[taustin1382]

Quote: You have missed the whole point. The average consumer does not want to go to school to have to learn how to install a program.


step 1 Downloadfile

step2 double click





lots of education needed there chief ....



look point blank.... windows does not have to fail for linux to do well, also I could care less what you use. fact is windows is dominant because of huge corporate backing and the public having it crammed down their throats. you are right linux is completely differant than windows and thats what makes it great.... its not any less of an operating system than windows or mac. its just a different os than windows and slightly different that mac.... understand that mac is unix just like linux (unix based) point is somepeople prefer stick shifts just like some people prefer linux. as for options I will have to strongly disagree, linux is head and shoulders above windows on the options front. for get compatibility crap and look at the core OS.... better security (no viruses, user accounts sandboxed, no spyware etc), better performance (lighter OS with all the right features) on the same hardware, better interface. ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-xnRLMgQsA )



I could care less how microsoft does, however its not fair that everyone pays for a license when they are not going to use it. fact is dell charges 300 bucks if you want xp on your pc instead of vista (original cost of vista + xp) is that fair? of course not, but what are you going to do?



if you want to stop dealing with the bullshit you find a solution, be it antiviruses, firewalls, or another os that does not have these issues.... for my money linux is the solution for you its not.... no big deal. in my opinion ubuntu 8.10 is every bit as easy as xp/vista. if you have not personally tried it I suggest you give it a shot before you knock it...



remember out of the box XP needs lots of drivers for each piece of hardware to be installed one at a time manually, and took well over an hour to install. linux is head and shoulders above that. and it is all user supported/developed. considering that it is at that point after 21 years from the day 1 person compiled a very simple kernel with nothing but people who want to contribute working on it is pretty impressive. again I could care less if you use it or if it dethrones MS, It woks for me and millions of others.

also remeber some of your favorite programs originated here. firefox and apache (80% of the web servers out there) comes to mind.



again everyone has an opinion and they are all different.

[CharlesB]

rgreen4 said:

You have missed the whole point. The average consumer does not want to go to school to have to learn how to install a program. It's not that they are afraid of it, it's the fact that in todays world it should be totally unnecessary. It is in Windows and OS/X for the average user, and to have to use it in Linux is like telling them that their next car will come with a manual transmission, crank up windows and manual door locks. Nothing wrong with them, it just that the consumer don't want them.

You don't succeed in business by selling people what you think they need or should use, but by selling them what they want. People want to turn on the ignition, put the selector in drive, push on the gas and go. At 15 miles an hour or when the lever hits the D, they expect to hear the clunk of the electric door locks, and the whirl of the electric windows when the go through the drive through. Anything else they reject.

That's the problem with people today, just so damn lazy! I actually don't like to have the doors lock when I'm driving down the road. I would rather have non-power windows (so I don't have to pay an arm and a leg to fix them when they break. A manual transmission is better on gas, and much more exciting, plus it too is easier and cheaper to repair than the big old automatic. I also like my Christmas tree non-prelit -- how you like me now! My point that you are missing is this: You don't need all that BLOAT! Your attitude is just pile it on... doesn't matter if it complicates your life, and actually makes things harder to use, just pile on the features anyway.

Quote

When you try a strange and different operating system, and are forced to use a strange command line, with different syntax, it's just easy to go back to the familiar and let the tech-head's play with their toy.

You must me referring to me: the tech head who likes to play with his toy. I CAN enjoy my personal computer again. It is not so much a laborious task anymore of endless maintenance. Now I enjoy to use it. Jealous?

>I am sure you disagree with that, but it's why Windows has a 90+ percentage acceptance and Linux less than 2%. Linux was supposed to be the OS that would unseat Windows dominance, but in the 25 years that it has been out, it has not come close to accomplishing that.

Quote

Someone needs to take a hard look at why Linux as a free OS is not the choice of the masses. And it's not the glitzy Windows ads on TV either, for word of mouth is a far better advertising medium. People like to portray Vista as a failure after two years with approximately a 25% market share, how then can one classify Linux after 25 years with a 2% share?

You have proved my point exactly: people are just flat out lazy (especially in the USA). And this laziness actually means that the human race is letting themselves lose intelligence. You make things easier and easier on yourselves to the point that you don't have to think about things that you used to. In effect you lose knowledge over time. Adding features so you don't have to think for yourselves anymore -- pitiful.

[taustin1382]

Its not even about laziness, fact is you are throwing performance out the window for more bloat. linux running compiz uses very little resources and gives you insane amounts of animation and usefulness (multiple desktops for instance) and it runs just fine on hardware that XP would not even install on.



long story short, it is completely different than windows and thats a good thing....

[CharlesB]

taustin1382 said:

Its not even about laziness, fact is you are throwing performance out the window for more bloat. linux running compiz uses very little resources and gives you insane amounts of animation and usefulness (multiple desktops for instance) and it runs just fine on hardware that XP would not even install on.

Actually that's what bloat is: when you make the GUI so simple -- it's point and click on anything and everything -- it just adds bloat. Take away the thought processes so the user becomes a mindless void, then they become dependent on that operating system that made things so easy on them. They refuse to use their synapses that God gave them to use, to learn how to use anything that's better and just happens to be free. That is laziness.

Want to talk simple and easy, even for lazy people? How's this: in a terminal just type the name of the program you want to run, and it runs -- even graphical programs like Firefox. What?! You have lost the ability to type and/or spell now? How is that my problem? What kind of people have high school diplomas and cannot even type and/or spell?

Quote

long story short, it is completely different than windows and thats a good thing....

Good thing? It is flat out FABULOUS! Free at last! Free at last! ...Thank God Almighty, I am free at last!

[taustin1382]

one could argue that linux is just as point and click as windows and far more flashy and gui based at this point.....


I agree with you though that there is nothing wrong with terminal people just dont like to use it.... and I can understand that from a user perspective. linuxes gui's are very well made :D and are just aseasy as windows.

[RedRat]

In this discussion I must agree with rgreen4 and taustin1382. If I am running a project or company, I want my employees to do the jobs they were hired for. Be they researchers, secretaries, salesperson, or any other position. I do not want them spending my budget on farting around with computers, building them or otherwise. Computers are merely there to assist them in doing their jobs. When they sit down to write a report, place an order, or compose a letter I want them to be able to do that as quickly as possible. I do not want them exploring all the intricacies of a word processor or spreadsheet program, I want them to be able to complete the jobs that I hired them for.
I certainly do not want them building computers or having to delve into the mysteries of an operating system, be that Windows or Linux. What works for the hobbyist does not work in the workplace. I consider the members of my team to be professional researchers, salespersons, secretaries, etc. I didn't hire them to build computers and explore all the ins-and-outs of program installation. That is what the IT department is for. However, I don't want IT people building computers either. These guys are there to handle my network and setup machines that are bought from reputable manufactures.
While CharlesB likes manual windows and perhaps even a stick shift in his car, that is his decision. He complains about the laziness of people wanting simpler things, automatics, etc. Yes, in business the whole idea is productivity. I want my people up and running, not going through a bunch of useless motions that can be accomplished with the push of a single button. While I can toast my bread over an open fire, I much prefer the toaster.

[taustin1382]

I can give you an excellent example of linux usefulness.....



we just finished a project where the client wanted to use windows as an internet kiosk..... after 4 days of stripping and deleting and locking down gpedit and other such things we could not get it completely locked in. you could still use certian shortcuts and links to get to the OS.

we finally said we were as good as its going to get or we can try 1 with linux and see how it goes....

we installed Kubuntu went in to kiosk manager, selected internet kiosk in guest mode and rebooted....

the xp boxes were so locked down you could not even really administer them any more because of the settings we had to use in gpedit where as the linux boxes were ready to do this out of the box. if you need more than the kiosk you press a key combo and enter the password. very slick and easy. you can also install a local proxy server to make a white list or black list.

aftet letting the client play with both the answer was clear.



I will also note that any sort of server is much easier to administer if its linux. we have one at work going on 2 years of uptime.our windows servers get rebooted monthly for updates at least if not issues.... go look up the stats on apache/linux servers hosting internet sites.... Its way in the majority last I checked.

[BAMT]

taustin1382 said:

Quote: You have missed the whole point. The average consumer does not want to go to school to have to learn how to install a program.

step 1 Downloadfile

step2 double click

Have you ever downloaded a program for an OpenSuSE PC? If the installater is a .ymp (One-Click-Install), the installer opens up right when you click the link to the file, regardless of browser (as far as I've tested). If it's an RPM package, install it like you would on Windows. 1. Download 2. single click on it (3. you may need to click 'install with YaST'). All dependencies are automatically resolved and the required packages are downloaded. Piece of cake.

"Well, you have to enter your root password" isn't much of an argument because a Windows "guest" can't install software without right clicking, selecting "Run as..." (or "Run as Administrator" for Vista) and entering an admin's credentials. If you like being the admin all the time, just uncover root at the GDM login screen and use that account instead of making a limited one.

[dragon69]

hate to tell you this redrat but at least 40 % of your it staff already building computer just on the side but your company is not taking advantage of this fact

and no matter what you tell them they will continue to do so

gl and tc

chuck the frozen canuck

[RedRat]

dragon69

What my staff would do on their own time is their business, but when they are at work i want them working at the business at hand. Fine that they have a hobby, more power to them, but not on my nickel! If they have that much time to fart around building a computer on my nickel, then I have too much staff--they would appear to have too much time on their hands and I am not running a very efficient business.

Look, you need to get into the business mind-set. Yes I know it is fun to build a computer, I have done so, but at home. It does give a sense of accomplishment, but I recognize that it was for hobby purposes. If you are going to survive in this current economically depressed world, productivity is everything because that company next door is going to cut costs and out compete you to get product to the market and you will not last long.

Computers are important tools, not in themselves, but for what they can produce. Should a mechanic smelt his own steel from ore and then forge his own tools. Well in theory he might understand how that monkey wrench works a tad better, but from my standpoint, I would rather we just bought the thing at the local hardware store.

[dragon69]

what is the real cost of using windows ?

you bulk at your it staff taking 2 hours to build a computer or two hours on linux training yet your company has them running weekly scans (virus and mal ware ) but they must do that for free on their time just to keep you happy (i guess). so with windows os you factor in the price of the os plus any security products and the time it takes to run all the updates and scans and yet they will not spend 60 (i think you stated an average of 30 or more dollars per hour) on training or 60 bucks to building a computer ( unless you run into trouble it should not take a pro more then two hours but that will depend on which cloning tool you use as some are harder to use then others) and yes in a corperate world most scans can be started from 1 computer but it still requires that someone is looking after it . so before you start bi t c hing at me about getting into a business mind-set find me a business that is thinking right

ask your it staff to write a proposal or keep track of the time they spend on each of your 100 computers and then tell us how much money you save by using micro$oft products and not building your own computers

this is just my opininon as an average computer user not a it pro but if your company was in a business mind set they would be looking into these items but if your business might be to busy updating windoze or running scans to check out my point of view (but my point of view times 100 could save your company quite a few $

[dragon69]

and please don't look down on me because i have limited knowledge as at least i am trying to learn and i am not the average lazy windoze user stated above by other comments ( yes most times i do take the easy way but i am willing to try stuff out and i do not give up at the first sign of trouble)

and sorry but as an average pc use i don't usually think in a business mind set

good luck and take care

chuck

[RedRat]

dragon69
I don't know where you get the idea that I am somehow pushing Windows. Are you coming at this with a chip on your shoulder? I don't understand. In point of fact, if you look at my posts both here in the PCWorld forum and also in the Ubuntu forums you will see that I am a confirmed Ubuntu user. You completely miss my point in your response here. I am not advocating for or against Windows, I merely want a tool on my people's desk that allows them to be productive and efficient.
Do you think that the only way to get Ubuntu on a PC is to build one from scratch? Hardly, you can buy a PC from Dell with Ubuntu pre-loaded. In point of fact, I am typing this response on such a machine (A Dell 530n). Again, why build a machine when I can buy one that just works out of the box?
Your point about running antivirus scans while at work is a straw man. Antivirus scans can be scheduled to run in off periods, e.g., middle of the night, so there is no loss of productivity of people sitting around twiddling their thumbs. You can also run the scanner in the background if you so desire.
As to training costs, they should be about the same for both Windows and Ubuntu since both systems are so similar. I will not get into an argument over whether Microsoft or Linux is better (personally I think Linux has far more security going for it), that is an argument that can go on forever and is similar to debating how many angels can dance on the head of pin. From a pure business point of view, each company must look at their own information technology requirements and go with what is best for them. Frankly, for most small businesses Linux would be the best choice because of cost. But again, that is up to the business to see what fits their specific business plans.
I think you take an unfair swipe at American businesses and their "thinking right" comment. Just because some very large corporations are having difficulties today is not a selling point for Linux. Frankly, Linux is not going to help AIG, GM, or Chrysler, their problems are not resolvable with changing an operating system.

[BAMT]

While it is true that each business is able to decide for themselves, I would just like to point something out: If you must spend $130 on each computer for a Windows XP Professional license, and you have 100 machines, that would be $13,000 to Microsoft. Imagine what else you could have spent that money on; more ink cartridges, more computers, salaries...
Also, building custom systems generally saves money, as an OEM did not have to have it assembled or shipped (Also, you don't need to pay for the included Windows).
If a company already had a large network with Windows Server systems, Novell's SuSE Linux has many features to make the transition easy (OpenSuSE can even log in to Windows domains).

[RedRat]

BAMT

Well actually for a business, the cost of the XP license is a bit higher than that cost unless you are buying in fairly high volume. Usually, MS like to bundle technical help with that particular license which raises the per seat charge considerably above that $130.
As I pointed out, you can get from Dell, and I think other companies too, pre-loaded Linux distros, on ready made machines. I would argue with you on building saving on shipping charges. When I built my machine, buying the case, and other parts from Egghead, there was shipping charges attached to each item. Now admittedly the machine I built was pretty high end (this was about 4years ago) and it cost me close to $1800, but I got a machine that was more a gamers machine. I have never really used it to its full potential, but it was done more as an intellectual challenge than anything else.
My Dell, with all charges and included upgrades came with Ubuntu 7.10 installed and cost about $700. I have since upgraded to Ubuntu 8.04 and other than some initial screw ups on my part, has run fine ever since. I would say that for most small businesses, the machine would be fine, it does all that a Windows machine would do. In larger Corporate America, many companies might have proprietary software written for the Windows platform, and unless those programs can run under Wine, they might have difficulties. I would think that many companies use proprietary spreadsheets (Excel) and database programs. These would have to be adapted to Linux, not impossible, but this would be costly since it would require bringing in a programing consultant--they don't work cheap.
What I am getting at here, perhaps in a round about fashion, is that the total cost of operation is not just the original purchase price of computer and OS, but many other factors have to be accounted for. These are not simple questions for most businesses.

[CharlesB]

RedRat said:

BAMT

Well actually for a business, the cost of the XP license is a bit higher than that cost unless you are buying in fairly high volume. Usually, MS like to bundle technical help with that particular license which raises the per seat charge considerably above that $130.

As I pointed out, you can get from Dell, and I think other companies too, pre-loaded Linux distros, on ready made machines. I would argue with you on building saving on shipping charges. When I built my machine, buying the case, and other parts from Egghead, there was shipping charges attached to each item. Now admittedly the machine I built was pretty high end (this was about 4years ago) and it cost me close to $1800, but I got a machine that was more a gamers machine. I have never really used it to its full potential, but it was done more as an intellectual challenge than anything else.

My Dell, with all charges and included upgrades came with Ubuntu 7.10 installed and cost about $700. I have since upgraded to Ubuntu 8.04 and other than some initial screw ups on my part, has run fine ever since. I would say that for most small businesses, the machine would be fine, it does all that a Windows machine would do. In larger Corporate America, many companies might have proprietary software written for the Windows platform, and unless those programs can run under Wine, they might have difficulties. I would think that many companies use proprietary spreadsheets (Excel) and database programs. These would have to be adapted to Linux, not impossible, but this would be costly since it would require bringing in a programing consultant--they don't work cheap.

What I am getting at here, perhaps in a round about fashion, is that the total cost of operation is not just the original purchase price of computer and OS, but many other factors have to be accounted for. These are not simple questions for most businesses.

As much as I hate to admit it, I can see your point of view is sound and correct. My only problem with it is how in the world are we going to get the rest of the world to welcome Linux into their homes, if businesses do not? When businesses welcome Linux, then schools welcome Linux (so they can teach it to budding young minds). Then when schools welcome Linux and start teaching it, Mom and Dad start desiring it in their homes for their children's benefit. Of course the businesses requiring it for Mom and Dad in the workforce, also brings Linux into the homes faster, too. Understand me, I am not saying that businesses or schools just swing that way just because. What I am saying is this stigmata that Linux has needs to get gone. People's perceptions need to change. I think that corporate America needs to not choose one or the other, but get both. Run them both side by side. That's the only real way to truly test whether or not which OS is right for your business. Experiment, get creative. Don't just say, "it doesn't look like Windows, it doesn't work like Windows, so it will not work for us."

Here is a bright idea:

Isn't thin client/server type system a better way to go? Linux does this really well. You could have the server use Qemu and run Windows off that (only buy Windows once). Wouldn't that save a ton of money? That way you wouldn't need to invest in so much money for each workstation. You only build up the server as best you can. Since each workstation could access Windows through the Qemu partition, they could have their cake and eat it too.

[rgreen4]

There are two flaws in your argument.

1) Since all new machines come from the manufacturer with an OS already installed, and since 99.9% on non Mac machines come with Windows, there is no additional investment required to run Windows.

2) If you by chance had a machine that did not have Windows, and you ran Windows on a very large number of machines the way you indicated, it would be an invitation to get sued big time by Microsoft, since Microsoft requires a license for each machine on which it is run. Running it the way you mentioned would legally still require either an individual license for Windows for each machine, or a site license stipulating at least the number of machines you are running. If you run Windows that way on say 50 machines, but have 500 hooked up, since you are distributing Windows from the server (in violation of the copyright) you would have to have a license covering 500 machines, since 500 machines could theoretically run WIndows at the same time. Without that process, you would only need a license for 50 machines since they other 450 would not have access. Thus your plan would cost more either in licenses or lawsuit settlements.

[BAMT]

Well, it was cheap for me. The machine I'm using to type this, which its specs are in my sig, only costed me somewhere between $700 and $800. I bet your $700 Dell doesn't have a quad core Intel and DDR3. If you are wondering where I bought the parts, compusa.com (during one of their "spend over $100, get $2 shipping!" specials).

The best part of using Linux? You can't be sued for using it. That is, unless you remove all Linux branding and claim that it's your own OS.

[Klaatu]

Unintentionally created a monster here. Discussion appears endless.

Linux seems useful, overall even if just as a novelty OS.

[perspectoff]

For you, the colour of your case is probably the best thing about your computer.



Hint: to use a computer, push the "ON" button.