life after Windows....

"aracari" wrote in message
...
'Lou Ravi' wrote this:


Quite, I've been hearing for years now how Linux is going to take over,
that it's the best things since sliced bread etc. That's tosh, it has a
tiny market share, is not suitable for the average PC user and will
never be anything other than a minority OS for people who like tinkering
with their PCs.

That depends on whether developers get their act together and
bring it to prime time. It has the potential to become a serious
alternative to Windows.

It does

But only if the geeks accept that the MUST be plug and play for absolutely
everything that a normal domestic user might reasonably want to do.

They don't seem to be so minded.

tim

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
aracari writes:

But things get better all the time. I know a lot of people using
one of the distribs quite happily. Mind you, they rarely tell you
what they do with it!

Because most Linux users do almost nothing with their computers.

Almost all users do almost nothing with their computers.

The average home computer is used for net surfing, email and letter writing
and perhaps Skype, if they're ambitious.

If they've got kids they may play some games, most of which make a mess of
Windows, but for the vast majority of people a web surfing tool and an
office setup is all they either want or need, and what's more they'll all
tell you that if you ask them.

The major problems only turn up when people write their web pages in such a
way as to only work on Microsoft products, as is currently the case with
the British government's 'Government Gateway' system.

As for the musician who couldn't get software, very few professionals in
the music business use Windows products. They're almost all using Apple
products, including software. Indeed, when Apple bought 'Logic' and
insisted on stopping manufacturing the PC version it caused something of a
stir in the industry.
..
Now, this being the case, there's little reason why people shouldn't use,
for example, Ubuntu on their computers.

It's free, reasonably easy to install, something which most Windows users
find hard work anyway, runs a friendly GUI and finds just about everyone's
hardware with remarkably few problems.

It also finds things like other Windows computers, workgroups, domains,
servers and other stuff that people have at home if they're beyond the
'single machine in the home' stage remarkably easily and connects to them
with few problems.

What's stopping people is that the shops don't sell computers with the stuff
installed, but if Microsoft ever introduce the restrictive annual licensing
systems they were talking about four or five years ago people will.

People already resent paying what is becoming known as 'Windows Tax'.

Already there are larger numbers on Linux computers about than ever before.
The Asus 'eeepc' type devices the shops are currently full of almost all run
Linux in some form or other, with a software fit that is remarkably like
the one I mentioned above for the home user.

As the public become educated (an inevitable result of computer education in
schools), and as government departments in Europe abandon Windows for legal
reason, the user base will expand.

At some point in the reasonably near future I fully expect Unix and its
variants will become dominant.


--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Lou Ravi" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:

So.

What do you run on your server?

I don't have a server nor do the vast majority of computer users.

So what do you back up to?

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
aracari writes:

But things get better all the time. I know a lot of people using
one of the distribs quite happily. Mind you, they rarely tell you
what they do with it!

Because most Linux users do almost nothing with their computers.

Almost all users do almost nothing with their computers.

Rubbish. Try switching it on the next time.

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
www.davidhorne.net (email address on website)
"The fact is that when I compose I never think of and never
have thought of meeting the listener." -George Perle (RIP 2009)

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:57:44 +0000, aracari wrote:

'Mxsmanic' wrote this:

aracari writes:

CP/M cannot be compared with Linux any more than DOS can be.

Why not?

Duh! Because neither are GUI op/systems.

ps-Are you still being sockpuppeted by Ari Silverslime?
lol.

Once you create a GUI, you essentially create a new op/sys.

The GUI for Windows NT was originally a replaceable subsystem. X Windows
systems on UNIX-like operating systems are also slightly in this category.

The GUI is grafted on after development. That is one reason why
many functions exist in the op/sys which are not supported by the
GUI.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency to integrate the GUI further and further
into the OS to improve performance and add features, and eventually they
become one and the same. At the same time, stability and security usually
suffer, as do server applications (GUIs consume enormous amounts of
resources).

See above. You don't quite understand how op/sys are developed
...although I agree that GUIs take a lot of system resources.


--
web site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - news comment service, logic,
economics, energy, education, politics, etc .... no tits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the working class [] don't feed the squirrels
can kiss my arse [] I mean the tories
i've got the foreman's job at last [] never trust a man with a wig
only when it's money -- i chav made good
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mxsmanic wrote:

And that's another problem with Linux: an endless number of "distributions"
which are actually different operating systems.

No, they are different distributions of the same operating system
(GNU/Linux).

With no standards, there's no
hope of competing with Windows.

The difference in standards is negligible and hidden from the general
user. I agree that package management systems should be compatible and
libraries and mount points should be standard, but you're making out
that there is much more of a difference than there actually is.

Mxsmanic wrote:

William Black writes:

What do you run on your server?

FreeBSD. It's a real UNIX, not a fake one like Linux. And it runs very well
without a GUI.

I often run FreeBSD as well but to say that it is a real UNIX(tm) as
opposed to a fake UNIX(tm) is ridiculous. Beyond POSIX compliance, what
more do you want?

Next you'll be talking about the difference in memory management...

Mxsmanic wrote:

aracari writes:

But things get better all the time. I know a lot of people using
one of the distribs quite happily. Mind you, they rarely tell you
what they do with it!

Because most Linux users do almost nothing with their computers.

What a load of rubbish. I do far more with Linux than I ever did (or
could) with MICROS~1. I'll also give Mac OSX a miss, thank you very much.

William Black wrote:

Almost all users do almost nothing with their computers.

Yep. I often complain that user-friendliness has now become
idiot-friendliness. Mainstream operating systems and programs are
targeted at the lowest common denominator, the result being that the
users are lulled into a false sense of security. It wouldn't be a
problem with a system that simply worked with no bugs, but no such
system exists. Instead, the user is left at the mercy of designers who
seek to protect the user from himself. In the case of Windows, a
monolithic system that has been continuously kludged to bring it up to
date with the modern age, there is nothing the user can do once it
fails. At least with Linux and the various open source BSD operating
systems, a quick search on Google will tell the intrepid (or, ideally,
competent) user what to do to make it work again. That is, of course,
if it fails in the first place, although more a matter of when with
Ubuntu

Already there are larger numbers on Linux computers about than ever before.
The Asus 'eeepc' type devices the shops are currently full of almost all run
Linux in some form or other, with a software fit that is remarkably like
the one I mentioned above for the home user.

As the public become educated (an inevitable result of computer education in
schools), and as government departments in Europe abandon Windows for legal
reason, the user base will expand.

At some point in the reasonably near future I fully expect Unix and its
variants will become dominant.

That's what I hope.

We might disagree on politics, but at least you have your head screwed
on when it comes to technology

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:07:24 +0000, John Stubbings wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:57:44 +0000, aracari wrote:

'Mxsmanic' wrote this:

aracari writes:

CP/M cannot be compared with Linux any more than DOS can be.

Why not?

Duh! Because neither are GUI op/systems.

ps-Are you still being sockpuppeted by Ari Silverslime?

Figures. The homo has no balls to do that to my face.
--
Ari's Fun Times!
http://tr.im/hrFG
Motto: Run, rabbit, Run!