Ballmer: Microsoft Unlikely To Top Vista's 'Success'

[OhioChick]

Oct 20, 2008 02:45 PM


Apple taunts it, businesses won't touch it, and even Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) no longer mentions it by name in ads. Yet Windows Vista, according to Steve Ballmer, has been such a smashing success that Microsoft is unlikely to match it anytime soon.

Said Ballmer, at an industry confab in Brazil last week: "We're not going to have products that are much more successful than Vista has been."

Say what? Hang on a sec, would you please, Dear Reader.

Thanks -- I'm back. I just had to go dump a few thousand Microsoft shares.

Ballmer's statement is utterly bizarre, given industry backlash against Vista during its short, unhappy life. Complaints over the OS's hardware requirements, application incompatibilities, and intrusive security measures abound.

The majority of large businesses and government agencies in the United States, including Maine's IT department, will likely skip Vista entirely and proceed directly to Windows 7 from Windows XP. And a survey released earlier this month by the United Kingdom's Corporate IT Forum showed that only 4% of businesses in that country are using Vista, which has now been on the market for almost two years.

More: http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/10/ballmer_microso.html

:rofl:

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. VIsta is wonderful - the best OS MS has ever made

Just my opinion from personal experience.

[kansasblue]

3. I have it on one of my laptops. I've had some data coruption issues.

But other than that it's ok. It has nothing new that I need but no major problems.

[tridim]

4. Yea, but if you're a full-time Mac evangelist it obviously sucks ass..

Simply because it's not an Apple product, and everyone knows that Apple products are perfect!

Jobs and the TV say so.

;)

[Cronus Protagonist]

28. haha :)

I want to watch that Mac guy on TV change the battery on his iPhone. :P

[Jackpine Radical]

5. I use both a Mac and a Windows machine. My old XP laptop crashed, so

I had to replace it. I did so with a new Lexmark laptop loaded with XP. As far as I'm concerned, Vista is a crock-of-shit solution in search of a problem that it actually fixes.

[Phred42]

18. Even with all of the Back doors ?

[POAS]

19. Faint praise IMO n/t

[Dr.Phool]

23. Corruption issues?

That explains it. They put republicans in the code.

[Cronus Protagonist]

27. Nope. Vista works flawlessly for me

And the media center is worth installing Vista for, in and of itself.

[PatrynXX]

35. Never had a problem with it.

Did have one issue with the reliability graph but it's something that most consumers will know nothing about.
Put in a 160 gb hard drive in May and not problems since. Of course Vista woulda been better just to release 2 versions. Business and Ultimate.

Having Home Basic and Home Premium (sp) was embarassing. Never even seen Home Basic. Have used Home Prem on someone elses puter. No major problems there. I think Vista works great on laptops as compared to desktops. It's highly unlikely I'll go from Vista to 7. It'll be a step down.

[obiwan]

55. It's the O/S on my computer that I use for graphic and video production, ...

... as well as parametric solid modeling (3D CAD.)

IMHO, it is the biggest piece of shit Microsoft has ever made. I have been using MS Windows products since day one and computers since 1982. I thought XP was mediocre until I used Vista. Again IMHO, Windows 2000 Professional was the best O/S MS made. Fast, stable, reliable.

I don't use 2000 on my current system because:

1. It is no longer supported by MS.
2. The computer I use was specifically designed to run on Vista, and can't use any other O/S. Insane! First computer I have ever encountered like this.

If I hear about a class action suit concerning MS O/S's, you bet your sweet ass I will sign up.

Computer s/w companies must be the only ones that consistently do their beta testing with captive customers.

If you think I bitch too much, look at the alarming frequency of Vista updates, including the latest security fix, which completely circumvented MS's usual release schedule and appears to have been released in a hurry-up panic.

This sort of customer abuse would not be tolerated in any other industry.

How MS continues to get away with it is beyond me. I am sure having 90% of the world's O/S business doesn't hurt.

[Dennis Donovan]

2. Vista is a pain in the tuckus...

I knew what a failure it was for Microsoft as soon as the Windows Mojave ads came out (in which they trick users into believeing they're using an OS called "Mojave" that's actually a disguised Vista PC).

Suck-suck-sucky...:thumbsdown:

[4lbs]

6. Vista has never had problems on the hundreds of systems I've installed it on for my clients.

However, I've been building systems and installing OS'es and application software, and maintaining networks for 15+ years.

I also make sure that all the existing hardware the client wants to use with it has proper Vista drivers, otherwise I tell them ahead of time about potential issues.

The main problems have been hardware devices not having proper drivers. For example, HP is a notorious offender in this regard. Rather than write properly functioning drivers for their "older" products, when they had almost two years to do so, they instead wrote drivers just for their newest products and told people to buy/upgrade to them.

[obiwan]

56. If you have been using industry standard s/w and switched to Vista...

... getting the correct drivers was a major pain in the ass. Unless you kissed MS's ass, you went to the back of the line and didn't get the info you needed from MS to write proper drivers. In most cases, proper driver availability lagged about 6 months behind availability of the Vista O/S. If you got a Vista O/S and wanted to make a smooth and timely transition to the new platform using your existing program, you were SOL. Thousands of small companies and home users saw their productivity plummet or come to a complete standstill because s/w drivers for Vista were not available for a lot of popular programs, and they still are not available for some, nearly 2 years after the Vista release. MS never told customers buying Vista platforms up front that a lot of their existing s/w wouldn't work for months until drivers were available. MS violated one of the basic tenets of computing, that is, new O/S's should be backward compatible and should not immediately obsolete many popular programs due to lack of drivers.Some small businesses and most home users do not have access to or can't afford an IT professional. Besides, if an experienced home user needs the services of an IT professional to get his computer to run basic popular programs then the whole tenet of home PC use has been chucked out the window. How many times does a home end user have to pay $125 an hour to get his computer to work with a new O/S before they start getting pissed?
I really resent spending megabucks to get a faulty and improperly designed O/S to work, knowing my hard earned money is making BMW payments for some lard ass 20-something "programmer" in Redmond that has no concept of how his o/s will interact with others out there, and that if there's a problem, fine, hire some megabucks IT person. Working in isolation developing this shit is only part of the problem. Those of us out here in the real world are not computer programmers or s/w writers. Computers, O/S's, and s/w are tools we use to get a task done. If the fucking thing doesn't work, it shouldn't be our job to spend hours figuring out why. Our time is just as valuable as a geek's, but we don't get paid for figuring out o/s or s/w issues. WE might get fired because the boss thinks we can't do our job because we can't troubleshoot flawed s/w or o/s's. The shit should work for the average user, should be consistent, and reliable so you can do work without problems.

MS did a real circle jerk with the Vista o/s by releasing it before it was ready, and once again they are making the end user pay the price.

[yayden]

7. Vista is the new ME

I built a new computer in March and put Vista on it. I've honestly have no large problems with it, just some annoyances, such as the UAC. I think the reason Vista has such a bad rap is that it's being seen as a stopgate between XP and Windows 7, much like how ME existed between 98/2000 and XP. Vista certainly is an improvement over XP in my opinion, but the improvements don't quite justify switching from XP for a lot of people. Me though, I like Vista, especially in how it revamped the "My Documents" folder.

[paparush]

8. A standard Windows Update just corrupted my wife's Vista laptop.

*POOF*

My XP machine has been chugging along just fine for years now.

[obiwan]

57. That's happened to me too.

And I can't use automatic updates because sometimes, when I am right in the middle of something, I getted kicked out and Vista shuts down the machine and installs the updates. If I don't have a real good autosave, or save my work manually every couple of minutes (a pain in the ass and very counterproductive) I am FUCKED. Real bad news when you are in the middle of editing or mastering music.

[mainegreen]

9. All I'll say is that there is a world of difference between MS's server OSs and the home ones. n/t

[obiwan]

58. Got that right.

Vista Premium Home is a travesty.

[enki23]

10. now there's some faint praise.

.

[RedLetterRev]

11. Tried it, despised it

went back to Linux. My ancient ThinkPad likes XP just fine, but the rest of the house has been running on Linux for years. (I keep that around to develop apps for my Symbol 2800 Pocket PC.) My lifepartner and I are running FC9 and love it. He's no techie at ALL and gets along just fine. I'm the programmer/developer/network guy in the house, but I have zero time to mess with stuff at home. So I installed something I never, ever have to mess with. Fedora just runs reliably and I don't have to hear my husbear kvetch like I did years back when we had Windoze.

We tried Vista at work and found that most of our development suites wouldn't run on it. What precious little did was unstable. The whole thing was slow and just not worth it. We went back to developing on XP where it's safe. I won't touch Vista with a 20' pole. Ever. Ballmer's talking out his arse. Again.

As for any other Windoze offerings, they'll never enter my house. I may have to put up with them at work, but I don't have to at home.

[tomreedtoon]

13. Not everyone can devote weekly hours to updating Linux.

I mean, it's fine to install the weekly updates to the Linux operating system if you're an IT guy working on a server. It's another to do it to every computer in the house, hoping and praying that your apps won't be invalidated by this week's upgrade.

The only sane Linux is the one built into the Mac OS X system, because they don't have mobs of people tinkering with it each week and insisting it be upgraded. It's there and it's stable. Regular "free" Linux is a nightmare, a model train layout of an operating system, where the whole point is tinkering with it all the time. And the people who use Linux are more interested in "this week's version" than in getting an OS that ordinary people can actually use for daily tasks.

For all the problems it has, I prefer Windows XP and its massive family of apps to the Tinkertoy approach of Linux. (I also like Mac OS X, but I can only afford one computer with that.)

[RedLetterRev]

14. Not necessarily the case

the Fedora update process is pretty hands-off. It's totally automated, figures out its own dependencies, and all you have to do is click the balloon to say "yeah, g'head and update" or "no, do it later". I've never had an app fail because of an update -- well, not in the last six or seven years anyway. If there's a bell or whistle on it, I use it. So does my partner. I never go into his machine -- it just runs. The only thing I ever look at is the log it sends me via email just to make sure it's still breathing. That's it. Ever.

I get the impression you really haven't played with Linux for a really long time. It's grown up a lot since the "tinkertoy" days. Even the "Add/Remove Software" is as brainless as it can possibly get. If I want a piece of software, I just go get it. The system figures out what it needs to make it "go", then keeps up with updates from then on. It doesn't get any easier.

Ohboy, yeah, if I could afford Macs in the house, I'd have 'em, no bout adoubt it! But my experience with Mac wasn't the very most pleasing -- slower than molasses, but reasonably stable. I did have to use the reset button every once in a while. But most of the time it was more reliable than anything Windoze ever came up with. The price, though is a showstopper on my budget.

I depend on my Linux desktop to keep two of my businesses intact: my wedding business and my farm. I'd be absolutely lost if I couldn't depend on my desktop to keep things orderly. It has to be on, fast, up, reliable and "now". I can't wait to diddle with upgrades (like I had to wait on my StinkPad all evening last night) and I can't deal with crashes or things that don't work when I need them. It has to be Linux for me.

To each his own. You know your own situation the best. Mine works for me.

[tomreedtoon]

22. I would NEVER touch Linux.

Inasmuch as you have to completely research your computer to find out which (if any) variety of Linux will work with your hardware, AND apply it, AND get the weekly updates, AND try to find the one guy who wrote the program you need, because there is no commercial applications for Linux, only hobbyists...

...you are not using an operating system. You have made your computer your hobby. You might as well divorce your wife and let your dog run free, because you'll never be able to do anything but try to keep your Linux monster running.

[anguna]

41. But without saying WHY.

Inasmuch as you have to completely research your computer to find out which (if any) variety of Linux will work with your hardware, AND apply it, AND get the weekly updates, AND try to find the one guy who wrote the program you need, because there is no commercial applications for Linux, only hobbyists...

If a "variety" of Linux (a distribution) works with hardware, ANY distribution will. The drivers are found almost exclusively in the kernel, and the Linux kernel is what all Linux distributions have in common. That's why they're called "Linux distributions".

BTW, there ARE commercial apps for Linux; there just aren't as many. There are several reasons: 1) the Free software catalog eliminates some categories, because there's already a popular noncommercial application in some markets; 2) some companies won't invest in a userbase that's as small as this (part of the reason there are still less apps / games on Apple; 3) some corporate types think that because Linux can be given away, nobody will pay for software on the platform. I don't doubt this is true of some, but still a faulty generalization. I have bought two pieces of software in the last year or so: Linux RAR and CodeWarrior. Not exactly splurging, but I'm not averse to spending money on something that has value (also consider that I pay for my "free" Linux distribution. Not because it locks down my PC if I don't, but because I feel it has value. I'd prefer to donate to the maintainers of software I use frequently as well, but I'm just not rich enough at the moment).

...you are not using an operating system. You have made your computer your hobby. You might as well divorce your wife and let your dog run free, because you'll never be able to do anything but try to keep your Linux monster running.

Linux is less maintenance-heavy -- in my experience -- than any Microsoft OS I've ever tried. My experience is limited with Macs, and I haven't used Vista; otherwise, I've heavily used (and with the exception of MSDOS, Win3.x, and NT 3.xx, maintained for others) all MS OSes. So, I believe my anecdotal evidence has at least some weight. More than yours, I'm pretty sure... as it appears only built upon propaganda and/or ignorance of how Linux works in the Real World.

[bhikkhu]

16. Ubuntu is easier to use and update than windows

...and has zero security issues.

I switched originally after an XP OS went "poof" (my older daughter's computer, on the internet a lot). It was very easy and nice to use. As other XP's have died on our other computers I have replaced them with Linux (Ubuntu Hardy Heron, currently).

My 8 year old daughter has her own computer, and every week or two she spends a few minutes installing the updates, which involves nothing more than hitting the "install" button and then typing in the user password to confirm.

[tomreedtoon]

21. You don't need to update Windows at all.

Linux requires that you apply the weekly update.

Not only that, but you have to hope that some lunatic living in his parents's basement will write the software you need. Unlike Windows, where there are millions of programs you can buy or borrow. And even alternatives so you can find the best, whereas if one person has written anything in Linux that you can use, you're lucky, and you have to swallow its deficiencies and lack of support.

Sorry, Linux is a hobby, not an operating system.

ON EDIT: And of course, you have to pray that the program you spent a week to find won't be rendered invalid due to this week's Linux required update.

[bhikkhu]

24. Nor do you need to update Linux

...and I have also never had an issue with single program following an update, in any case. As said, you push a button and type a password and it is done and everything works. If you don't push a button it isn't done, and everything works - no big deal. My point was that my 8 year old daughter uses it without any problem.

I use it myself, heavily - in word processing, spreadsheets, website design, internet surfing, media play, etc. It has worked perfectly, and the learning curve is quite minimal. It is beyond me why anyone would disparage Linux, particularly the so well designed Ubuntu Hardy Heron.

BTW, I have Windows XP on two computers and a Macbook, and I hate to think of how much time I spend in front of the screen, but I still prefer Linux. You need Windows for any serious gaming, but thats about it.

[tomreedtoon]

30. Try video production. Audio production.

Those are demanding apps. And only real OS platforms, Windows and OS X, have anything for them.

Video - Ulead Video Studio. Not the easiest, but cheap and reliable. (I have used Final Cut Pro on high-end Macs, but I can't afford it for my own work - and I can't afford the pricy Mac it must run on.) For Mac work in the civilian world, iVideo and iDVD.

Audio - Goldwave for basic recording, Reaper (professional) or Audacity (flakey but free) for multitrack work. For the Mac, GarageBand, the Mac world's Swiss Army Knife for audio.

In the Linux world, you have to PRAY that someone cared enough to stick together a program to work with those. Some little demented guy in his parents' basement, playing with Linux. Unless you're a Super Genius and can write such a program for Linux yourself...but then, Linux is hardware-specific and whoever tries to run it on his system had better be a Super Genius himself.

Linux is Cloud Cuckoo Land. I'd rather use real apps on Planet Earth.

ON EDIT: I forgot to answer your statement. If you do not update Linux and install its damned weekly kernel updates, you are not a true Linux user. You are a traitor to the Cause. You will no longer be considered to have 1337 skillz and you will be flung into the darkness of people who use computers for real work.

[anguna]

44. Finally, a relevant point. Yay.

Those are demanding apps. And only real OS platforms, Windows and OS X, have anything for them.

Actually, audio software is maturing on the Linux platform. Video, not so much. Finally, something I agree with you about!

Video - Ulead Video Studio. Not the easiest, but cheap and reliable. (I have used Final Cut Pro on high-end Macs, but I can't afford it for my own work - and I can't afford the pricy Mac it must run on.) For Mac work in the civilian world, iVideo and iDVD.

No argument here.

Audio - Goldwave for basic recording, Reaper (professional) or Audacity (flakey but free) for multitrack work. For the Mac, GarageBand, the Mac world's Swiss Army Knife for audio.

Did you know that Audacity may be "flakey but free" but it runs better on Linux, and is still free? Considering it was first developed there, it makes sense. But I guess, now that you think on this, you should stop recommending it -- it was created by one demented guy in his parents' basement, correct? Note that vouching for Audacity kinda damages your next point:

In the Linux world, you have to PRAY that someone cared enough to stick together a program to work with those. Some little demented guy in his parents' basement, playing with Linux. Unless you're a Super Genius and can write such a program for Linux yourself...but then, Linux is hardware-specific and whoever tries to run it on his system had better be a Super Genius himself.

You don't have to be a genius to be a programmer, for one thing. It would be nice if colleges taught some level of CS and programming in all degree paths, considering how essential computers are these days. Also: It's ass-backwards, to say "Linux is hardware-specific". To be accurate, say "some hardware is Windows-specific", because that's the truth. Some hardware is not documented openly, and relies on closed drivers only available for the manufacturer's chosen OS(es). Heck, there are closed LINUX drivers! (See NVIDIA) Many developers aren't willing to go through the trouble of reverse-engineering hardware blindly, especially when it is illegal in some cases. Put the blame for this incompatibility where it belongs: on the manufacturers that won't open up their hardware or do it themselves.

I acknowledge that some hardware won't work but that doesn't make Linux "hardware-specific". OS X, on the other hand, is precisely that.

Linux is Cloud Cuckoo Land. I'd rather use real apps on Planet Earth.

Ugh. Believe what you want, I guess.

ON EDIT: I forgot to answer your statement. If you do not update Linux and install its damned weekly kernel updates, you are not a true Linux user. You are a traitor to the Cause. You will no longer be considered to have 1337 skillz and you will be flung into the darkness of people who use computers for real work.

Yet again, with the bogus "weekly updates". There's no Cause where you think there's one. Linus Torvalds is a pragmatic guy, and many Linux users share his outlook. If you can make it work better, control your own computer, and save yourself some time and effort, it's worth it. This is why I use Linux when I can. I guess I'm not "real" though.

[The Traveler]

33. I have deployed hundreds of Linux systems

and use it on several of my home network machines. Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about. "Linux requires you apply the weekly update." What distribution are you talking about?

Linux is, of course, not for everybody. But it is a real operating system. Windows is an O/S glutted on cybernetic transfats.

[tomreedtoon]

36. You're not a true Linux user.

A true Linux user knows that you must update the operating kernel every week. Without fail. Because Linux is never finished, there's always something else to tweak. Every time I hear someone talk about Linux, they talk about how they just upgraded the kernel and half their existing software will need upgrades, and they have to set defaults to deal with the internal values their disk drive, DVD drive, motherboard and other hardware specifics require.

You think a rational person, who actually wants to perform real work with their computer, want to put up with that kind of weekly crap?

If you don't do those upgrades, when you find a piece of software you really want - like the version of Pac-Man that some guy just spent two years developing in his basement - you find that you can't run it because you don't have the current kernel. And when you get that kernel installed, your word proc won't work. That is the story of Linux in a nutshell.

ON EDIT: I've finally figured out that Linux is like owning a cat. You love the cat, you care for it, you sweep up the crap it puts out, but the cat doesn't give a damn for you. They should change the phrase signifying self-delusion and futility from "it's like herding cats" to "it's like running Linux."

[The Traveler]

37. Interesting

I will be sure to tell my clients I am not a true Linux user.

:rofl:

[tomreedtoon]

38. That may actually be a wise sales policy.

Tell them "I use Linux, but I'm not married to it. I don't wear a tinfoil hat, I have an active social life, and I enjoy time off so I can serve you better at work. I'm not a charter member of that obsessive, anal-retentive cult that is trying to replace all world religions."

Of course, only tell them this if they specifically ask you about Linux. Linux has such a bad rep among real computer users that you shouldn't really advertise you know anything about it. You don't need to be obviously associated with the egg-sucking dogs that are real Linux users.

[The Traveler]

39. Dude, not sure who you are hanging with

but I know a lot of people who disagree with you. But, hey, I have only been in the real time distributed systems business for 30 years. I have developed systems for Windows desktop, Windows server, Unix, Linux, and way too many real time kernels to remember them all.

I am a systems developer. I have put together a large number of high availability systems based on various Linux platforms. These systems are typically required to achieve "5 nines" levels of reliability. Rule of thumb in networks employing Windows servers and Linux boxes ... reboot the Windows servers a couple times a week or more. The Linux machines will often have up times measured in months before they hint at the need for a reboot.

We typically do not apply patches in a willy nilly fashion. These configurations are carefully maintained, and the installation of patches is carefully controlled and the resulting configuration well tested. That's how us developer types do it.

Now, at home I am less careful. Sometimes, I regret that. Windows XP recently updated on one of my machines here and after wards half my development tools stopped working on that box, as well as Flash. Go figure. Thank God for Rollback.

I have a couple of Vista installations at home that seem to grow less reliable with each automatic update. I am casting a jaundiced eye at them and holding an Ubuntu installation CD at the ready. One more issue with those suckers and I am clobbering them. My 12 year old drives KDE quite well, and she is about OVER her Vista machine.

And while I appreciate your concern, business seems to be going quite well for me.

Sounds like you are happy with your Windows experience, and I have to admit that over the years Windows has been (financially) very good to me. For certain problems, I much prefer the Windows platform over Linux or Unix. For others, the reverse choice. To be honest, my customer's preference is usually the dominant factor in making that choice, unless I can point to a compelling technical reason upon which to base an argument.


Trav

[anguna]

47. Thank you.

I didn't see your post when I began my own replies.

It's good to see someone who is more knowledgeable than me, "Joe Computer Plumber" (god, I'm sick of that stupid meme) replying to these dogmatic anti-Linux screeds with level-headed honesty.

It's true that Windows can be superior platform for many uses, but it's alarming to see my fellow Dems and liberals discounting the anti-corporate little guy in this situation. Not that Linux can't benefit corporations, such as IBM, though. I've actually heard a die-hard Dem call Linux "communist". In real life, at that. I guess Free Software may slightly resemble socialist policy, if looked at sideways -- but the important thing about it is that it can be made to work FAR more easily, and with FAR less cost. Why do I believe this?

What people don't catch, often, is that software can have a different type of market than normal goods, because it doesn't go away when you give it away. It's infinitely reproducible.

One of my favorite effects of the Free Software movement and its Open Source offshoot is that it will likely drive down costs for those who need to buy software. Windows Vista is not, Not, NOT worth $450. No way. If the PRO-IP Act (which Dems, sadly, backed as much as Reps... I wish we as a country would take some time to contemplate what Copyright is supposed to accomplish and the near-infinite profit machine it's been turned into in modern times) is enforced, people will have to come to terms with piracy as something they can't just take for granted; Windows will really have to be worth $450 for people to plunk down the cash.

These two factors combined just might make Linux more popular; this is fine by me, because I think it's less popular than it should be. If the market was split up, say, 43% MS, 25% Apple, 20% Linux, 12% BSD/Other, it would make for a better, more competitive marketplace. And more opportunities for commercial software, I think. And a chance for actual NEW operating systems to gain a place in the market, perhaps (although I would still be skeptical about that).

One last thing to mention: I was never much of a Linux zealot, more of an Open Formats, pro-competition evangelist; and the crap MS has pulled recently concerning ODF and OOXML, messing with ISO Committees and diminishing respect for that standards-making body may be very destructive to several parties in the tech industry, one of whom is hopefully MS itself. THIS has radicalized my views here. I truly hope the EU comes down hard on them for manipulating a supposedly merit-based technical group; and I hope an Obama admin will begin actively monitoring corporate behavior, at the very least. Although I am not that good with words, anyone reading can check out more on this at these links to have various parts of this explained thoroughly:

http://www.betanews.com/article/Evidence_of_Microsoft_Influencing_OOXML_Votes_in_Nordic_States/1188335569
http://fixunix.com/linux/501967-news-odf-win-uruguay-says-no-corruption-riddled-microsoft-ooxml.html
http://www.memeverse.com/2008/03/30/free-market-vs-the-ooxml/
http://www.s5h.net/linux_news/d/b/17212_Despite-Microsoft-Corruption-OOXML-Loses-Around-the-World.html
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/09/01/iso-risks-banishment/
http://www.effi.org/blog/kai-2007-09-05.en.html
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/05/03/libel-vs-critics/
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000294
http://www.controlscaddy.com/A55A69/bccaddyblog.nsf/plinks/CBYE-76JGCQ
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/ooxml-fails-to-gain-approval-in-us.html

I realize I'm stating some things you already know, and some stuff you may not agree with. Anyway, I'm done here... and hopefully my future posts will be about American politics rather than software politics. You have a good day!

[moggie]

51. Make that years between reboots

I've had uptimes of years for some Linux servers. In fact, I've had some servers live out their entire lifecycle from deployment to retirement without a single reboot. I'm responsible for around 80 Linux servers (it's a moving target: I'm installing three more next week, which should take around 20 minutes total), my company has run Linux for more than ten years, and we achieve impressive stability for our various customers. My colleagues who deal with our Windows servers seem to have rather more trouble.

But, folks, you're wasting your breath with tomreedtoon. He's always like this about Linux, and can't be reasoned with. For example, look upthread where he says "The only sane Linux is the one built into the Mac OS X system". Unlike all the arguments about reliability and usability, which to some extent are subjective and depend on what you're using the system for, this sentence contains a simple factual statement, and it's 100% wrong, since an OS is only Linux if it uses the Linux kernel, and the Mac OS kernel has a completely different lineage. He's made this statement before, people have corrected him on it at length, and he still persists with it. You won't get through to him; let it go.

[anguna]

43. Hardcore, I see.

What did Linux ever do to you?

Some of us don't like our computers to be Locked Down For Our Own Protection, you see.

Some of us saw things like the PRO-IP act coming, and got ahead of the curve.

I only hope enforcement is what they claim it will be. Pirating Windows won't be so appealing if you can lose you computer because of it. (I disagree strongly with the bill, but it may actually cause some anti-corporate backlash that proves beneficial) And the value of software that can be shared freely, and analyzed by independent observers, will become more apparent.

I simply don't understand why you apparently hate Linux and its users, nor why you believe all of us are kids who brag about updating their operating systems. It's pretty strange to read, dude. We're people, too, and we're not ... socialists or something (heh, heh).

[tomreedtoon]

48. Linux fanatics...like you...are what got into my craw.

According to you guys, you must be intimate with your computer. You should be able to recite the IRQ numbers for every card, every device, every motherboard element in your computer from memory. Because you need to know that crap when you run Linux. It is an operating system that requires you to INTENSELY know the inside of your computer and to continually worry about its settings.

I have a life. I want to use a computer and go away without worrying whether the weekly update to the kernel will wipe out every freaking thing on my hard drive. I want to live life and occasionally use my computer, not use my computer and occasionally live life.

[bhikkhu]

50. So what if I just like Linux, and don't care for Windows?

I don't know anyone personally who is a windows fanatic or a Linux fanatic...as you mention, most people have real lives independent from their operating systems.

Going back to the OP, and as my two cents, a couple of years ago when the XP OS on my main computer went belly-up (hard drive failure) I replaced it with Ubuntu and was pleasantly surprised. It has proven trouble-free and well designed. On three other occasions since - one from a virus and two from upgrades requiring OS reinstall (read-repurchase, lacking activation keys), I had the option of buying XP, buying Vista, or just installing Ubuntu. I have four computers running Linux now, and it works well. I don't think that makes me a fanatic, but I am fond of the OS and its developers as it allows me to do everything I need to do on a computer without shopping for programs or worrying if my OS will die and require repurchase unexpectedly. I do use two computers for business that run XP for their accounting programs, and they also work well enough.

But as far as what I like, that would be Linux - it works for me, and my kids do well with it as well. I think the OP is realistic - Microsoft is doing ok, but as long as it has competent competitors, I don't think it has a chance to make another similar fortune with whatever new OS it comes up with. The days of its near monopoly should be about done.

[tomreedtoon]

52. Well, some people make their own paper.

They won't buy that storebought stuff, so they make paper pulp, pound it out with wooden mallets, and have something to write on after a few days. Usually with the pencils they make themselves out of graphite and wood slats. That's the equivalent of working with Linux.

As mentioned, I don't make a fetish of operating systems. But I can find a Windows program that will do damn near anything I need, from mixing multichannel audio to renaming MP3 file tags. In Linux you have to hope someone wrote it, and that it'll work with this week's version of the operating system.

I'm just sick of the smug superiority of the Linux fanatics. There are no sane individuals who use Linux. IT people who run servers don't mind using it, since they have to take their systems down periodically anyway, so reinstalling the whole OS each week isn't a big deal for them. It is for an individual just trying to run a desktop.

I just basically think Linux is way too much work for what it is supposed to do. Which, for an individual who just wants to use his damn hardware, is not very much.

[anguna]

45. So you decide what a true user is, which is "surprisingly" a Straw Man.

A true Linux user knows that you must update the operating kernel every week. Without fail. Because Linux is never finished, there's always something else to tweak. Every time I hear someone talk about Linux, they talk about how they just upgraded the kernel and half their existing software will need upgrades, and they have to set defaults to deal with the internal values their disk drive, DVD drive, motherboard and other hardware specifics require.

Truly, what OS is finished? Do you expect Microsoft to ever say, "Well, this is about perfect. We don't have anything coming down the pipeline to sell you." There will always be a reason to push for upgrades, even if they're not needed. And the updates from 2k to XP were not very significant. XP to Vista added eye-candy, a few moderately useful upgrades, and HUGE system requirement increases. Linux updates, oddly, don't seem to increase the RAM load of the OS, nor require users to throw out their hard drives or video cards. (This is one side-effect of a group unconcerned with keeping the new computer industry going, only making the computer you have work well.)

The only time I've heard someone talk about software needing upgrades because of a kernel patch was... honestly, right here. I would like to know where these morons are, though. Setting defaults to deal with internal disk, mobo, and dvd settings? Sounds like you're referring to old-school IDE drives, circa early 90's. Other than that, you're pulling this stuff out of your hat.

You think a rational person, who actually wants to perform real work with their computer, want to put up with that kind of weekly crap?

Again: What weekly crap? I use a very maintenance-intensive distro by reputation, Slackware, and I have to put in about 5 minutes of checking logfiles, once every couple of weeks, to ensure updates worked correctly. It's all automated, even the dreaded kernel patches. Slackware handles this for me. Once in a blue moon, I'll have to manually intervene; this has happened twice this year so far.

If you don't do those upgrades, when you find a piece of software you really want - like the version of Pac-Man that some guy just spent two years developing in his basement - you find that you can't run it because you don't have the current kernel. And when you get that kernel installed, your word proc won't work. That is the story of Linux in a nutshell.

I like your story, but it's a fairy tale. The kernel being updated generally doesn't affect user-level software, as you should know if you are familiar with the system at all. X11 would be more likely, but of course, you haven't mentioned that... and then a kernel update causing a word processor to fail? Never, ever heard of it. I haven't looked for this though, I'll bet someone has had an issue somewhere. Go on, google it up for me. Doesn't change the fact that you're creating a massive problem where only a few cases, if any, exist.

ON EDIT: I've finally figured out that Linux is like owning a cat. You love the cat, you care for it, you sweep up the crap it puts out, but the cat doesn't give a damn for you. They should change the phrase signifying self-delusion and futility from "it's like herding cats" to "it's like running Linux."

Managing Free Software contributors is the most common situation I've heard referred to as "herding cats". Running Linux, OTOH, seems like this to me: It does what you tell it to, when you want it to do what you MEAN. This is what trips new users up. The mainstream OS does what it thinks you want, which is comforting to some, patronizing to others.

Use what you want, just don't lie about what you DON'T use, to make a point. All OSes on the market have their uses, and can be squeezed into others. Linux isn't good for AV production or gaming; for a netbook, web terminal, or all-around home office computer requiring as little intervention as possible after installation, Linux can be a good choice... unless your situation rules it out, for whatever reason. People can make up their own minds, thanks.

But I'll say it once again: This "required weekly update" crap is a straight-up LIE. I'd dislike it if you were maligning a political candidate with lies. Everything else works the same, for me. Let's judge these things on their actual characteristics, not one person who met them a while back, whether it be Obama's acquaintance or an acquaintance of yours who used Linux for geek bragging rights only.

[tomreedtoon]

53. It IS the truth. I have heard it from your fellow Linux fanatics.

Every time they talk, they talk about the latest upgrade. Not about sex, or their families, or about their hemherroids, or anything human. Their lives revolve around Linux.

And they insist to anyone who is still willing to listen to them that Linux is the ONLY operating system they should use, and that if you don't, you're a fascist tool. Which is pretty much what you're telling me. Religious fanaticism isn't enough; you guys have gone to binary fanaticism.

[anguna]

42. Yes, you do. Plus...

Ever heard of "Windows Update"? What exactly did you think its functions were? What are Service Packs, and why do they sometimes break applications or cause system FUBARs?

Linux requires that you apply the weekly update.

Linux doesn't require you to do anything. It will happily continue running, even if you skip security patches (although that's a really stupid thing to do, on any OS). Again, there's no "weekly update", and I'd like to know who the genius is who informed you of this dreaded application-destroying "weekly update" that we all should fear. :-)

Not only that, but you have to hope that some lunatic living in his parents's basement will write the software you need. Unlike Windows, where there are millions of programs you can buy or borrow. And even alternatives so you can find the best, whereas if one person has written anything in Linux that you can use, you're lucky, and you have to swallow its deficiencies and lack of support.

Did Linux eat your baby or something?! "Lunatic living in his parents' basement" is not how most Linux developers can be described. Some are paid for their work. Some donate their time. Also, there isn't just one application in any given category on Linux... you also have the opportunity to "find the best" there, quite frequently. Don't forget that there are downsides to commercial software as well: if you require support or continued work on a Free or Open Source application, you can buy this on contract. If your closed-source product's maker goes under, or decides to stop supporting the product, there is absolutely nothing you can do except migrate to something else on THEIR schedule.

Sorry, Linux is a hobby, not an operating system.

Actually, both. A hobby for some devs and some users; an OS for many users and devs; and even a job for some devs.

ON EDIT: And of course, you have to pray that the program you spent a week to find won't be rendered invalid due to this week's Linux required update.

I'll be content if you stop spouting this nonsense. There is NO "Linux required update"! There are only recommended security patches, in the kernel and in apps. For mainstream users, the distributions package them and make the process of applying them as simple as a single command, or just a yes/no prompt!

[tomreedtoon]

54. That's not what Linux acolytes tell me.

Their lives revolve around their upgrades and their attempts to get the damn thing to work on their system. And then the required weekly update occurs next week.

By the way, I have not upgraded Windows XP Pro. Once. Ever. I just use it. It works. Which is more than anyone with a Linux computer can say.

[anguna]

40. Not everyone (hardly anyone) needs to.

I mean, it's fine to install the weekly updates to the Linux operating system if you're an IT guy working on a server. It's another to do it to every computer in the house, hoping and praying that your apps won't be invalidated by this week's upgrade.

It doesn't work that way. There aren't "weekly updates", and kernel updates almost never (NEVER in my 9 years of using Linux) break applications. There's no hoping and praying about it, unless you're randomly changing things and have no idea what you're doing. In that case, you're definitely not meant to be using Linux (or anything else, really, without it being locked down so you can't damage it).

The only sane Linux is the one built into the Mac OS X system, because they don't have mobs of people tinkering with it each week and insisting it be upgraded. It's there and it's stable. Regular "free" Linux is a nightmare, a model train layout of an operating system, where the whole point is tinkering with it all the time. And the people who use Linux are more interested in "this week's version" than in getting an OS that ordinary people can actually use for daily tasks.

It seems you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Linux isn't built into OS X. It's Mach, another Unixlike kernel; only one of several functionally similar kernels that are completely different internally (Mach vs. the various BSDs vs. Linux). "It's there and it's stable" also applies to any distribution-maintained kernel that only applies security patches. The whole point is not tinkering, and tinkering is a pretty dim view of something people normally call software development. There might be a few kiddiez who brag about updating their OS, but to most of us, having a secure, low-maintenance and stable system is the goal.

I can't make sense of your assertions; it's like you base your views on Microsoft press releases of the late 90s, never having met an actual Linux user in real life.

[obiwan]

59. Nor can they spend long hours trying to get Vista to work right either.

[Cronopio]

12. I agree with Ballmer, even though he is on meth.

(Nothing new, he just upped the dosage.)

Windows 7 might be as good as Vista, but not better. Apple is already reaping the benefits.

[POAS]

20. SOunds like he's saying it's downhil from here!

[Raster]

29. This guy is on meth????

"...developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!, developers!..."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6304687408656696643

[OhioChick]

32. Without a doubt. n/t

[Upfront]

15. Vista is a pain!

My wife has it on her lap top and we fight problems often. I still have XP and you could not pay me to take Vista. If that is my choice, hello Apple.

[ladywnch]

17. I'll stay with XP. If I have to move on I'll likely move to Mac rather than

go to Vista. I tried it on a friend's machine and I HATED it...it sucks. I go no long do basic things I was used to doing on previous Windows machines, I couldn't find things anymore and god forbid you try to add non-MS software later!!!!....good f---in luck!

[mr1956]

25. I switched to a Mac

I had my old PC for about 5 years until it started dying on me. I tried but couldn't find a new PC with XP. It kinda felt like I was being forced into Vista so I just went with the Mac.

[awoke_in_2003]

26. Once you get use to the minor differences

you will definately not go back. I have been using for 7 years.

[Jokerman]

31. Microsoft OS alternating curse.

Window 3.1 sucked.
Windows 3.11 was solid.
Windows 95 sucked.
Windows 98 was solid.
Windows 2000 sucked.
Windows XP was solid.
Windows Vista sucks.
I'm hoping the next one will be solid.

Just my personal experience, of course.

[CRF450]

34. Vista, in my experience has been a fine OS

Granted it is pretty slow while booting up, but once its running, everything runs great. Pretty much all 3rd party software makers are making compatible drivers and other support for Vista including the 64bit version my computer has. New computers in the $500-$800 (low end pc's) have ample hardware power to run Vista well. I was messing around with an HP laptop at Officemax recently. 14" screen, 4gigs of ram, Intel Core 2 Duo cpu, 250gb hard drive, and Vista Home Premium 64bit. It ran Vista like a dream IMO. I am starting to see a trend toward the 64bit Vista being preloaded, now that memory has gotten cheap enough

I think perceptions are running really high against Vista as many have had bad experiences with it early last year due to the lack of hardware power in low end pc's, hardware and software support was also really low. It has given me a couple small problems but they were easy to fix. XP has been more problematic since I'v had it for the first year right after SP2 came out, but not Vista. I dont see why so many people are griping about it.

[truedemm]

60. Vista

Vista has been working okay for me. My computer has been crashing less, but that isn't saying a whole lot for Vista.

[ExPatLeftist]

46. Snort another line, Ballmer, Vista sucks donkey balls. n/t

[FREEWILL56]

49. Vista absolutely sucks and is a dinosaur in that it takes far too much effort

and needing more capabilities for it to accomplish a task and that's if it is compatible. I have used nearly everything they had since w95 and I can say the best they had was xp pro, but it lacked security. I even had quarks show up on day 1 with vista and vista sure as hell isn't xp with extra security or older software and some hardware would work with it. The largest pain in the ass is the (rough quotes) 'do you really want to do this?' and 'you started this, do you want to continue?' popups, but a close 2nd I encountered is the notification of blocked startup programs in a popup every few minutes. Even their lousy techs didn't help me with this after being passed around from tech to tech about a dozen times over the course of nearly a year. They assumed that because I grew tired of dealing with these idiots that the problem was solved. It's a shame that when my original hd failed that I didn't have a copy of the xp software to place into another hd as I wouldn't have made this damn mistake in buying vista. $200+ wasted and wished I bought an xp pro even at the $300 price tag prior.