates ready for download? If you mean 12 CVS commits then I'm just laughing at you, if you mean 12 updates then I've got to ask... were they all for the same program? Or was it twelve different programs? Keep in mind that most of the auto updaters in this like RHEL, Ubuntu and co. Will often offer up none security related updates as well, unless you tell them otherwise; think of it as Windows Update also letting you do optionals without needing the website. This is a good thing. But can confuse new Windows admins when they come face to face with it.
Stigmundfreud said:
The reason that MS is so wide spread isn't just because of its length in service (less actually than *nix) but that it is so very very user friendly and admin friendly too.
Linux will make some in roads to MS but there is a real reason other than the so called monopoly as to why MS is still the king.
Linux will make some in roads to MS but there is a real reason other than the so called monopoly as to why MS is still the king.
Linux will make some.... ohh please. You do realise that Linux is in more places than you realise right? Embedded systems are using it, even the god damn Mars rovers are running cUlinux, most of the worlds webservers are Apache based and guess what? Most of the mission critical stuff a big business does is running on *nix... because you'd be stupid to use a thousand chickens when a carthorse can do the job better. Indeed Linux needs to make inroads on the desktop and it's pretty much getting there... the problem is the OS is ready but things like OpenOffice.org aren't yet able to get in the ring against Office.
MS is so wide spread because of some rather impressive wrangling of OEM's, deals which can be summed up as "Sell our OS, only our OS and if you don't do that you'll pay retail for every copy" really do make businesses do as they're told. IBM were told to kill off OS/2 and they could sell their machines with Win95. One of the reasons Linux often has to rely on reverse engineered drivers or using something like ndiswrapper to get a lot of WiFi chips working is, again Microsoft, deals are signed and driver specs closed, the really irksome one is ACPI specs.
As to being 'user friendly' I'd argue it isn't all that much more friendly than Linux. But it is what people are used to and familiarity makes things cheaper on the training front... hence current versions of KDE look very similar to Windows; but they've replaced the idiotic 'Start' with 'K' (sorry... Start > Shutdown... on what planet is that logical?) I'll grant you it's very easy to administer, all you need is your index finger because all you'll ever be doing is rebooting the machines when they act up.
ThePassenger said:
A lot of stuff.
Blimey you'd think you invented the damned stuff. MS has done an excellent job of making software easy to use. Ok they took others ideas and integrated them but then thats business. On a daily basis I have to use Windows, Solaris, HP-UX and Linux. And Windows is by far the easiest to use.
As for Start>Shutdown. Seems like a logical place to Start the Shutdown procedure to me....
Anyway if you dont like it dont use it. I do like it because it doesn't take me 12 hours of research to work out how to get the data I want from it.
ThePassenger said:
MS is so wide spread because of some rather impressive wrangling of OEM's, deals which can be summed up as "Sell our OS, only our OS and if you don't do that you'll pay retail for every copy" really do make businesses do as they're told.
That, and the fact that they produce / produced better software than the competition. Early versions of Windows gave a much better operating environment (not an OS at that stage) than DOS + DESQview, Word for Windows was streets ahead of WordPerfect with it's blank screen and keyboard overlays, similarly Excel vs Lotus 123. If people didn't already want MS software, then the threat you describe above is worthless. ThePassenger said:
I'll grant you it's very easy to administer, all you need is your index finger because all you'll ever be doing is rebooting the machines when they act up.
Hmm - if you find it that unstable in a corporate environment then you need to be looking at the people who developed / approved the workstation build image. ThePassenger said:
Stigmundfreud said:
Open source is a whole load of tosh
Windows is a whole load of tosh.
You're clearly biased towards Unix.
Why not have a good, long think before you post such a fatuous, one-sided argument in the future?
Windows is easier to admin right up to the point where you want to do something there isn't a wizard for (chequebook time), or untill it goes pete tong and needs fixing.
I also like the transpacancy and openness of linux, it gives me a warm feeling inside! It's like working with wood or steel instead of brightly coloured plastic.
From a financial point of view, less $$$ on licences, more $$$ on hours - works for me.
I'd be a fool not to accept though that as mentioned, Windows is often very good at what it does.
I also like the transpacancy and openness of linux, it gives me a warm feeling inside! It's like working with wood or steel instead of brightly coloured plastic.
From a financial point of view, less $$$ on licences, more $$$ on hours - works for me.
I'd be a fool not to accept though that as mentioned, Windows is often very good at what it does.
Stigmundfreud said:
Course they don't mention any trifling details like what the various platforms are used for.
And anyway, the context of that statement was that HSBC currently runs a large number of different linux enviorments and hence migrating them all to one enviroment (Novells) will save money.
These kind of TCO reports allmost never make any sense anyway - the classic little bar-graph microsoft advert ones are usually where large, sprawling, hacked together over time Nix systems are replaced by a modern fresh, designed from the ground up Windows architecture - no shit it ends up easier to maintain.
Stigmundfreud said:
from a support and deployment point of view I really do not understand it.
Therein lies part of your problem.
Stigmundfreud said:
2 identical systems can have wildly varying file versions and patch levels
Any lack of ability is often blamed on the tools used. No issues in patch levels that can't be overcome by sensible management practice.
I know linux made great movements to patch management but there is still a huge question over the whole open source ethos as you have very little control over quality management. As said I once had 20 updates or so for the same issue in one day! That was on Redhat.
Take phpBB as another example of OS patching, 2 or 3 major updates to the same issue in one day, or take it to other systems too - open source has a lot to offer but at the same time has a lot of potential issues surrounding QA. Rather than rushing fixes out... of course, you can buy from the likes of Redhat or whoever and that is not really open source i it despite the claims.
Take phpBB as another example of OS patching, 2 or 3 major updates to the same issue in one day, or take it to other systems too - open source has a lot to offer but at the same time has a lot of potential issues surrounding QA. Rather than rushing fixes out... of course, you can buy from the likes of Redhat or whoever and that is not really open source i it despite the claims.
Stigmundfreud said:
TCO for my home machine:
Windows XP Home - ~£65
Linux - ~10p
There are always two sides.
Microsoft have always concentrated on producing a pretty, easy to use desktop operating system, and have moved this across to their servers. Very pretty, easy to install, lots of wizards for configuration.
The UNIX's have always been server focused and they do what they do very well. They have traditionally been hard to install and configure because of their server focus. They are starting to become more popular on the desktop (Ubuntu leading the latest surge) and this is in turn driving forwards the usability efforts.
I've installed both my parents and in-laws computers with XP as I think it's still the best desktop OS for what they want.
I use Linux as it's the best for what I want.
I see lots of work going into Linux at the moment, lots of silicon manufactures provide Linux based BSP's for their development boards. Linux may well not make it in the desktop arena, but it is going into lots of embedded devices and is far more common than many think.
Surely the proof that Linux is getting there is that Microsoft has been spouting more and more about how much better there product is, how much cheaper it actually is, how much more stable it is... To me, it sounds like they are worried, and they can't solve this one by buying someone out.
it will take more than my life time for nix to become a major dent into MS simply because MS owns the user market and until nix can be as simple and easy for home users then it wont happen I am purposefully using no grammar here to make a point that this post whilst it looks like a normal post just like nix can look like a normal desktop is in fact complicated to read and not very user friendly in the long run despite what savings you may initially make You say you use nix at home which is great as for you it probably works due to your increased IT knowledge but that is you not someone off the street plus I bet you have a beard
Stigmundfreud said:
tenner says Accenture 
IBM, speaks for itself really. But you'd be amazed at how unstable IIS is when it's having to deal with 100,000+ hits a day on a single element (we had 8, all on 4way P4 Xeon's). Conversely a single Websphere machine was happily feeding them data without incident as was the honking great dedicated DB2 system. True we did have HACMP and a spare for each... but we never failed over due to faults.
GregE240 said:
ThePassenger said:
Stigmundfreud said:
Open source is a whole load of tosh
Windows is a whole load of tosh.
You're clearly biased towards Unix.
Why not have a good, long think before you post such a fatuous, one-sided argument in the future?
No, I'm about the right tool for the right job. Tonka toy single user desktop stuff is Windows' specilty and was built from the ground up to be just that even in the days of DOS + Win3.11. The desktop is not the be all and end all of things.
It is also a one sided fatuous argument in response to a one sided fatuous argument. Bite me
jamieboy said:
ThePassenger said:
MS is so wide spread because of some rather impressive wrangling of OEM's, deals which can be summed up as "Sell our OS, only our OS and if you don't do that you'll pay retail for every copy" really do make businesses do as they're told.
That, and the fact that they produce / produced better software than the competition. Early versions of Windows gave a much better operating environment (not an OS at that stage) than DOS + DESQview, Word for Windows was streets ahead of WordPerfect with it's blank screen and keyboard overlays, similarly Excel vs Lotus 123. If people didn't already want MS software, then the threat you describe above is worthless.I would actually agree with this, however it does rather ignore the close formats employed and high degree of vendor lock-in. Comparing Word for Windows and Wordperfect for DOS isn't really fair (we could compare Wordperfect Vs OpenOffice and see the same); instead lets compare like for like, Word 2.0 for DOS and Wordperfect for DOS... both have a big blank screen and keyboard overlays... both write oddbod file formats that the other doesn't quite like or understand. They are very very similar. One was rather cheaper than the other to begin with though.
It isn't that people did or did not want the software. To look purely at Office: once .doc and the other office formats become dominant then Windows and Office was a complete no brainer. Unfortunately nothing on the market (either for £££ or OS) has 100% compatibility with these formats, they come close but not close enough. If you could serupticiously replace say Word 2003 with say JamieWrite 1.0 that looked like Word, did everything Word does in roughly the same way and more importantly could read/write .doc without any issues.... your end users wouldn't give two hoots about it.
The threats I describe above never really affected end users, at least not openly, but you've got to sell a working computer ain't ya? I mean nobody wants to but a lump of plastic and steel and THEN have to go somewhere else for things to make it turn on (would you buy a car from a dealer and then chase around for an engine?). Microsoft's deals allowed vendors to do this, the price was their utter allegiance to Microsoft... Intel had a similar thing going as well which recently got blown out the water (hence Dell now selling AMD systems) *shrug* Now it's debatable if that actually meant people were getting the best for their money but they were getting .doc and .xls (more recently .ppt has become very important) support so really, the price was worth it.
btw: Yeah, I know Windows (as in what you see) isn't an OS. It's a GUI. People have managed to get the NT kernel going without any of the fluff. I'd argue Windows 9x wasn't a true OS as it was still DOS underneath.
ThePassenger said:
I'll grant you it's very easy to administer, all you need is your index finger because all you'll ever be doing is rebooting the machines when they act up.
Hmm - if you find it that unstable in a corporate environment then you need to be looking at the people who developed / approved the workstation build image.[/quote] As I said above, Windows on desktop is very stable. One user, a few programs... nothing to stressful. But when you start actually trying to run it in anger and demand it does what it's supposed to... it falls over so fast and so hard it's funny. Actually what's funnier is sometimes it doesn't, it memory leaks itself in to oblivion with no assistance from any 3rd party code.
True I was impressed with XP's Fast User switching, both in ease of use and the amount of resources it consumed.
[quote=Stigmundfreud]it will take more than my life time for nix to become a major dent into MS simply because MS owns the user market and until nix can be as simple and easy for home users then it wont happen I am purposefully using no grammar here to make a point that this post whilst it looks like a normal post just like nix can look like a normal desktop is in fact complicated to read and not very user friendly in the long run despite what savings you may initially make You say you use nix at home which is great as for you it probably works due to your increased IT knowledge but that is you not someone off the street plus I bet you have a beard[/quote]
*nix isn't trying to muscle in on Window's territory... quite the opposite. But to be serious on the issue of the Desktop for a moment. Will any flavour of Linux utterly displace the Redmond borg? No. But, it will slowly start to scrape away some of the market share (I belive it hovers at the 1% mark currently). Probably in the field of specialised machines for specialised apps. I would, in all honesty say the final result will by 90/5/5 split between Windows/Mac/Linux in the x86 desktop arena. Which seems to do Apple rather nicely.
The interesting thing is that whilst Microsoft's OS led their charge to dominance (with the apps in hot pursuit) it is the OS apps leading the charge (Firefox, Thunderbird, Apache, PHP, MySQL, etc) with the rest of the OS following behind. It would be interesting to see how well Evolution would do if released for Windows... it does by all accounts work quite well with Exchange.
Edited by ThePassenger on Wednesday 21st March 15:08
Stigmundfreud said:
it will take more than my life time for nix to become a major dent into MS simply because MS owns the user market and until nix can be as simple and easy for home users then it wont happen I am purposefully using no grammar here to make a point that this post whilst it looks like a normal post just like nix can look like a normal desktop is in fact complicated to read and not very user friendly in the long run despite what savings you may initially make You say you use nix at home which is great as for you it probably works due to your increased IT knowledge but that is you not someone off the street plus I bet you have a beard
Just to check... was this aimed at me?
ThePassenger said:
Comparing Word for Windows and Wordperfect for DOS isn't really fair
It's perfectly fair - each of them represented that software house's best attempt at a word processor at that point in time. I'd also say that Word for Windows was far better than WordPerfect for Windows, Access far better than DataEase for Windows, etc. ThePassenger said:
It isn't that people did or did not want the software. To look purely at Office: once .doc and the other office formats become dominant then Windows and Office was a complete no brainer.
The formats became dominant because people wanted the software, not vice versa. ThePassenger said:
As I said above, Windows on desktop is very stable. One user, a few programs... nothing to stressful. But when you start actually trying to run it in anger and demand it does what it's supposed to... it falls over so fast and so hard it's funny.
Not my experience in most of the places I've worked at, but I accept that a build image that hadn't been tested sufficiently could fail, and I guess that goes for Windows or Linux. Edited by jamieboy on Wednesday 21st March 15:06
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff