[Klaatu]

Get a life, perspectoff.

[BAMT]

It probably is endless.

[number6]

Yes, you're looking for trouble when you start comparing OSs or browsers.

[JaywalkerExtraordinaire]

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

For business use, Linux is easily the most useful operating system. For small businesses, OS X comes close. That's not to say Windows isn't useful in business. Most machines come with Windows licensed and installed, and Windows technicians are usually less expensive to employ than Linux technicians, since there are far more of them.

[Klaatu]

Attempted to unsubscribe from this post but after clicking "stop e-mail notifications," received "Prototype.Browser is undefined" pop up box.
Say what?

[RedRat]

CharlesB said:

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."

Amen! This is what the Linux user community needs to focus on! Unfortunately, the attitude that I see far too many times, particularly in the Usenet and sometime Ubuntu forums, is a blind acceptance of whatever faults a Linux distro happens to have. Where Microsoft made its giant leap, was to actually listen to newbies and even bring them into their home campus in Redmond and see how they actually use a computer and an operating system. Believe it or not, MS spends millions of dollars on that. But behind that operating system is a lot of testing with a focus on utility.

Now this can be both good and bad. Sure you want a simple system that any Joe the Plumber can use, but systems like that also, because of the complexity removal, are obviously prone to hackers and mischief. The people who are working on the development of Linux (and here I think Ubuntu is the best candidate for the average home user) need to listen to input from the newbies.

There are some real stumbling blocks with getting Ubuntu to the point where I would give a machine to a brand new user. As the most glaring example: the most annoying fault, has got to be the handling of the video drivers, bar none! I have gone through on 8.04 at least 3 kernel updates and each time I have had to end up downloading or recompiling the graphics kernel. After the third time, I think I might be OK on how to handle that! But can you imagine an absolute newbie with this problem?? I know, I know, you are going to say that is a minor problem, but very much not to the new user. Say what we will about MS, I don't recall having video problems like that with Windows XP over a 6 month period. OK this is an annoyance, I have learned (I think) my way around this, but a new user is not going to even know where to turn.

Can Ubuntu or other Linux distros come close to MS Windows? I think not, because MS can throw money in huge quantities at problems of usability. Further, and this addresses your comments about getting schools to use it, they have enormous clout with school systems, using both carrot and stick. They either give deep discounts to schools and it that dosen't work, threaten them with law suits. It really seems to me that somewhere here there is some violation of anti-trust laws.

What I would like to see is a requirement that computers be soild WITHOUT any operating system pre-installed. The buyer has to go and buy the system they want. Clearly, this ain't gonna happen. Another idea, require that Ubuntu (or some Linux distro) is placed on the computer with a dual boot capability. Sure the majority of users will start off using Windows, but each time that machine boots up and they see that they could try another operating system, they just might try Linux. But this too I doubt will ever happen, too bad.

[CharlesB]

rgreen4 said:

>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.

No it wouldn't. Using that method, it would be the same as using a remote desktop to the server. Just that 500 or so people could remote desktop to the same server, running the one Windows XP software. Is there a limit to the numbers of users on one Windows XP system?

[CharlesB]

[quote name='RedRat']

>

CharlesB said:

> 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."

>

Quote

Amen! This is what the Linux user community needs to focus on! Unfortunately, the attitude that I see far too many times, particularly in the Usenet and sometime Ubuntu forums, is a blind acceptance of whatever faults a Linux distro happens to have. Where Microsoft made its giant leap, was to actually listen to newbies and even bring them into their home campus in Redmond and see how they actually use a computer and an operating system. Believe it or not, MS spends millions of dollars on that. But behind that operating system is a lot of testing with a focus on utility.

>

Quote

Now this can be both good and bad. Sure you want a simple system that any Joe the Plumber can use, but systems like that also, because of the complexity removal, are obviously prone to hackers and mischief. The people who are working on the development of Linux (and here I think Ubuntu is the best candidate for the average home user) need to listen to input from the newbies.

>

Quote

There are some real stumbling blocks with getting Ubuntu to the point where I would give a machine to a brand new user. As the most glaring example: the most annoying fault, has got to be the handling of the video drivers, bar none! I have gone through on 8.04 at least 3 kernel updates and each time I have had to end up downloading or recompiling the graphics kernel. After the third time, I think I might be OK on how to handle that! But can you imagine an absolute newbie with this problem?? I know, I know, you are going to say that is a minor problem, but very much not to the new user. Say what we will about MS, I don't recall having video problems like that with Windows XP over a 6 month period. OK this is an annoyance, I have learned (I think) my way around this, but a new user is not going to even know where to turn.

>

Quote

Can Ubuntu or other Linux distros come close to MS Windows? I think not, because MS can throw money in huge quantities at problems of usability. Further, and this addresses your comments about getting schools to use it, they have enormous clout with school systems, using both carrot and stick. They either give deep discounts to schools and it that dosen't work, threaten them with law suits. It really seems to me that somewhere here there is some violation of anti-trust laws.

>
What I would like to see is a requirement that computers be soild WITHOUT any operating system pre-installed. The buyer has to go and buy the system they want. Clearly, this ain't gonna happen. Another idea, require that Ubuntu (or some Linux distro) is placed on the computer with a dual boot capability. Sure the majority of users will start off using Windows, but each time that machine boots up and they see that they could try another operating system, they just might try Linux. But this too I doubt will ever happen, too bad.

Actually what I meant was that half of the employees be forced to use it. I mean as long as the thin client/server system is setup properly, and you show the employees where everything is and how to get to it -- it should be a breeze. There really is not much of a big difference -- it is still point and click. As long as the system software meets the needs so that the employees can do their job, that's how the stigmata will be broken.

As far as your comment about Ubuntu and the video problems, I wouldn't know about that. I use Slackware (its how I got started using Linux). I have used Knoppix, but didn't like it too much -- so I went back to Slackware. Sometimes here lately I run Puppy Linux. I like Vector Linux too. CentOS really appeals to me too. But I haven't used these other Linux distros too much.

Ubuntu doesn't really look like a beginners Linux to me, but that's just me. It doesn't look anything like Windows at all, and that alone breaks it for newbies. I have used Ubuntu briefly. The reason why it was briefly is due to the fact that I just hated it. Took an act of congress just to get DRI to function properly. Another reason I don't like Ubuntu, their system requirements are getting big quickly -- similar to Microsoft and Apple. True there is a low RAM version of Ubuntu, but yet Slackware runs just fine whether its on my 650mHZ P III with 393MB RAM, or my mother-in-laws new eMachines PC.

Now for new users, I would actually opt for the Live CD of Knoppix, Mepis, or PCLinuxOS. PCLinux looks more like Vista, so people can probably overcome a bit better.

[rgreen4]

Yes. The desktop version of Windows is limited to one machine per license. Each machine has to have it's own license. That is what is meant by the "individual" license each copy of XP is sold with. Corporations can also purchase site licenses covering all the machines at either one site or the entire corporation.

[CharlesB]

rgreen4 said:

Yes. The desktop version of Windows is limited to one machine per license. Each machine has to have it's own license. That is what is meant by the "individual" license each copy of XP is sold with. Corporations can also purchase site licenses covering all the machines at either one site or the entire corporation.

No, no, no! Not like that. Like when you turn on a machine, and sign in to your user account versus signing in as the Administrator. You do know that one installed copy of Windows XP can have multiple user accounts on one machine? Also, you do know that you can access your PC remotely? So then if you have one installed copy installed on one server -- it counts as 1 install. Then all those users no matter how many there are, no matter that they access their user account remotely, they still access just one installed copy of Windows XP. It is only installed on the server, not the other machines.

There is one bad thing about doing it this way: it might just break Windows, all those users accessing their individual accounts at the same time, from the same windows install. Probably why companies have to buy the server edition -- because standard Windows just can't take all that action -- unlike Linux. :-P

[rgreen4]

If you would like to argue that point against the Microsoft lawyers in court, go ahead. Windows is not a network distributable software. They have taken and sucessfully litigated the argument that a license is required for each individual MACHINE running Windows. Note in the previous post I pointed out that the "individual" license was for the machine and not for the user. That distinction came in when Windows developed an OS with separate user accounts on Windows NT.

Just because it may be possible technically, and seem logical that you are only using one copy of Windows, legally each machine is running it, and companies have paid millions of dollars in damages to MS because they didn't have a license for each machine running Windows. Any IT manager at any major corporation that tries something like this and creates a lawsuit will most likely be looking for another job, possible in another field. Corporations are funny in that they will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than take a chance on a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

They would rather spend the hundred thousand dollars on software licenses than on the legal fees.

[CharlesB]

rgreen4 said:

If you would like to argue that point against the Microsoft lawyers in court, go ahead. Windows is not a network distributable software. They have taken and sucessfully litigated the argument that a license is required for each individual MACHINE running Windows. Note in the previous post I pointed out that the "individual" license was for the machine and not for the user. That distinction came in when Windows developed an OS with separate user accounts on Windows NT.

Just because it may be possible technically, and seem logical that you are only using one copy of Windows, legally each machine is running it, and companies have paid millions of dollars in damages to MS because they didn't have a license for each machine running Windows. Any IT manager at any major corporation that tries something like this and creates a lawsuit will most likely be looking for another job, possible in another field. Corporations are funny in that they will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than take a chance on a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

They would rather spend the hundred thousand dollars on software licenses than on the legal fees.

So what you are really saying is that it is illegal to remotely access any Windows installation -- Period. You know do know what I mean by remote access? You have Windows computer "A" somewhere, maybe your office. Then you have a friend's Mac computer "B". While you are on computer "B" you remotely access computer "A". Now are you saying that this friend's computer "B" is RUNNING Windows? And this act is illegal? Absolutely absurd!!!

[RedRat]

CharlesB

I merely used Ubuntu really as an example and because that is what I use now. I did try and use PCLInux on my old Dell, which was pretty underpowered (A Dell Dimenision 4100 and about 10 years old). It actually worked very well and it did look and behave similarly to Windows. Yes, that would probably be a good starting point for Newbies. I have never used Slackware, when I was doing my research on what distro to try and go with, I heard both good and bad things about it, thought it was a mixed bag and went with Ubuntu about 2 years ago. I don't know, I think Ubuntu is pretty much like Windows, maybe splitting the difference with the Mac. But then you can customize these various distros to your heart's content.

I find the various musings about the legalities of using more than one copy of Windows to exemplify the real problems with Windows. Here is the advantage of Linux distros over Windows, no messy legal challenges. Frankly, I would think that this would be one of the strongest "selling" points for using Linux, in addition to its security.

[rgreen4]

In this example you are using one computer to remotely access another computer running Windows with a windows license. That is far different that distributing 500 copies of Windows over a network while trying to avoid paying 499 license fees to MS as required by their legal restrictions and you know it. It is even different technically.

[CharlesB]

rgreen4 said:

That is far different that distributing 500 copies of Windows over a network while trying to avoid paying 499 license fees to MS as required by their legal restrictions and you know it. It is even different technically.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SEE YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HECK I AM TALKING ABOUT! THE SERVER is the only one that has Windows INSTALLED!!! The other 500 workstations DO NOT EVEN HAVE HARD DRIVES!!! They just remotely access what is on the SERVER!!!!! NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HECK I'M SAYING?!?!? THERE ARE NO COPIES OF WINDOWS ON THE OTHER WORKSTATION MACHINES.

GOSH YOU ARE JUST DENSE!

[rgreen4]

They do have to have an operating system though don't they? The minute windows opens on that machine, whether it has a hard drive or not, it is in violation. For the last time Windows is not an OS that can be distributed across the network.

Your probably in violation of the copyright of the application as well, unless it specifically has a license permitting it to be distributed by a network.

You can't even use XP to have 500 people run it remotely, as only one person at a time can use the package. When you use remote access, you are connecting one machine to another, not 500 to a server.

Your entire premise was that you could save all this money by only installing one copy of XP on the server and having 500 people run off of it. My point is that even if it were technically possible, it is not legal under the terms of the Microsoft license that comes with XP. If you are using PC's as smart terminals, then the desktop most likely came with Windows so there were no savings. Suddenly now we're talking about dumb terminals, which will not work with XP as far as I know, but the point is moot as you would get sued anyway.

[CharlesB]

rgreen4 said:

Your entire premise was that you could save all this money by only installing one copy of XP on the server and having 500 people run off of it. My point is that even if it were technically possible, it is not legal under the terms of the Microsoft license that comes with XP. If you are using PC's as smart terminals, then the desktop most likely came with Windows so there were no savings. Suddenly now we're talking about dumb terminals, which will not work with XP as far as I know, but the point is moot as you would get sued anyway.

I am talking about running a Linux server which can have thin clients hooked up to it (the server) while the thin clients run "disk less" (no hard drive at all). They don't run anything. The server runs all the software. You have the servers CPU power and the servers graphics, but access everything remotely via the workstation.

What I said was to use an emulation program that the open source community has come up with called "Qemu". With Qemu you can create an .img file which acts as a partition or a hard drive in and of itself. Like lets say you have a 160GB hard drive, you use Qemu and set aside 10GB to put Windows 2000 Pro on it. You create the 10GB .img file, then commence to load Windows 2000 Pro onto it. This 160GB hard drive (and the 10GB .img file) just happens to be located on the Linux server, like I said above. On a server, you ALWAYS remote access any and all data on the server. Nobody who is intelligent ever accesses a terminal directly connected to the server.

So the people who access their workstation, anytime they do any computing on it really are accessing the server. The server does all the work. Anytime anybody accesses the .img file and boots into Qemu (thereby booting the server's single copy of Windows 2000 Pro), they are accessing what is on the server -- not their workstation. Their workstation only mirrors what is on the server. This IS POSSIBLE with Linux.

[rgreen4]

BUT NOT LEGAL WITH WINDOWS! What is possible on a computer is not always legal under copyright laws.

[CharlesB]

rgreen4 said:

BUT NOT LEGAL WITH WINDOWS! What is possible on a computer is not always legal under copyright laws.

But this is legal: Information from the Microsoft Website

So having one installed copy of Microsoft Windows, that is setup to have multiple users, and then remotely accessing those multiple user accounts from another computer is illegal (by your standards)? Absurd. Completely idiotic. Because that is what is happening in my example.

What is more idiotic is why you still support a software company that you think acts in such a way.

[JaywalkerExtraordinaire]

{quote}For the last time Windows is not an OS that can be distributed across the network.{quote}

Am I understanding you correctly? Your assertion is that Microsoft's EULA for Windows prohibits Window's use on thin clients and with iSCSI booting?

That sounds highly unlikely, but if it's true, it will either change soon, or MS will lose a large market share to Linux, since thin clients are making a big comeback in enterprise do to the significant hardware operation cost savings of thin clients. Hardware operation and associated costs make up a very large portion of IT costs, so management can be very motivated to take aggressive steps to keep those costs to a minimum. Improving the energy efficiency of the intranet promises huge savings for large companies, and thin clients are an easy way to improve that efficiency (among other benefits).