studmuffin007 Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) I am trying to convince a friend about the advantages of switching to Linux but not getting very far, in his attempt to furthermore advoid the switch even to dual boot or to go as far as trying the Debian and Ubuntu windows based installer he posted this to me. http://www.computeractive.co.uk/forbes/new...06/linux-losers the article is nearly 2 year's old so what i would like is some comments/feedback from the hardened/seasoned linux user regarding the article and some friendly advice/comments for my mate as to why he should go the linux way and not the m$ way. Thanks in advance Edited January 31, 2007 by studmuffin007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 Tell him to use OpenBSD, then. The Linux v. OpenBSD v. the other BSD's thing is just crap slinging anyways ("Linux is for Loser" - sensationalism and flame-bait in one!), as far as most any open source advocate is concerned, just use one of 'em ;) Your friend is using bad logic in taking an article wherein an OpenBSD coder is talking crap about Linux and using it as a reason to use MS instead. Doesn't make much sense... As for the article, meh. I wouldn't put much stock in it. It's your basic in-fighting and jealousy, Linux got the programmers that BSD didn't. I'm not sure the lawsuit really had anything to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphitus Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 I'm with Theo. OpenBSD is far cleaner and better documented than linux. But when it gets to this, the support is behind linux. Linux has the programmers, it has the hardware support, so the decision is made for you. James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Yep Im with the above posters. The article is pretty much sour grapes... although I can't say if I were in Theo's position I wouldn't have them too. BSD is more solid and in lots of technical things "better" than Linux but it doesn't have the diversity of HW support Linux does. Then again Linux doesn't have the same diversity as Win* ... Linux has far more users and developers than BSD but BSD is technically better developed ... In the end it comes down to "so what" ... just like differences between Linux distro's ... What makes a OS or even distro "better" than another is dependent upon who is using it and for what. Your friend is using bad logic in taking an article wherein an OpenBSD coder is talking crap about Linux and using it as a reason to use MS instead. Doesn't make much sense... tyme is spot on, it just doesn't make any sense... AT ALL ... its like me looking at a review of Ford vs GM as an arguament to buy a Chevy... It sounds like your friend just doesn't want to change... so why bother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg2 Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 tyme is spot on, it just doesn't make any sense... AT ALL ... its like me looking at a review of Ford vs GM as an arguament to buy a Chevy... Perhaps you meant Ford vs Chrysler? GM==Chevy :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javaguy Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Does anybody suspect that eventually Microsoft will brand its own Linux distro? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Does anybody suspect that eventually Microsoft will brand its own Linux distro?I don't suspect it in the least. There would have to be some major, major changes at MS before they would ever considering making something that's open source. Those types of changes just won't ever occur - MS is a proprietary company, they have been from the start, and they aren't likely to change - it's more likely the company will go under first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javaguy Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 I suspect you're right, but I have to wonder. I think Bill Gates is primarily motivated by his desire to make money. The public's perception of him is that he simply wants absolute control of the software industry; this is true, but it is a means to an end and not the end itself. His primary end is to maximize his profit. It's possible to make money in the open-source world, and in an ever-changing world I think the day could come when MS has a very different business model--not because Gates will suddenly become sensitive to the feelings of the open-source community, but because he has always been happy to alter his business model to adapt to changing conditions. Not probable, but I don't rule it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 One thing he has never altered is the proprietary format. He does not want people using his companies assets. Open Source would allow other people to use it, without MS licensing it to them. This is a huge loss in profits for MS, and the reason they will never go open source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javaguy Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 That's true, and will be true if MS continues to derive most of its profits from licensing. The world can change, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 The world? Maybe ;) MS? I'm not so sure :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studmuffin007 Posted February 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Look on the bright side 4 out of 7 M$ businesses are loss making, for every xbox they sell they lose $100 the only thing keeping them afloat on top of the companys 60 billion dollar fortune is Office and the operating systems they produce no matter how late they appear. It wont be long before people realise there are better alternatives out there. Who needs M$ office when you have Open Office saving you between £70 and a £100 not to mention the free open source OS out there. Who realy needs Vista? not me i am happy with what i have (laptop runinig Kubuntu tower running XP, graphics card prevents any linux install over xp even a live cd stalls) so something may have to give and maybe javaguy has a point? i am not a business man but i know that 4out of 7 products making a loss cant be very good for business no matter how big you are, and i think M$ may have to change with the times. I have 3 comps in my house 1 of them my sons why should i be forced into buying M$ office just because he uses it at school or the new OS just because the school has it? if the school were to use linux + OO and maybe a few other schools and goverment departments then William and M$ would have to look at there business and where will it stands in the future?. The more people that wake up to Open Source and its advantadges the better. 1 last point when xerox (i think) wrote the original windows os they gave it to bill and claimed it was not very good buggy and not suited for a computer (Ring any bells?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindwave Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 take him to www.mcnlive.org. walk him through rolling his own distro on a USB flash key and that he has the advantage of carrying his OS, his email, his bookmarks and everything else, in his pocket. And that ANY pc that will boot from USB is HIS pc. A few weeks of that kind of power and he'll want to learn more. Trust me. My wife LOVES the speed and flexibility of a FLASH boot, and of course if you keep it small enough you can run it all from RAM and FLY!. Plus Kris has just released a version of MCNL that has the ability to 'host' other OS'es inside it (VMWARE like) Lets see XP or Vista do THAT! Arguing OS's is like putting a dress on a pig. When youre done , you both feel silly and the pig is REALLY mad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Well, the article is really pretty old and Theo only says that Linux is for losers because - for him - it is all about money. It is not about the quality in the first place but money. De Raadt says that's partly because Linux gets support from big hardware makers like Hewlett-Packard and IBM, which he says have turned Linux hackers into an unpaid workforce. "These companies used to have to pay to develop Unix. They had in-house engineers who wrote new features when customers wanted them. Now they just allow the user community to do their own little hacks and features, trying to get to the same functionality level, and they're just putting pennies into it," De Raadt says. If people write code for free in their spare time, that is their very own decision. Nobody forces them to do so. Many programmers write code for Linux because of the fun of it, because they want to improve things. The money is nice, but not that important. If there would be the same amount of spare-time hackers working on BSD, he'd probably say: BSD is crap because of those many coders that work for free and make HP, IBM and other "pigs" fat and wealthy. BSD, Solaris, Linux... who cares? As long as the system is safer than VirusXP, can be customized and bugfixed, I don't care which one I use. It all comes down to: Use the OS what works for you (technically, ethically, economically). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reiver_Fluffi Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 It all comes down to: Use the OS what works for you (technically, ethically, economically). And the real problem being that no one fits all of those requirements 100% IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.