opensource.apress.com— Quote, "My friends, I have some news for you. Yesterday I did an evil thing. I did something that, even now, feels degrading. But I had no choice."
Aug 3, 2006View in Crawl 4
Electromagnet: Microsoft got to where it is from business and management- not great software. Bill Gates convinced IBM to sell their computers with an operating system included, and formatted out a deal. The only problem was, Gates didn't have an operating system yet to sell. He literally found someone who had programmed an operating system, and bought it off him after having struck the deal with IBM. The Operating System was, of course, what is now called MS-DOS. Windows didn't really hit it off until 3.1- which is really nothing but a plug-in GUI to MS-DOS. Similiar to XServer and your desktop of choice (Gnome/KDE for example) in Linux. The entire WinXX line afterwards (95, 98, and ME) were nothing but DOS underneath to be honest. Why IBM signed a deal with Microsoft that let Microsoft retain rights to their OS, no one knows. It is, in retrospect, the biggest mistake by 'Big Blue' and can be attributed with why they fell from their lofty perch in the late 80s. Furthermore, Linux didn't debut until the early 90s. GNU was around in the 80s, but lacked an open source kernel to use. To simply argue that Microsoft's software is better because they managed to get on top is treading the side of ignorance. Now, I'm not what you would call a die hard Linux user. I -learned- on Windows (Like any OS, you have to learn it. Your speech on how any user should just be able to sit down and use an OS is a nice, but naive, dream.) and so I'm most comfortable with it. I still have WinXP on my main machine, alongside Ubuntu Dapper Drake. I didn't get onto the Ubuntu bandwagon until a forum post dugg here showed me a way to get my broadcom Wi-Fi NICs going in Linux. But I will say this: For every day use- e-mail, messaging, web browsing, general word processing etc. the Ubuntu distro gives Microsoft a hard run for its money. And installation of Debian packages through Ubuntu is a far easier way to install programs than it is to install a program in Windows. Personally, I prefer Linux to Windows. I also like having the -option- of being able to compile programs myself. I will give you this though: The way Linux has been steadilly making ground in the market, would, by your logic, show that it is the better OS right?
It seems that you have never used Revision Tracking in Word before, son.It does what wikis do *before* wikis were around to do that. Each user gets his own history in the document, and ALL changes can be seen inline (not diff'ed). Notes about revisions can be added inline. Documents can be assigned various states of revision (ie, draft vs final). The big kickers? You only need 1 easily transferrable file, changes between multiple versions can be merged, you don't need to create extra user accounts and passwords for people to forget, you don't need a tech department to set any of it up (ie, normal people can do it), AND it can all be done *offline*
In my college experience at *Berkeley*, I would say the same. Freshmen year, all the new CS majors switched to Linux (various distros, Gentoo seemed to be most popular at the time). I was one of them. Wespent hours lovingly compiling and configuring programs.By the start of the 2nd year, most had switched back to Windows cause it was too much of a hassle to maintain their system...and because everything they needed to do could be done in Windows *without any configuration or maintenance*. They still used *nix, but mostly on the school's lab computers. Linux isn't totally useless, but it is overkill for the vast majority of what people use a computer for. And until it becomes something that is pain-free for the user who *doesn't have the time to configure it* (regardless of their technical skill and aptitude), Linux will remain a niche system.
This is all because MS won't document their interfaces to allow interoperability. They would rather pay millions of dollars a day in fines than to simply document their operating system to allow people to do things like run MS Office on alternative platforms. They still make more money selling office to only run on Windows than the fines are costing them.As far as the reason why Dos, then windows was on everyone's desktop? That is easy, they had a monopoly of the OS on the original IBM computer and they illegally used every trick in the book to maintain that monopoly over the years. They were convicted multiple times in several jurisdictions world wide for breaking these laws. The convictions have never been overturned. The Microsoft Corporation is guilt of felony crimes. Breaking laws that border on organized crime is hardly the kind of company with which I want myself or my friends and family doing business.
"And believe it or not, probably the single biggest MS asset in the public's mind was their openness. MS has always promoted the PC as an open computing platform; open to all hardware vendors, open to all software developers.".... but don't even THINK about pre-installing any other OS on any of your prebuilt PCs, or you'll lose your OEM discount.
"Sorry I didn't spam the book links"It's hardly spamming. That's a weak excuse.If you say the guy has written books, then what are these books? "How to pretend you know Linux" or "Beginning Ubuntu Linux: From Novice to Professional" What the books are about matters, you see. I still don't consider anyone who can't be resourceful enough to find alternatives to MS Office on Linux an expert of anything, let alone GNU/Linux."if you knew in the first place why did you ask?"I didn't know he was even a writer. At least, mattwade gave me that much. So I spent five seconds doing the courtesy to others mattwade forgot do to.
>In my experience, EVERY Linsux user eventually switches >BACK to Windows once they realize how useless Linsux is. i haven't. been running linux and only linux on my laptop for a year and dual booted using linux almost exclusively before that. in all that time i haven't even once thought that i needed or missed or wanted to install windows on it.
nightfallAug 4, 2006
Read the story and click on the links as to the problems he was having with crossover and open office. Good read.
phadvickersAug 4, 2006
Electromagnet: Microsoft got to where it is from business and management- not great software. Bill Gates convinced IBM to sell their computers with an operating system included, and formatted out a deal. The only problem was, Gates didn't have an operating system yet to sell. He literally found someone who had programmed an operating system, and bought it off him after having struck the deal with IBM. The Operating System was, of course, what is now called MS-DOS. Windows didn't really hit it off until 3.1- which is really nothing but a plug-in GUI to MS-DOS. Similiar to XServer and your desktop of choice (Gnome/KDE for example) in Linux. The entire WinXX line afterwards (95, 98, and ME) were nothing but DOS underneath to be honest. Why IBM signed a deal with Microsoft that let Microsoft retain rights to their OS, no one knows. It is, in retrospect, the biggest mistake by 'Big Blue' and can be attributed with why they fell from their lofty perch in the late 80s. Furthermore, Linux didn't debut until the early 90s. GNU was around in the 80s, but lacked an open source kernel to use. To simply argue that Microsoft's software is better because they managed to get on top is treading the side of ignorance. Now, I'm not what you would call a die hard Linux user. I -learned- on Windows (Like any OS, you have to learn it. Your speech on how any user should just be able to sit down and use an OS is a nice, but naive, dream.) and so I'm most comfortable with it. I still have WinXP on my main machine, alongside Ubuntu Dapper Drake. I didn't get onto the Ubuntu bandwagon until a forum post dugg here showed me a way to get my broadcom Wi-Fi NICs going in Linux. But I will say this: For every day use- e-mail, messaging, web browsing, general word processing etc. the Ubuntu distro gives Microsoft a hard run for its money. And installation of Debian packages through Ubuntu is a far easier way to install programs than it is to install a program in Windows. Personally, I prefer Linux to Windows. I also like having the -option- of being able to compile programs myself. I will give you this though: The way Linux has been steadilly making ground in the market, would, by your logic, show that it is the better OS right?
isepicAug 4, 2006
Just be thankful your work doesn't force you to use Lotus Word Pro.
maxkAug 4, 2006
...and yet it runs on Mac OS X.
fatdog789Aug 4, 2006
It seems that you have never used Revision Tracking in Word before, son.It does what wikis do *before* wikis were around to do that. Each user gets his own history in the document, and ALL changes can be seen inline (not diff'ed). Notes about revisions can be added inline. Documents can be assigned various states of revision (ie, draft vs final). The big kickers? You only need 1 easily transferrable file, changes between multiple versions can be merged, you don't need to create extra user accounts and passwords for people to forget, you don't need a tech department to set any of it up (ie, normal people can do it), AND it can all be done *offline*
fatdog789Aug 4, 2006
In my college experience at *Berkeley*, I would say the same. Freshmen year, all the new CS majors switched to Linux (various distros, Gentoo seemed to be most popular at the time). I was one of them. Wespent hours lovingly compiling and configuring programs.By the start of the 2nd year, most had switched back to Windows cause it was too much of a hassle to maintain their system...and because everything they needed to do could be done in Windows *without any configuration or maintenance*. They still used *nix, but mostly on the school's lab computers. Linux isn't totally useless, but it is overkill for the vast majority of what people use a computer for. And until it becomes something that is pain-free for the user who *doesn't have the time to configure it* (regardless of their technical skill and aptitude), Linux will remain a niche system.
buckrogers1965Aug 4, 2006
This is all because MS won't document their interfaces to allow interoperability. They would rather pay millions of dollars a day in fines than to simply document their operating system to allow people to do things like run MS Office on alternative platforms. They still make more money selling office to only run on Windows than the fines are costing them.As far as the reason why Dos, then windows was on everyone's desktop? That is easy, they had a monopoly of the OS on the original IBM computer and they illegally used every trick in the book to maintain that monopoly over the years. They were convicted multiple times in several jurisdictions world wide for breaking these laws. The convictions have never been overturned. The Microsoft Corporation is guilt of felony crimes. Breaking laws that border on organized crime is hardly the kind of company with which I want myself or my friends and family doing business.
nekoAug 5, 2006
"And believe it or not, probably the single biggest MS asset in the public's mind was their openness. MS has always promoted the PC as an open computing platform; open to all hardware vendors, open to all software developers.".... but don't even THINK about pre-installing any other OS on any of your prebuilt PCs, or you'll lose your OEM discount.
redhatcatAug 6, 2006
"Sorry I didn't spam the book links"It's hardly spamming. That's a weak excuse.If you say the guy has written books, then what are these books? "How to pretend you know Linux" or "Beginning Ubuntu Linux: From Novice to Professional" What the books are about matters, you see. I still don't consider anyone who can't be resourceful enough to find alternatives to MS Office on Linux an expert of anything, let alone GNU/Linux."if you knew in the first place why did you ask?"I didn't know he was even a writer. At least, mattwade gave me that much. So I spent five seconds doing the courtesy to others mattwade forgot do to.
starmanjonesAug 9, 2006
>In my experience, EVERY Linsux user eventually switches >BACK to Windows once they realize how useless Linsux is. i haven't. been running linux and only linux on my laptop for a year and dual booted using linux almost exclusively before that. in all that time i haven't even once thought that i needed or missed or wanted to install windows on it.