Innovation and Quality . . .mutually exclusive?

[CheshireMac]

I've been going through some of the threads here, and I see a common, unanswered question that seems to be the root of much debate.
With the release of Vista, Microsoft has entered into new territory, finally competing with Linux distros (Ubuntu being the closest to Win as I can see) at an appropriate level. In the past, M$ seemed to be quite ignorant of its free competitor. Now, with Vista, it looks like the race is on in the competition between freedom and convention, and convention seems to be leading the way with shiny new graphics and an array of gadgetry that reminds me of certain open source creations.
Another concern I read about is the new IE7, which has adopted much of Mozilla's ideas for what I deem "Internet's Revival" (That's something I should start a new thread on). On a side note, although M$ has made a functional version of IE7, it doesn't quite compare to the limitless options that Firefox has at it's disposal thanks to open source contribution, development, and distrobution.
The real scare for an advocate like myself is that Rhythmbox and Totem are not going to be able to keep up with the options that Media Player is offering . . . where M$ has such a command of sponsorship in other electronic interests, it generally has no problem being superior, although I don't mention iTunes since Apple isn't in this discussion formally. Ubuntu's media playing cababilities are quite vast, but the work that is involved in acquiring those capabilities is often discouraging to users.
Reading through some past articles (Jason Brooks' "Vista vs Ubuntu?"), I find a lot of sketchy opinions dedicated to majority-rules, fitted between arguments of Ubuntu's gradual supremacy submitted by readers . . . the bottom line is that people in the computer world can't seem to even agree-to-disagree . . . which is too bad, because personally, I could care less if my neighbour uses M$, so long as anyone I rely on for info/data uses Ubuntu, or some compatible Linux distro.
In the end, I suppose it comes down to opinion and preference. No single person can declare that M$/Linux is better on the whole, but they can decide that one or the other suits their own needs, and settle.
If you like the ease and comfort of point&click, the genetically-inclined programs, and the corporate popularity/support, M$ is right up your ally. On the other hand, if you enjoy defining your own computer, disowning anti-virus software, being able to modify anything, down to the finest detail, and not having to spend a penny for that freedom, Linux is right for you. Choose wisely, and may the source be with you. ;)

[mysticrider92]

From what I have seen of Vista (reading things here and trying it in Office Depot), it is more challenging Mac OSX (and Unix) instead of Linux. The os almost looks Mac-like, the security features are similar (the Unix base is still superior), but it is all M$-controlled. Yes, M$ does seem to be trying to compete more with Linux, but if you look at their past, they don't really care who they compete with, as long as no one sells better or is more popular. I agree with your last point there.

[marx2k]

I want more people to use Linux for strictly selfish reasons. The more people that use Linux, the more chance we have of getting closed-source and non-linux-specific drivers/apps ported to Linux which is mainly what Linux NEEDS.

Beyond that, I dont care what OS people use. If someone wants to shoot themselves in the foot with an OS that cripples what they're able to do, that's fine with me.

By the way, what is 'genetically inclined'?

[Trebuchet]

I don't think Vista is intended to compete with Linux at all; it's designed to appeal to Mac users and Windows users who have been thinking of switching to Mac (like me). As far as Linux in the consumer market it's not even on Microsoft's radar.

I played with it at CompUSA today and my reaction was "Eh." The Aero transparent windows were pretty and things opened quickly, but that's not enough to sell me a new system and/or OS. I'd kinda hoped it would be more exciting. At the moment I'm more inclined to look for a new system running XP Pro, although I'll be OK with Vista. (Admittedly, the Vista machines may not have been shown to their best advantage. Half of them were hooked up to widescreen LCDs with screen resolutions unsupported by the OS, meaning the images were distorted.) I drooled over the iMacs, but they're simply beyond my budget.

BTW, Microsoft has announced that XP Service Pack 3 will be released this fall, so obviously they're not abandoning it just yet.

[CheshireMac]

I want more people to use Linux for strictly selfish reasons. The more people that use Linux, the more chance we have of getting closed-source and non-linux-specific drivers/apps ported to Linux which is mainly what Linux NEEDS.

Beyond that, I dont care what OS people use. If someone wants to shoot themselves in the foot with an OS that cripples what they're able to do, that's fine with me.

By the way, what is 'genetically inclined'?
I mean that certain programs are designed to work with Windows and only Windows . . . I think that we need a universal computer format that allows all software to be available on virtually every platform.

[Ocxic]

Ubuntu has made more proggress in a few years then windows has made in a few decades, givin linux was around way b4 windows but just look at how fast ubuntu is comming out with new and improved features and support, not to metion the fact that microsoft who has billions of dallars are only able to patch there systems of flaws once, and only once a month, wihile with linux you get a patch in a few days or less... I find that linux has a better way of keeping things organized and proper while microsoft just tries to push in new code without reviewing and/or updating previous codemanship

[irish_flu]

I don't find innovation and quality to *always* be mutually exclusive. Look at Mercedes Benz. Granted, they're very expensive, but you get very innovative features (often first-to-market) while still retaining a high-quality product.

As for them being mutually exclusive in the world of computing, I think it all depends on what you define as "innovation" and what you define as "quality" (as you said, it all comes down to opinion). The Windows95 GUI was an innovation, but it was very poor quality. Microsoft has fixed that (the GUI doesn't crash all the time anymore) but they've had to move ahread in order to still be (arguably) "innovative".

Same with the leading Linux display managers; Gnnome and KDE are both pretty high quality, if you're not installing bleeding-edge stuff (such as beryl, which BTW has worked just fine for me). That said, if you're willing to look at innovation on a slightly *slower* scale, then they're both quite innovative. You just have to be willing to get your "innovation" a few months later than the other guy, if you're looking for higher quality.

Same with Windows, really. Windows XP had some innovation, but IMHO had many problems up until Service Pack 2. By the time Service Pack 2 came out, OSX and Linux were both still using the same basic desktops they were when the first iteration of XP was introduced; there wasn't much widespread new innovation (on a grand scale, I mean). Still, Service Pack 2 didn't seem very innovative even though the OS was only a couple of years old.

Same with Mac OSX; I used 10.0.4 and 10.2; they pretty well stunk quality-wise, but they were AWESOME in the inovation department. Now the quality has raised considerably, and the OS is no less innovative, but it still seems less innovative just because we're used to it. Again, there were no major revolutions in Windows or Linux during OSX's "growing-up" time that should make the OS seem less innovative.

So, I think if you're willing to seperate "bleeding edge" from innovation, then you can indeed have both (no matter what yoour OS choice is).

[Trebuchet]

I'm not sure innovation is always what it's cracked up to be. It adds interest and obviously can be a good thing, but there's something to be said for steady progress and mature technology. Look at what's been going on with OSs over the last few years - They're looking more and more alike on the surface, I think at least partially because there are certain common factors almost any PC user wants be he Windows, Linux, or Mac user. All three main desktop OSs glom ideas from each other; I've seen Linux distros criticized on Linux websites for being too Windows-like. Frankly I don't see a lot of real innovation from OS writers. A dock isn't significantly different from a toolbar. As a "bilingual" friend of mine (He uses Macs and PCs both) observes, most of the time he doesn't even consciously notice which OS he's using when he sits down in front of a computer at home. He just grabs the mouse and gets to work.

I do see some innovation on the hardware side, such as Microsoft's ReadyBoost. Why didn't anyone else think of writing code to use USB flash drives as performance enhancers? How did the supposedly dullard MS programmers come up with what should have in retrospect been an obvious trick? (And how long until Linux coders incorporate it into the kernel?)

[Dr. C]

. . . The real scare for an advocate like myself is that Rhythmbox and Totem are not going to be able to keep up with the options that Media Player is offering . . .

I would take a look at Songbird http://www.songbirdnest.com/