Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

GhostCore · Apr 7, 2004, 05:21 am

Hey Folks.

So I just switched over to Mozilla 1.6 to replace Explorer and downloaded OpenOffice 1.1 to replace Office XP. So far, pure bliss! Although I'm still using Windows these days, I do hope to migrate to Linux very soon to complete the circle. Why? Well it's really quite simple, and I'll begin at the beginning.

I've been a Microsoft whore from my first days of computing (I still know all my DOS commands and kind old Mister File Manager"). However, as often is the case with bloated corporations, Microsoft is getting greedy. Too greedy for my tastes. I really do believe that Gates would have us all in shackles today by way of Windows and expensive licensing systems if it wasn't for the rebelious, competitive, but humanitarian developers who inhabit the Happy Land that is the global open source community.

Yes, Bill's hand is everywhere, orchestrating this and that to bring mankind to his doorstep with fistfulls of dollars. But I do think Bill's afraid, and I do hope Microsoft chokes on Linux for the desktop.

Now, this could be a passing crush. Maybe I'm getting all hot and bothered because it's so good to see this kind of progress in the world where people communicate with each other and work together to bring about common good. But I must say, thus far, open source is just exhilirating. Could it be the way of the future? If so, could there be further implications in world politics at some point as this kind of cooperation branches out into the non-technical aspects of human life on this planet?

My view, as I'm forming it, is that open source will continue to move like a glacier; slowly, but inevitably. As development methodologies become more streamlined, and as innovations in the software world continue to solidify, I believe open source may just be the noose that tightens around the necks of entities like Microsoft and suffocates them to incapacitation. And if monopolizing corporations start to crumble and this gets public attention, could this teach the world a lesson in cooperation? Therefore, can open source save the world?

Perhaps that's too sappy for many tastes. I suspect this new addiction of mine could be clouding my logic for the time being, but that's my two cents - AS OF TODAY. What do you geeks think about the open source movement?

Suburbanite · Apr 7, 2004, 06:30 am

First of all, don't glaciers move quickly? Second, Macs are your best bet for a rival, they sell about 3% of the computer products and market themselves well. Linux sells less than 1% and blow their wads on superbowl commercials.

Autophage · Apr 8, 2004, 11:56 pm

Yes, but Mac's OS X is based off of linux... or is it BSD? Point is, unix at the core, rather than their proprietary stuff any more.

lessthan · Apr 12, 2004, 11:41 pm

its all about what the user wants in an OS. if they want to be able to change the way their os is they go with linux like if they know how to code and script windows is more for the "newb" people who dont really know what they want and how to use what they already have

Suburbanite · Apr 13, 2004, 01:07 am

Which is just about everyone and their moms. Hence the lack of success for Lenux. Macintosh knows this, they OS X appeals to people, it is easy to use, functions fast, the average PC user isn't too confused by it.

mojo_the_migo · Apr 13, 2004, 01:11 am

Ok please explain, what is opensource and all these great things that linux has that windows doesn't? I know that Windows is easyer, but lets say I was a much smarter man and could use linux. What, in simple terms that a small child could understand, that linux does so very well?

ruiner · Apr 13, 2004, 09:22 pm

actually linux ownership is soon to overtake mac ownership

Comrade · Apr 13, 2004, 11:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lessthan,)
its all about what the user wants in an OS. if they want to be able to change the way their os is they go with linux like if they know how to code and script windows is more for the "newb" people who dont really know what they want and how to use what they already have<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You are half right, half wrong. I've worked with computers since I was 8, and I prefer Windows XP.

Half wrong? Not a "newb"

Half right? Because you hit on the "people's needs."

I am a gamer. Windows XP suits my needs. XP never crashes (unless I do something stupid, like mess with my registry, can't remember what I was thinking), and it is the prominent platform for PC game releases, it easily allows for installation of hardware, requires little fuss.

I do feel sorry for people running DOS based machines, the way I feel about people who believe the commercials about blazingly fast dial-up.

Also, Linux causes cancer. So do contrails. And popcorn. It's all on the internet.

That said, I do enjoy console commands. DOS, Linux, you name it, it makes me feel fuzzy inside.

ah...dir/w...good times

lessthan · Apr 14, 2004, 01:40 pm

linux allows you to check your programs and allows you to change the code if you find the problem and know how to change it. it gives your much more stability because that spyware i dont think that cna be installed on linux because of the platform is very different then windows in certain areas yes yes they both have task bars and start bars but the way they are setup is very much different then the windows platform. there fore it is a more reliable system in all there arent very many things if any that load on startup other then the things needed to run it - my view on it

mojo_the_migo · Apr 14, 2004, 05:52 pm

WOW thanks lessthan, that really cleared things up! Sounds like you have to really understand computers to use linex properly though. If I knew how to use stuff like that, I probably would use linex too.

Suburbanite · Apr 14, 2004, 07:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
actually linux ownership is soon to overtake mac ownership<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

linux based servers I'm sure, not linux computers.

alex · Apr 16, 2004, 02:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
linux based servers I'm sure, not linux computers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I work for a company with more linux servers than I can count. I am directly (with a team of 30 others) responsible for the upkeep of about 4,000 of them. Your traffic passes over our network every day. We have no Macintosh servers. Most of us have Macintosh desktops (well, in addition to Linux desktops for software development), for two reasons. First, we like Unix. Second, Windows sucks. I mean, it is just unpleasant to use. I'm not going to make a value judgement on it from a stability or utility standpoint. I don't trust my Macs any further than I trust Windows.

Anyways, what I was getting at here, is that it is silly to suggest that linux server ownership will overtake Mac server ownership. There is a very very very small number of Macintosh servers actually in the wild. And before you slashdot readers point out "Big Mac", the VT compute cluster, please note that I have, in this facility alone, more than ten times that many machines, running Linux, Solaris, and OSF1. Mostly Linux.

I won't comment on open source. Most of the people who have posted in this thread don't have a high degree of understanding. The principle is simple -- you have the source code. Therefore you do not pay for it, and if it breaks you can fix it, or suggest a fix to the author(s). This can not possibly be a bad thing.

Alex

Apr 7, 2004, 05:21 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
GhostCore Sedimentary Rock Posts: 18	Hey Folks. So I just switched over to Mozilla 1.6 to replace Explorer and downloaded OpenOffice 1.1 to replace Office XP. So far, pure bliss! Although I'm still using Windows these days, I do hope to migrate to Linux very soon to complete the circle. Why? Well it's really quite simple, and I'll begin at the beginning. I've been a Microsoft whore from my first days of computing (I still know all my DOS commands and kind old Mister File Manager"). However, as often is the case with bloated corporations, Microsoft is getting greedy. Too greedy for my tastes. I really do believe that Gates would have us all in shackles today by way of Windows and expensive licensing systems if it wasn't for the rebelious, competitive, but humanitarian developers who inhabit the Happy Land that is the global open source community. Yes, Bill's hand is everywhere, orchestrating this and that to bring mankind to his doorstep with fistfulls of dollars. But I do think Bill's afraid, and I do hope Microsoft chokes on Linux for the desktop. Now, this could be a passing crush. Maybe I'm getting all hot and bothered because it's so good to see this kind of progress in the world where people communicate with each other and work together to bring about common good. But I must say, thus far, open source is just exhilirating. Could it be the way of the future? If so, could there be further implications in world politics at some point as this kind of cooperation branches out into the non-technical aspects of human life on this planet? My view, as I'm forming it, is that open source will continue to move like a glacier; slowly, but inevitably. As development methodologies become more streamlined, and as innovations in the software world continue to solidify, I believe open source may just be the noose that tightens around the necks of entities like Microsoft and suffocates them to incapacitation. And if monopolizing corporations start to crumble and this gets public attention, could this teach the world a lesson in cooperation? Therefore, can open source save the world? Perhaps that's too sappy for many tastes. I suspect this new addiction of mine could be clouding my logic for the time being, but that's my two cents - AS OF TODAY. What do you geeks think about the open source movement? "We see things not as they are, but as WE are."

Apr 12, 2004, 11:41 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
lessthan Igneous Magma Location: Buffalo NY ( hell ) Posts: 196	its all about what the user wants in an OS. if they want to be able to change the way their os is they go with linux like if they know how to code and script windows is more for the "newb" people who dont really know what they want and how to use what they already have My, my what a mess we've made Of our pretty little heads these days. It appears a heavy wind's blown through here recently. Best wishes have been made for you

Apr 13, 2004, 01:11 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
mojo_the_migo Molten Ash Location: Michigan Posts: 90	Ok please explain, what is opensource and all these great things that linux has that windows doesn't? I know that Windows is easyer, but lets say I was a much smarter man and could use linux. What, in simple terms that a small child could understand, that linux does so very well? Meat tastes like murder and murder tastes pretty *** damn good - Denis Leary

Apr 13, 2004, 11:01 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Comrade Hot Lava Location: Texas Posts: 1,229	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lessthan,) its all about what the user wants in an OS. if they want to be able to change the way their os is they go with linux like if they know how to code and script windows is more for the "newb" people who dont really know what they want and how to use what they already have<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You are half right, half wrong. I've worked with computers since I was 8, and I prefer Windows XP. Half wrong? Not a "newb" Half right? Because you hit on the "people's needs." I am a gamer. Windows XP suits my needs. XP never crashes (unless I do something stupid, like mess with my registry, can't remember what I was thinking), and it is the prominent platform for PC game releases, it easily allows for installation of hardware, requires little fuss. I do feel sorry for people running DOS based machines, the way I feel about people who believe the commercials about blazingly fast dial-up. Also, Linux causes cancer. So do contrails. And popcorn. It's all on the internet. That said, I do enjoy console commands. DOS, Linux, you name it, it makes me feel fuzzy inside. ah...dir/w...good times Oh, it's really too bad, isn't it? -- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050121/480/watw10701210224 Hahaha, that's funny. Liberals are so silly!

Apr 14, 2004, 01:40 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
lessthan Igneous Magma Location: Buffalo NY ( hell ) Posts: 196	linux allows you to check your programs and allows you to change the code if you find the problem and know how to change it. it gives your much more stability because that spyware i dont think that cna be installed on linux because of the platform is very different then windows in certain areas yes yes they both have task bars and start bars but the way they are setup is very much different then the windows platform. there fore it is a more reliable system in all there arent very many things if any that load on startup other then the things needed to run it - my view on it My, my what a mess we've made Of our pretty little heads these days. It appears a heavy wind's blown through here recently. Best wishes have been made for you

Apr 7, 2004, 06:30 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	First of all, don't glaciers move quickly? Second, Macs are your best bet for a rival, they sell about 3% of the computer products and market themselves well. Linux sells less than 1% and blow their wads on superbowl commercials.

Apr 8, 2004, 11:56 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Autophage Molten Ash Location: Washington, DC-ish Posts: 103	Yes, but Mac's OS X is based off of linux... or is it BSD? Point is, unix at the core, rather than their proprietary stuff any more.

Apr 13, 2004, 01:07 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	Which is just about everyone and their moms. Hence the lack of success for Lenux. Macintosh knows this, they OS X appeals to people, it is easy to use, functions fast, the average PC user isn't too confused by it.

Apr 13, 2004, 09:22 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	actually linux ownership is soon to overtake mac ownership

Apr 14, 2004, 05:52 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
mojo_the_migo Molten Ash Location: Michigan Posts: 90	WOW thanks lessthan, that really cleared things up! Sounds like you have to really understand computers to use linex properly though. If I knew how to use stuff like that, I probably would use linex too. Meat tastes like murder and murder tastes pretty *** damn good - Denis Leary

Apr 14, 2004, 07:28 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) actually linux ownership is soon to overtake mac ownership<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> linux based servers I'm sure, not linux computers.

Apr 16, 2004, 02:22 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
alex Molten Ash Location: Arlington, Virginia Posts: 75	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by linux based servers I'm sure, not linux computers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I work for a company with more linux servers than I can count. I am directly (with a team of 30 others) responsible for the upkeep of about 4,000 of them. Your traffic passes over our network every day. We have no Macintosh servers. Most of us have Macintosh desktops (well, in addition to Linux desktops for software development), for two reasons. First, we like Unix. Second, Windows sucks. I mean, it is just unpleasant to use. I'm not going to make a value judgement on it from a stability or utility standpoint. I don't trust my Macs any further than I trust Windows. Anyways, what I was getting at here, is that it is silly to suggest that linux server ownership will overtake Mac server ownership. There is a very very very small number of Macintosh servers actually in the wild. And before you slashdot readers point out "Big Mac", the VT compute cluster, please note that I have, in this facility alone, more than ten times that many machines, running Linux, Solaris, and OSF1. Mostly Linux. I won't comment on open source. Most of the people who have posted in this thread don't have a high degree of understanding. The principle is simple -- you have the source code. Therefore you do not pay for it, and if it breaks you can fix it, or suggest a fix to the author(s). This can not possibly be a bad thing. Alex