PDA

View Full Version : What if Windows were cost-free?



sbasak
February 15th, 2006, 03:49 PM
I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Microsoft.

Is it just because you pay much to get crap software? Or you simply don't like their programs?

Will your view on Microsoft change if you use their programs for free?

The reason for asking this is the fact, in a large part of the world (most Asian countries), people use "copied" version of Microsoft applications.... so they often don't bother using Linux applications - everything they use, is free anyway....

Robgould
February 15th, 2006, 03:54 PM
I think you will find that linux users just don't like Microsft because.

Put whatever else you want afther that...they jsut don't.

In my opinion a lot of it is just bull...its like it is cool to hate microsoft. I even caught myself doing it when I first started in these forums. Trying to fit in I guess.

neoflight
February 15th, 2006, 03:54 PM
well, the options are limited to place a poll....

i dont think its just the 'non-free' issue....
to answer that question...
"there are other free operating systems too...i mean distros...and i am, and we are using ubuntu..."

raublekick
February 15th, 2006, 03:56 PM
I use Windows XP Pro, Visual Studio .NET, Visio, and some other stuff for free through the MSDNAA. But I'm still here.

First and formost: I just don't like the way Windows operates. For the most part Linux developers listen to what people want (and even perform studies!) to make a good desktop environment. But I see no such thing from Microsoft. Plus I really hate when things keep intrusively popping up in my face.

Second: I just like open source. It's safe. It may not be the fastest or most feature rich software all the time, but I can rest assured that it's not going to screw up my computer. And hey, if people support programs that aren't so good, eventually they will get so good, and maybe better than Windows versions.

Third: Microsoft isn't exactly the best business in the world.

earobinson
February 15th, 2006, 03:56 PM
IMO office is not a bad program, and I do use it at work for some things that oepn office cant do so yes I would use it if it was free. That being said I would not use windows if it was free because I dont like the way its sent up.

also are we talking free as in money or free as in freadom of speach... open source, gnu?

Because I do think that that is very important.

Gustav
February 15th, 2006, 03:56 PM
If you meen free as in speach (not beer) I would have no problem with Microsoft.

nocturn
February 15th, 2006, 03:58 PM
What do you mean by free? As in GPL'd?

I dislike MS for the quality of their products but mainly for the lack of any ethical standard within the company.

If they would use open standards and not coerce OEMS to sell only their products, it would be different. But that is where things stand today.

Zeroangel
February 15th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Depends on what is. If MS decided to release Office 2000 or XP was free then I would switch over to it in a heartbeat even with its minor flaws because it *is* a quality product (functional and *fast*). Windows XP would be a different story, I would critisize MS for its lack of OS security just as I do now, but omit their business practises because hey, they're giving out Windows for free even though its not completely free.

I think, however, that if you pay for a product then you have more of a right to extra critical then if someone gave it to you for free.

TeeAhr1
February 15th, 2006, 04:12 PM
In my mind, price is only about half the issue. The other half is that they put out shoddy, immature product, and it's all tied in togetherand made to only play nice with other shoddy, half-assed, MSFT products. If they really do include ODF support in Office 12, that'd be a step in the right direction (albeit one that they were forced to take with a financial gun to their heads).

mstlyevil
February 15th, 2006, 05:15 PM
I have no problems with MSFT. I just like the open source model better. If I think a piece of software is worth the price, I will buy it. I am lucky because I just happen to prefer Linux over Windows and it doesn't cost me a dime.

BTW, you should have had more options in your poll because many people who do not use Windows also do not personally have a problem with MSFT.

Master Shake
February 15th, 2006, 05:18 PM
I would criticize ANY free software if it doesn't do what I want, or if its a shoddy product.

CospeFogo
February 15th, 2006, 05:20 PM
I would criticize ANY free software if it doesn't do what I want, or if its a shoddy product.

Exactly. And MS software is free, you can get it with BitTorrent.

Bragador
February 15th, 2006, 05:27 PM
That was an immature reply.

MS products are not free. Stealing a bad product is even worse in my opinion anyway, especially when you can have better and free alternatives.

Malphas
February 15th, 2006, 05:32 PM
I dislike Microsoft and certain individuals within it because of their uncompetitive and unfair business practices. I dislike (some/most) Microsoft products because they're of poor quality. I've never been part of the whole "M$ suxorz" brigade though, which quite frankly is pathetic.

Kimm
February 15th, 2006, 05:50 PM
Define free...

Free as in freedom? or free as in price?

Netisan
February 15th, 2006, 05:56 PM
do you realize that ms have no their own alternatives to sell or to give away?
ms are a company who collect and sell others developments.
they do even have unix codes within their paid pros.

TechSonic
February 15th, 2006, 05:57 PM
I have a good reason to hate Microsoft. I hate them for many years of not listening to me when I had a problem, or needed a feature.

I'm on Linux now, if I want a feature, I make it. Then I know I'll have it.

Stormy Eyes
February 15th, 2006, 06:15 PM
I would still criticise Microsoft, for expecting people to tolerate an OS that allows the ignorant to get infected with adware, spyware, worms, viruses, trojans, etc.

dcraven
February 15th, 2006, 06:46 PM
I'd never use their products regardless. I do think that many of their applications are great though. I wish there were comparable apps in the Linux world in many cases. My problem with them, as I'm sure many of the "haters" share, is the blatant effort to minimize interoperability with other applications. File formats and the like are altered just to make other applications that use that data break for example. This is one way they force users to use only their products.

I do understand why they do this, so there is no reason to explain the principles of business and profit to me. The fact remains that they are infringing on my self proclaimed right to use an application based on its own merits as opposed to one that is necessary to read a bloody text based document of a given format. I disagree with that, so I don't use their stuff. It's my own little way to protest I suppose, and I've gotten by quite well without them for quite some time now.

Cheers,
~djc

prizrak
February 15th, 2006, 06:55 PM
I can't speak for other Linux users, my issue with MSFT is the fact that they are a monopoly and what they did to become one. The company didn't get where it is on the merit of its software it got there with unethical (often illegal) behavior. They also keep doing it, they keep the formats proprietary and most API's hidden and undocumented, which is the reason MS Office can run so fast on Windows while any other Office program will be fairly slow in comparison (OO doesn't count since it's Java based). The software however I have no beef with, alot of it is actually very good.

bonzodog
February 15th, 2006, 07:29 PM
My beef with MS and quite a few other major companies is business practices. For the same reason I will not touch Intel, and I am glad now that Intel are finally losing market share to AMD...the playing field is slowly becoming level. But MS are the worst for this - they really do monopolise and will do almost anything short of highly corrupt practises to retain control. I like wise will not buy a GM made car. These big monopolies need to be stopped. Luckily, the EU is doing something about them, not just MS. I am not a big fan of the american philosophy of stopping competition by buying out all smaller companies, and will always applaud the small ones that stand up to the big boys. MS use Bully tactics to get what they want, and I will NEVER buy ANYTHING made or produced by them, hardware included.

I am hopeful of Dell - they appear to be changing for the better. According to various reports, it will soon be possible to buy an AMD machine with your own choice of OS.

linkunderscore
February 15th, 2006, 07:29 PM
This thread is ridiculous and full of ignorant people regurgitating anti-Microsoft rhetoric that they have heard throughout the years by "IT" people. You know what? Microsoft isn't BAD. They aren't EVIL. They offer lots of wonderful software and products. The office suite is amazing...nothing can really compare. Complaining about their software is ridiculous. You get what you pay for. Open Office is a nice alternative but it doesn't come close to MSOffice yet.

Criticizing them for their spyware, adware, and viruses may be valid but seems to be misguided.

If/when linux hits the main stream or has a large enough number of users to be seen as a 'market' for spyware, adware, and viruses--they will find a way in. I know linux's structure should prevent anything critical from happening but what is going to happen if an end-user sudo's a random program/script that wipes their entire system?? One of the biggest advantaged for linux atm is that it DOES take computer savy people to use it. You are forced to learn about main/key system functions and processes. You have to understand how your computer works. As linux becomes more and more user-friendly more and more not-so-savy (read: idiots) computer users will start to use it as an alternative for mac or windows. When this happens, I can assure you that viruses, spyware, and adware will start affecting more linux machines.

Stability:

I find that linux is more stable than windows. You don't seem to have those random "wtf just happened, i didn't do anything" crashes, but linux can still crash. Segfaulting, kernel panics, Xorg b0rks, etc are all things that can happen in linux. Windows crashes too. Remember how bad older versions of linux were? Remember how bad older versions of mac were? Remember how older versions of Windows were? They all sucked. They all crashed. All of them have progressed into relatively stable systems. I think Windows stability has alot to do with the user. Not-so-savy users typically have A LOT more crashes than computer savy users do. The last time I installed WindowsXP and had it set up with my software, firewalls, av, etc it ran completely smoothly. It randomly crashed once I think--it was probably my fault :oops:

Each operating system has its advantages and disadvantages. I love linux (ubuntu) and it is my main OS. I love how linux works, and I love tweaking it and getting to know something different. I can also (easily) mold it to do specifically what I want it to do--its flexible.

Anyway, I got off topic. The point is: Microsoft isn't the devil and for god sakes if you are going to make claims like "microsoft is unethical" or "I disagree with their business practices", at LEAST, post some facts/evidence that lead you to this conclusion. I will be suprised if anyone posts information on the MS business model and/or how it's unethical.

You are entiteled to your opinion; just make sure that it's your own.

Malphas
February 15th, 2006, 07:57 PM
Are you serious? Who on earth doesn't know that Microsoft's business practices are unscrupulous. Vendor lock-in? Embrace, extend and extinguish? FUD? Trusted Computing? DRM? You don't get anti-trust suits thrown at you for no reason. They're a terrible company. The reason no-one bothers to cite references is because it's so completely obvious that Microsoft engage in shady and unethical practices that it's common knowledge by now. You sound like you have your head stuck in the sand.

Dragonbite
February 15th, 2006, 07:59 PM
Money is only a small part of the equation. While nI don't deny Microsoft products can be expensive, sometimes you get what you pay for.

I will admit, Linux's often $0 price for the OS and programs is very addictive and if Microsoft offered free products I would be tempted to take them up some offers.

Linux, to me, offers something much more than just cost-effectiveness, it offers me CHOICE.

If I have an older machine, or I want to have my desktop evnrionment different I can choose one of a dozen or so desktop environments or windows managers to suit my needs. With Winodws I have a choise of putting the start bar on the left, right, top or bottom (whoopee.).

Microsoft's upgrade policy with Windows often includes buying new hardware, which seems a complete waste since even my 500MHz P3 machine still runs! With Linux I can either go with the latest-and-greatest, or choose a lighter version of software.

The only thing Microsoft Windows really has going for them (from my standpoint) is that since they are the "standard", peripheral makers are catering to them . Although there is a good article about it pitting Ubunut vs XP in peripherals (http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/02/09/1432245&tid=125&tid=16).

At work I use Office, Visual Studio.NET and SQL Server. I would snatch up any of these products if they were being offered for free (providing I had a system to run them on).

Ultimately, if Microsoft offered their products for free then I would put them into my list of CHOICES, but only if they do what I want/need do they actually get installed.

Bandit
February 15th, 2006, 08:53 PM
Very interesting question. I really didnt see the answer I wanted to give listed.
I myself would and do critizie software, no matter who makes it. Free or Not..
If something is ****, then its ****. Free or Not..
As a programmer I have a huge problem with anyone calling something a stable release when I think it isnt stable enough to reach Beta..
So would I still gripe about M$ software if it was free. Yes, but prob not as much.
Cheers,
Joey

xequence
February 15th, 2006, 08:54 PM
I have no problem with microsoft. They make good software. But so do the linux devs (no time to name all the companies).

bored2k
February 15th, 2006, 08:59 PM
I think this poll is missing a few questions, mainly "I don't have a problem with their non-free software. They have to make a living."

Vlammetje
February 15th, 2006, 09:01 PM
rather limited poll don't you think?

If a produict is no good for me, I shall not use it, even when people pay me money to do so.

At the same time, when a product does work for me, and it happens to cost money, I shall pay and use the product.

It just so happens that I got myself a new PC on Oct 1st 2005, accompanied by an XP disk. It was my first XP after win2K, and it will be my last.

Because this is when I first tried Ubuntu.

XP was my only OS for about a week, after which I dualbooted for a while, till my XP partition decided to vasnish, at which point I formatted, repartitioned and am now Ubuntu only. XP is still there, on vmware, mostly for testing purposes and not because I need it, but because I refuse to let it go, since I did pay money for this. If it had been free, as in cost-free, i would probably have ditched it already. Since it was not, I try to find a use for it, but I'm not fond of it.
If it had been free, as in freedom, i would probably have sent enormous amounts of feedback on my experience, and waited for the next release before I touch it again.

mstlyevil
February 15th, 2006, 09:21 PM
But MS are the worst for this - they really do monopolise and will do almost anything short of highly corrupt practises to retain control. I like wise will not buy a GM made car. These big monopolies need to be stopped.

I just want some clarification on why GM is a monopoly. If there were only Two or three automakers in the entire world and GM had 50% or more of the market share then I might be inclined to agree with this. But as is stands now Toyota is on the verge of becoming the worlds largest automaker. GM has lost it's market dominance and I doubt they will ever get it back.

Also I just wanted to add that you can not blame any corporation for doing what the shareholders demand of it and that is to be the most profitable as possible. The problem right now is not the corporations themselves but bad Government regulation and policy making that is allowing companies such as MSFT to get away with practices that are less than ethical. This is not just a problem with the current administration but every administration since FDR has allowed this to happen. It used to be said what was good for GM is good for America. (Now I believe MSFT and Wal-Mart are used in it's place.) This is what has guided our corporate regulation policies to the point that monopolies are now allowed to be formed again. We need another Teddy Roosevelt to come into power and help update our corporate regulatory policies.

Edit: sorry if this seems a little off topic but I believe it is fundemental to understanding why people hate MSFT and will not use it's products.

poofyhairguy
February 15th, 2006, 09:36 PM
I don't hate MS. I even look up to Billy G for following his nerdy dreams. Most of the products during his reign at MS were pretty good (I am of course ignoring ME for the rest of my life). I still like Office 2k more than OpenOffice. Of course under Balmer's reign things have gone downhill (perpetual Vista delays for one) but that does not ruin the entire company to me.

That said I don't know if I would like them more if their products were free. Maybe less because history has shown that when a company gives away a near quality closed source product for free the open source equivilent loses a lot of its development steam (NV driver anyone?). A free Window and Office would almost kill the development of the Linux desktop and I prefer my Linux desktop.

poofyhairguy
February 15th, 2006, 09:39 PM
When this happens, I can assure you that viruses, spyware, and adware will start affecting more linux machines.


Not nearly as bad though. Windows does everything possible almost (everyone runs as root by default, tons of uneeded and crackable services turned on by default, etc) to make it a playground for malware. SP2 fixed some of this, but only to a point where Windows is usable.

sizzam
February 15th, 2006, 10:00 PM
Will your view on Microsoft change if you use their programs for free?

If all software in the world was free (as in beer and as in freedom), I would re-weigh all the pros and cons and decide which OS is better for me.

However, many of us leave Windows because not only are Microsoft products not free, but neither are many of the third party programs that we need in order to get all the features we want in our day to day computing experience.

For me, it was a choice between being tempted to become a software pirate in order to get all the software I can't afford so that I can have all the features I want, or learning a different technology. I chose to learn Linux.

prizrak
February 15th, 2006, 10:00 PM
Anyway, I got off topic. The point is: Microsoft isn't the devil and for god sakes if you are going to make claims like "microsoft is unethical" or "I disagree with their business practices", at LEAST, post some facts/evidence that lead you to this conclusion. I will be suprised if anyone posts information on the MS business model and/or how it's unethical.


Sure, why not?
- Netscape vs IE. Few people will disagree than IE has been a POS browser since it was first released. By the time IE came out Netscape was a much better platform that included all kinds of features that IE lacked. When MS realized what they are missing out on, they BOUGHT IE and shipped it together with Windows. Since the browser was included in the OS most people just stuck with it (much like they do with Windows vs Linux now).

- Exclusive OEM contracts. MS signs contracts with OEM's for Windows licensing, which prohibit them from offering non MS OS's or even OS free machines to their customers. In fact not too long ago any big supplier that had an agreement with MS had to notify them if a corporate client would request a shipment of OS free machines. Of course OEM's were free to sign a non-exclusive agreement but then the price per license would go up diminishing either profit (if the company keeps end user pricing the same) or competitiveness (if company raises prices to compensate).
- Embrace and extend. MS takes open standards such as HTML and creates their own extensions to them. The extensions are not open like the standard is and are only supported by MS applications. Case in point IE optimized sites, other browsers cannot display them properly, although this is changing since Firefox got kinda big.
- Proprietary standards/protocols. Here you got your basic .doc's and NTFS's and things like that. The only reason there is even support for those things in other programs is due to reverse engineering efforts.

Stormy Eyes
February 15th, 2006, 10:07 PM
You don't get anti-trust suits thrown at you for no reason.

Sure you do. You should see what's being done to Apple because of the success of their iPod and iTunes products. You can read more here, if you don't mind a pro-capitalism stance (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm).

arctic
February 15th, 2006, 10:09 PM
I would not go back to Microsoft, even if they give me all their software as a gift. I have my reasons, first and foremost their unfair, opressive behaviour and spreading of lies, but mainly because they want to control my private-sphere, which I will never allow them to do.

Microsoft-free since 2002 and proud about it.

poofyhairguy
February 15th, 2006, 10:17 PM
You can read more here, if you don't mind a pro-capitalism stance (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm).

No offense Story, but I think that article is full of it. Sometimes trust busting IS a good thing. I'm pretty much sure I would not have my cheap multi-MB broadband connection today if Ma Bell still controlled all the wires...

jamesr
February 15th, 2006, 10:24 PM
I think the poll questions are very informative in that you seeing the question in "either or terms".

I would say depends
on what you ask?

OSes
I use various versions depending on the needs of the user but would not recommend Windows ME ever. But I still have clients with 98SE, W2000pro and some with XP only.

I definately dislike that typical software upgrades need a hardware upgrade ( this was mentioned previously) especially when going to XP. Really the minimum is 256MB, the reliable minimum is 512MB and the power user at least 1GB.

Office Applications:-
Word a standard for the easy transfer of "data" from one user to another but again the 80/20 rule applies that 80% of the people use 20% of capabilties of the software and the converse is that only 20% use 80% of the features. If Wordperfect was still a going concern, the position might be different related to the overriding use of the word/works formats commercially.
Excel,
excellent piece of software
Access, crap
Powerpoint the corel version was alot better but development has died.

No mention of OO because in my opinion, it is commercially not viable as yet because of file format problems and also the need to retrain people to use it. Certainly the versions that I have used the spreadsheet equivalent is not as easy to use especially producing charts from a spreadsheet.

But we must remember the days when
1)Wordprefect was the main WP product
2)DBase was the main database product
3) 1-2-3 was the main spreadsheet product

and never the twain shall meet.

And so through other products, some are good and some are bad. Also there are some other products that need Micro$oft products to run. One has got to remember that they are commercial operation ie has to make a profit.

I reserve the right to criticize any product though of course when it free one is less likely to criticize.

Bragador
February 15th, 2006, 10:24 PM
The thing we must not forget is that the most popular product on the market (almost to the point of being a monopole) is not necessarely the best product (i.e. IPod, Windows).There is a lot of marketing ******** and hype in a capitalistic world.

If MS creates a great product and they are #1 because they keep offering the best product then that would be something I would support. If you have a company that trains its customers to be dependent on the products they sell (like drug dealers and Microsoft), then this is something I don't support. For innovation, we need sane competition.

In conclusions : Say no to drugs, say no to Microsoft.

Stormy Eyes
February 15th, 2006, 10:36 PM
No offense Story, but I think that article is full of it. Sometimes trust busting IS a good thing. I'm pretty much sure I would not have my cheap multi-MB broadband connection today if Ma Bell still controlled all the wires...

Yes, trustbusting is good thing, when the government created the trust in the first place. Did you read the full article? Ma Bell had a monopoly that was granted to it by the government. As far as I'm concerned, breaking up AT&T was just a long-overdue correction on Uncle Sam's part.

MetalMusicAddict
February 15th, 2006, 10:59 PM
I just dont like their business practices and think they are a bully.

I am hopeful of Dell - they appear to be changing for the better. According to various reports, it will soon be possible to buy an AMD machine with your own choice of OS.
I'd like to buy a Dell/AMD/Ubuntu system but I think its a dream. I would also be happy with a Dell/AMD/no OS system. I like Dell alot lately. My laptop and 2405FPW LCD have been great.

Qrk
February 15th, 2006, 11:04 PM
Don't forget Pan Am. Since deregulation air fares are extrememly cheap. Sure Pan Am, TWA and the other legacies are doing poorly or not at all. But who can complain when Southwest flights start at is $39?

Oh, as for Microsoft. I wouldn't use XP for free. I didn't start using Linux because of the price. I like Linux too much.

If vista were free and didn't have all that DRM crap, I'd probably dual boot it. Wine is a poor subsitute for Windows.

Deaf_Head
February 15th, 2006, 11:10 PM
OK, 2 things:

1st -
Your poll and thread title are designed to confused and encourage certain results ... basically turning a gore voting jew from florida into a hardcore buchanon supporter. lol

2nd -
my response, if it was listed in the poll would be: too much for crap software.
As far as the operating system is concerned, I'd own a mac 5 years ago if I thought any of vistas "new" features were exciting. Additionally, microsoft has a long standing tradition of breaking features with updates and "neccesary patches". Reliability is more important than advertising points on a box.

Deaf_Head
February 15th, 2006, 11:29 PM
Sure you do. You should see what's being done to Apple because of the success of their iPod and iTunes products. You can read more here, if you don't mind a pro-capitalism stance (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm).


I disagree, apple is monopolizing the market .. regardless of whether or not their product is better than all the other stuff out there. Of course, apple is doing nothing that microsoft hasn't tried to do to edge itself into the market. (remember when microsoft threatened all mp3 makers, telling em to play along and make their stuff windows media player compatible or else?)

At anyrate, if they are able to force apple to open up their ipod to other file formats .. does this mean that apple will have no legal standing to block windows being developed for macs?

Lovechild
February 16th, 2006, 12:15 AM
if I got the sourcecode under an OSI approved license, perferably the gplv3 - it would still be **** code in the sense that just having the source doesn't make it safe or well designed but it does enable people to fix it quicker and fix design mistakes. It would also grant better drivers on all platforms.

In the end, Microsoft' behaviour as a company is what ticks me off the most, they act in evil ways using pressure, extortion and their monopoly status to further a agenda that is not in the consumers best interest. With the code free, the evil behaviour is by definition not as effective as you'd see a shift in the way they'd have to do business - they can no longer make empty claims about their product and they'd have to compete on excellence not extortion.

Stormy Eyes
February 16th, 2006, 12:17 AM
I disagree, apple is monopolizing the market .. regardless of whether or not their product is better than all the other stuff out there.

ANd what exactly is the market in this case? The iPod market, or the market for digital music players? You don't have to buy an iPod or use iTunes. There are other devices, and other services available. I really am getting tired of people who fail turning around and accusing those who succeed of cheating.

Deaf_Head
February 16th, 2006, 12:33 AM
ANd what exactly is the market in this case? The iPod market, or the market for digital music players? You don't have to buy an iPod or use iTunes. There are other devices, and other services available. I really am getting tired of people who fail turning around and accusing those who succeed of cheating.


I won't disagree that apple got where it is today with the ipod and its store on its own merits, but if you can't see where this is all going than you haven't been paying enough attention to comment on it. Apple has maneuvered itself into a position to keep control of the market even if it's products become completely unusable garbage.

Oh and stop saying there are ipod alternatives .. because every other mp3 player out there pales in comparison to the ipod's price and current quality.

bored2k
February 16th, 2006, 12:42 AM
ANd what exactly is the market in this case? The iPod market, or the market for digital music players? You don't have to buy an iPod or use iTunes. There are other devices, and other services available. I really am getting tired of people who fail turning around and accusing those who succeed of cheating.
I hear you. I agree with SE. The only thing Apple was monopolizing was the 3D-animated films with Jobs' Pixar, and they don't even own that anymore (heh). I haven't heard Jobs call all the other media players around of being "communists" or anything that would seem like he is the only choice.

Deaf_Head
February 16th, 2006, 12:43 AM
I hear you. I agree with SE. The only thing Apple was monopolizing was the 3D-animated films with Jobs' Pixar, and they don't even own that anymore (heh). I haven't heard Jobs call all the other media players around of being "communists" or anything that would seem like he is the only choice.


I guess you missed the part where jobs got controlling share of disney huh?

bored2k
February 16th, 2006, 12:44 AM
Oh and stop saying there are ipod alternatives .. because every other mp3 player out there pales in comparison to the ipod's price and current quality.That's your point of view.

Many, many users use formats the iPOD does not support.
Many, many users simply dislike it.
The fact that you think it's better than everything by a mile does not make it a fact for Rico McLinux who just bought his shiny Zen player.

bored2k
February 16th, 2006, 12:44 AM
I guess you missed the part where jobs got controlling share of disney huh?
That's not even the point. I was half-joking.

Bragador
February 16th, 2006, 12:48 AM
Apple is marketing its codec with the Ipod. This is what I hate. In a few years everybody will be using their codec instead of mp3s. This is clearly a monopole in the making.

And yes there are tons of other digital music players. just make a search on the web.

xequence
February 16th, 2006, 12:49 AM
That's your point of view.

For the what, second time in my life I aggree with you.


The fact that you think it's better than everything by a mile does not make it a fact for Rico McLinux who just bought his shiny Zen player.

Yay =D Go creative products. Never used one, but ive used an ipod and I didnt find it that good, but the person who owned obviously liked it alot.

Deaf_Head
February 16th, 2006, 12:54 AM
That's not even the point. I was half-joking.


I know, but I still think it's funny that mickey mouse changed his last name to jobs.

At anyrate, I think that you and SE are missing my point and trivializing details that mean nothing to the end message:

Regardless of what has happened up til now ... apple has a majority share of the market and is digging in so nobody can interact with their services. They are shutting out competition in teh same way that many companies that have been ruled against in the past have.

Elvish Legion
February 16th, 2006, 01:01 AM
My issue is that with a multi-billion dollar corporation backing it, microsoft still can't seem to ship more stable products!

When they get the act together, do better bug testing, better beta testing, and better security it'll be a bit better.

bored2k
February 16th, 2006, 01:54 AM
I know, but I still think it's funny that mickey mouse changed his last name to jobs.
*Laughing my *** off*

xequence
February 16th, 2006, 02:00 AM
This is what I hate. In a few years everybody will be using their codec instead of mp3s.

Not gonna happen. Trust me on that one.

Alpha_toxic
February 16th, 2006, 02:21 AM
No, I will not use MS products even if they were free.
Even now I have a copy of Win 2003 obtained free through MSDN, but I'm still using Linux.
It's all about the non standardized formats. If one day they decide to standardize wma/wmv, NTFS, .doc(and all the rest), .docx(and all the rest), all kinds of winmodems, servers and everything else you can think of, I might just start liking them (then no matter how expensive their products are, a healthy market will keep the prices low).
Smilar reasons make me hate several other companies, but I'm not going to list them all...

handy
February 16th, 2006, 07:53 AM
Here's a rant, forgive the fragmentation, I have had little sleep of late, I'm sure you will get the gist of it though...;)

I really only have good knowledge of the M$ OS's, I have found that they are very poorly programmed, some of the mess I believe is intentional, so that most installed software is not portable once installed. This is a real cost to the owner as far as maintenance is concerned, meaning that everytime the OS has to be reinstalled, so do the app's. If the software was self contained in it's directory you could install ******* on it's own partition, reinstalling when it needs due to all the various reasons that it does, (first & foremost being corruption of the wonderous registry!) & not have to rebuild your whole system!

So, it would seem that the primary reason for the existance of the weakest of links in the ******* OS (the registry) is to protect closed source software. The spraying of .d(i)ll files & .(w)ini files all over the system is just for good measure.

It really is an education to have seen the difference between software that is written for different purposes. The Amiga OS was initially written by passionate programmers who were funded by rich doctors, & were working to realise a magnificent pre-emptive multitasking dream, (that they didn't even tell the doctors about, by the way! That's how commodore ended up with the Amiga! They nearly sent the doctors broke!) The Amiga OS, & the software running on it was perpetually being optimised, programmers would bring out a new version of whatever it was, proudly displaying the new functions, the speed increases & the fact that it was now so much smaller too!!! M$ expects everyone to have a major upgrade of their computer whenever they do eventually release a new version of their OS. This does of course play into the hands of the major hardware manufacturers, I'm sure that intel suffers terribly!

Anyone who uses any of the ******* will be aware of the irratating bugs, in the software. The things that you tell it to do that you should only have to tell it once (untill you have to reinstall it again of course.) & you get asked again & again for the rest of it's life.

Why wasn't the OS ever finished?

Even the service packs & the squillions of updates have not addressed the consistant irritations of the OS.

I say again: Why wasn't the OS ever finished?

The legendary security issues, don't need to be reiterated by me.

The bulk & the bloat has allready been addressed above in the upgrade my system for an upgrade of OS statement.

There are a lot of specifics that don't come to mind at the moment, sorry.

The Ubuntu distibution of Linux, has given me back the community that the Amiga had. (even without internet in those days!!) I don't know enough about Ubuntu Linux yet to make definitive statements about it's programming, beyond the fact that it is mostly coming from the creative & dare I say altrueistic sources. I do know that the philosophy that is it's backbone will never allow anything like the ******* registry to exist in it.

So, to answer the question, I would critisize M$ if their programs were free, but nowhere near as much as I do now. I can not believe that a company that was, last time I looked, the 6th wealthiest country in the world! Could not afford to spend the time to get it right!!! There is no excuse for poor performance under these circumstances.

And of course there is DRM & it's associated evils:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

bountonw
February 16th, 2006, 08:33 AM
Reading through six pages of posts, I don't think that anyone got to the reason of the original question.


The reason for asking this is the fact, in a large part of the world (most Asian countries), people use "copied" version of Microsoft applications.... so they often don't bother using Linux applications - everything they use, is free anyway....

Also living in Asia, I would back that up. Most people around me are surprised when I tell them that MS Office isn't free. (Well, actually it costs $3, but it is basically free.)

I think that a follow up question should be how to make Linux more accessible to Asia and Africa to give people an alternative to pirating. I mentioned to several that I had changed to linux and they gave me a "who, what???" Then there is the steep learning curve which is further complicated by a large non-English speaking audience.

nocturn
February 16th, 2006, 08:40 AM
This thread is ridiculous and full of ignorant people regurgitating anti-Microsoft rhetoric that they have heard throughout the years by "IT" people. You know what? Microsoft isn't BAD. They aren't EVIL. They offer lots of wonderful software and products. The office suite is amazing...nothing can really compare. Complaining about their software is ridiculous. You get what you pay for. Open Office is a nice alternative but it doesn't come close to MSOffice yet.


Please refrain from calling people names.

That said, you may hold your opinion, but I see it this way:

Microsoft is bad because the way they treat their users, because they default to making everyone an admin and because they are slow on patches making us all less secure.

Microsoft is evil, they have been convicted for software piracy many times, the most notable case was for building most of the original code on stolen code from MacOS. In addition, they are a convicted monopoly in the US and are under investigation in the EU too. They do not play nice in the market.

I resent them for their lies about Linux and I resent them for coercing OEMS into offering Windows only, which makes something like a Windows-free laptop nearly impossible to find (at least here).



Criticizing them for their spyware, adware, and viruses may be valid but seems to be misguided.

If/when linux hits the main stream or has a large enough number of users to be seen as a 'market' for spyware, adware, and viruses--they will find a way in. I know linux's structure should prevent anything critical from happening but what is going to happen if an end-user sudo's a random program/script that wipes their entire system??


This rethoric is misguided. Market share alone is not the determining factor in the amount of malware that exists. If this were so, *nix servers and especially Apache software would be the prime target in the server field. Yet it is IIS on Windows that is attacked the most.

With a bigger market share, Linux will become a more attractive target, but the constraints that protect the system against exploitation are still there (and getting better). As long as we do not default to running with full root privileges and other stupidities, it will always be more difficult to exploit.

To add to this, a software monoculture is a big security threat. I would like to see a market with many OS's in it that all use open standards. This lessens the impact of the next big virus outbreak.



Each operating system has its advantages and disadvantages. I love linux (ubuntu) and it is my main OS. I love how linux works, and I love tweaking it and getting to know something different. I can also (easily) mold it to do specifically what I want it to do--its flexible.

Anyway, I got off topic. The point is: Microsoft isn't the devil and for god sakes if you are going to make claims like "microsoft is unethical" or "I disagree with their business practices", at LEAST, post some facts/evidence that lead you to this conclusion. I will be suprised if anyone posts information on the MS business model and/or how it's unethical.

You are entiteled to your opinion; just make sure that it's your own.

Technically speaking, I think that the design principles behind POSIX systems is superior in general (modularity, clarity, ...). But this is not my main reason to run Linux. I use Linux because of the philosophy behind it and the lack thereof on the other side of the fence.

And yes, I do think the MS businessmodel is unethical. From the monopoly to the bought studies to the political pressure on other countries to use their stuff. And the worst, embracing and breaking existing standards so no other products can work with yours (Kerberos+LDAP vs. Active Directory).

This opinion is my own. It was formed by my experiences from when I bought my first Windows free computer in 1995 (OS/2 preloaded) to my recent quest to find a windows-free laptop (which failed).

nocturn
February 16th, 2006, 08:44 AM
I just want some clarification on why GM is a monopoly. If there were only Two or three automakers in the entire world and GM had 50% or more of the market share then I might be inclined to agree with this. But as is stands now Toyota is on the verge of becoming the worlds largest automaker. GM has lost it's market dominance and I doubt they will ever get it back.


I don't think you can compare MS and GM. Even if GM had a 50% or higher market share, you still have a choice.

Now if they also controlled the roads, which where specificly accessible to their machines and there where parts you couldn't reach with another car, that would be more similar.

Also, if you wanted to buy a car stereo, you have to buy a GM car with it (they are bundeled).

prizrak
February 16th, 2006, 08:47 AM
I know, but I still think it's funny that mickey mouse changed his last name to jobs.

At anyrate, I think that you and SE are missing my point and trivializing details that mean nothing to the end message:

Regardless of what has happened up til now ... apple has a majority share of the market and is digging in so nobody can interact with their services. They are shutting out competition in teh same way that many companies that have been ruled against in the past have.
There are many companies in many different markets that have the majority share. That matters very little. The fact of the matter is that I find Ipod to suck enourmous primate testicles. I didn't find the quality or the volume acceptable and the interface is probably the dumbest thing in the world (IMO of course). It also has weak Linux support and doesn't play .ogg files. So I went out and got an iRiver flash based (oh that's another thing I don't like HD based players break easily) player (IFP something) which with a UMS firmware upgrade is fully supported by Linux (acts as a flash drive) and plays them .oggs. Sure the iTunes service is for iPods (well ROKR and SLVR too) only and it makes sense, but it isn't the only one that sells mp3's and there are loads of other players that support the format so I don't see the problem you are trying to point out.
I do think that the majority will buy a turd with an iPod logo on it if Apple cares to market one but that by no means is putting others out of business.

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 08:50 AM
I don't think you can compare MS and GM. Even if GM had a 50% or higher market share, you still have a choice.

Now if they also controlled the roads, which where specificly accessible to their machines and there where parts you couldn't reach with another car, that would be more similar.

Also, if you wanted to buy a car stereo, you have to buy a GM car with it (they are bundeled).

I agree totally. I just wanted to know why he declared GM a monopoly when they have always had steep competition. I was just trying to understand his reasoning behind his statement comparing GM to MSFT.

benplaut
February 16th, 2006, 08:53 AM
if they were free i'd consider it. if they were Free, i'd recommend it to others

Leo_01
February 16th, 2006, 01:49 PM
I would rather they release the source of MS's programs rather than just given it out for free...
i mean...
It is the 'Freedom' in free that we all persue rite?

Dragonbite
February 16th, 2006, 03:23 PM
The purpose of any for-profit corporation is to make money for the (stakeholders) shareholders. Period. Any corporation that says otherwise is either ( a ) foolish, ( b ) making too much money as is (let's see if their attitude doesn't change once the money going to the stakeholders stops) or ( c ) lying. If you want to do something for a greater-good then make it a non-profit and enjoy additional beneifts of that status.

At least Microsoft makes no qualms of it, they're in it for the money!

A Monopoly in itself may not be so bad. The only pizza place in the middle of a small town in the middle of nowhere is a monopoly (on a small scale) for pizza but you won't see them going in front of the government.

The difference is when a corporation USES their monopoly. Using Windows to break non-Microsoft products for the purpose of selling their own versions is an ABUSE of their monopoly on the Windows (OS) in selling something else.

The problem with monopolies is when it removes the incentive to imporove the process or product for any purpose other than lining their pockets.

In the Rockefeller's Big Oil (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm)example they didn't drop prices and make things more efficient to be a better citizen, they did it so that the could (successfully) keep competition from being able to afford doing business and still make the most bang-per-buck for their own pockets.

Ultimately the marketplace determines who wins and who looses and Microsoft is only beginning to feel the heat of competition from Linux and Open Source.

In a few months Vista will be out and their market presense will shoot through the roof for a few months to a year. Apple will probably make some announcement right before Vista rolls out to try and take some of the luster off of Vista (announcing a feature or showing off some glamour that Mac has before Vista tries touting it out as "new" is one example). I always like the way Apple does this :p .

When that all calms down, though, then the quality of the product becomes key and that's when the fluff is removed and people get to see what they are really getting for their money. If Microsoft doesn't deliver then I think we'll see Linux rise in popularity (it may anyway when people look at it and says "that's it? that's what I've waited xyz years for?"

As long as there's choice, there's a way.

nocturn
February 16th, 2006, 03:46 PM
"Ultimately the marketplace determines who wins and who looses and Microsoft is only beginning to feel the heat of competition from Linux and Open Source."

I really don't buy this. This has been said over and over again, but in truth, the market place does not regulate itself. It's natural state seems one of imbalance, leaning towards the one with the most money.

I don't think Linux will reach a substantial install base without it being an option at most major OEM installations. Imagine Dell having a -W and -L version of each model, the -W version off course 100-150 € more expensive than the -L version. Imagine HP, Dell, Compaq and Acer having this.

Now, this will not happen until someone makes it illegal for MS to force contracts that coerce an OEM to ship their products only or that count 1 license per CPU, even if it doesn't run Windows.

prizrak
February 16th, 2006, 09:36 PM
In a few months Vista will be out and their market presense will shoot through the roof for a few months to a year. Apple will probably make some announcement right before Vista rolls out to try and take some of the luster off of Vista (announcing a feature or showing off some glamour that Mac has before Vista tries touting it out as "new" is one example). I always like the way Apple does this .

When that all calms down, though, then the quality of the product becomes key and that's when the fluff is removed and people get to see what they are really getting for their money. If Microsoft doesn't deliver then I think we'll see Linux rise in popularity (it may anyway when people look at it and says "that's it? that's what I've waited xyz years for?"

As long as there's choice, there's a way.

I don't mean it offensively but you are thinking like a geek. Probably 90% of people who use computers could care less about the features of the OS they are using. They buy a computer from Dell, Best Buy, Circuit City, w/e and use it for w/e it is they like to use the computer for. Those people have no idea what an OS is, they use it like they would their appliances, they know where to clicky to make it do something. Hell my own cousin used to bother me with questions like "Which computer is better Windows 98 or Windows 2000?" it took me quite a while to explain the difference between an OS and the hardware to him I had to start from the very beginning. The majority will use w/e comes preinstalled with their computer, you can put Amiga OS on there and they will use it.

I don't think Linux will reach a substantial install base without it being an option at most major OEM installations. Imagine Dell having a -W and -L version of each model, the -W version off course 100-150 € more expensive than the -L version. Imagine HP, Dell, Compaq and Acer having this.
Wouldn't be that much of a price difference, a single OEM license for Windows is $65 (if you are getting one cuz you are building your own computer). The huge OEM's such as Dell, Acer, HP, etc... pay even less per copy because of the volume. I'm also willing to bet that OEM's won't miss out on making a few extra bucks and make both cost the same while promoting Linux machines ;)

aysiu
February 16th, 2006, 09:53 PM
Probably 90% of people who use computers could care less about the features of the OS they are using. They buy a computer from Dell, Best Buy, Circuit City, w/e and use it for w/e it is they like to use the computer for. Those people have no idea what an OS is, they use it like they would their appliances, they know where to clicky to make it do something. Hell my own cousin used to bother me with questions like "Which computer is better Windows 98 or Windows 2000?" it took me quite a while to explain the difference between an OS and the hardware to him I had to start from the very beginning. The majority will use w/e comes preinstalled with their computer, you can put Amiga OS on there and they will use it. Amen!

I'm tired of people thinking that it's lack of features, hardware support, or some other thing that is the #1 reason Linux isn't on a larger number of users' desktops.

Sure, those things may be what hold back some Windows power users from switching over, but my mom, my co-workers, my church friends, my college buddies... they don't say, "Yeah, I would be using Linux, of course, except that the installer for Ubuntu is a text-based graphical installer," or "I'm so tired of Windows. If only I didn't have to compile Gtkpod from source in order to have it work with the latest iPod."

Almost everyone I know uses Windows because... it's there. They don't use TiVo because it has Linux on it (in fact, most people don't even know it has Linux on it). They use it because it's there.

Most people care about only a few things when purchasing a computer:

1. Familiarity
2. Cost
3. Compatibility
4. Appearance/size

"Familiarity" is beyond the OS, though. I know people who were barely able to function after our office upgraded our version of Microsoft Office. Same software from the same company, just a different version, and the lack of familiarity made it so people didn't even know what to do. If the Start button or certain toolbar isn't where it was before, people are thrown off.

When we upgraded to Windows XP, I had four co-workers ask me what happened to the "show desktop" button. Windows XP by default turns off the QuickLaunch toolbar.

Cost is a major thing. Most people don't care about "free as in freedom" v. proprietary software or license restrictions and activation keys. If a Windows computer is cheaper, that's often the deciding factor (that's why a lot of people I know don't get Macs).

People also like to get random things and know they'll work with their computer. My boss won't switch to Mac (even though she and her husband like Mac better than "PC"--meaning Windows PC) because they have all this software they already bought for Windows. They don't want to have to re-purchase the corresponding Mac software. I don't even know if her palm pilot would work with a Mac, to be honest.

Lastly, appearance. This is a huge factor in my wife loving her Mac Powerbook. She just thinks Dell and all Sony and all the other Windows notebooks are just "ugly." She thinks Windows is ugly--doesn't matter how you dress it up with Windowblinds or whatever.

Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter how bad/weird/unfamiliar/whatever Vista is to XP users. If Dell is selling desktops preloaded with Windows Vista, that's what people will buy. Normal people aren't going to shop at System 76, Emperor Linux, or Koobox (at least not in great numbers).

pillypoon
February 18th, 2006, 05:43 PM
I love being able to switch desktop environments on the fly.. I get bored very easily and love to experiment.. Windows I feel holds me back because of money and closed source and fear of being infected with spyware and other misc crap. I dont see myself going back to the darkside as long as I am alive! \\:D/

Pilly :twisted:

purdy hate machine
February 20th, 2006, 09:22 AM
I don’t criticize Microsoft, I don’t use Windows but that’s purely because I have found a better tool for the job in the form of Linux. The only MS product I still use is an optical track ball which I think is wonderful and I’m yet to find a better pointy clicky device on the market.

nocturn
February 20th, 2006, 11:22 AM
Wouldn't be that much of a price difference, a single OEM license for Windows is $65 (if you are getting one cuz you are building your own computer). The huge OEM's such as Dell, Acer, HP, etc... pay even less per copy because of the volume. I'm also willing to bet that OEM's won't miss out on making a few extra bucks and make both cost the same while promoting Linux machines ;)

Don't underestimate this. We sold Linux preinstalled laptops for a while. To add windows OEM to a custom build, it cost about 130 € for us.

If MS wouldn't be allowed to charge per CPU, it could still give volume discounts, the price difference would be at least 50-60 €, but the windows versions would not have (m)any applications, while the Linux version would be fully functional.

prizrak
February 20th, 2006, 11:24 AM
Don't underestimate this. We sold Linux preinstalled laptops for a while. To add windows OEM to a custom build, it cost about 130 € for us.

If MS wouldn't be allowed to charge per CPU, it could still give volume discounts, the price difference would be at least 50-60 €, but the windows versions would not have (m)any applications, while the Linux version would be fully functional.
That is interesting actually. I know that an OEM XP Home in Russia costs $65 per license, it's weird to hear that it was so expensive for you.

nocturn
February 20th, 2006, 11:30 AM
That is interesting actually. I know that an OEM XP Home in Russia costs $65 per license, it's weird to hear that it was so expensive for you.

Pricing, both hard and software are on a per country basis. Adding to this are things like taxes off course.

I just checked another store (local here) and OEM licenses on custom build PC's are arround 100 € depending on the store. Office 2003 Basic, OEM is over 200 €.

ygarl
February 20th, 2006, 12:46 PM
I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Microsoft.

Is it just because you pay much to get crap software? Or you simply don't like their programs?

Will your view on Microsoft change if you use their programs for free?

The reason for asking this is the fact, in a large part of the world (most Asian countries), people use "copied" version of Microsoft applications.... so they often don't bother using Linux applications - everything they use, is free anyway....

I have to say that I think some sort of "in-between" is needed here as well...

I HATE Microsoft because they charge for things I wouldn't have done to me if I paid for it: EULA agreements which don't let me actually own the software, closed architechture, disabling my WinXP box if I fiddle about with it too much or too many times, yadda yadda

If they didn't charge me for it, I wouldn't HATE them. If they were Open architecture, or free (as in speech) then there wouldn't be a EULA written by Hitler's speechwriter, closed architecture, disabling of my PC, etc.

But if it was just free (as in beer) - Windows has certain advantages with hardware, being ubiquitous, etc. I would consider using it for certain things.
However, without all that money coming into Microsoft I doubt those advantages would exist however. Would hardware makers, software writers etc make such a huge effort to make sure their software/hardware remained compatable with the newest flavour of Windows if there were no money driving the company to be the top OS maker and it was on an equal standing with Linux/BSD?

I think not. I think you find we'd be having a similar conversation about OSX right now...:-k

MikeTaylor
February 20th, 2006, 01:22 PM
I think that if you are using openoffice, which is good, you may as well be using m*cr*soft products if they were free. But only if they were free free (as in both ways money and gnu). I love the way that linux and most programs assosiated with it are made. Its community based! The errors have a personal touch or are very generalised. I love linux, partly becouse its free, and powerfull, but also becouse the people who create the programs arn't being paid for it! They just want to make a new program, and it provides a large choice. Also, its very easy to get help and support from others who know exactly what the program does, wheras windows hides so much! Linux is easier to make programs for too.
M$ has the most annoying shortcuts and silly errors. Bugs all over the place, and whenever a unix user finds a problem in unix code, M$ finds out about it and calls it a break through for M$! Whats the need for any office anyways? Havn't you people heard of LaTeX? OpenOffice.org and M$ office (and most other things related to M$) Are pants compared to LaTeX and others!
Thats what i think anyway...
Mike

MikeTaylor
February 20th, 2006, 01:25 PM
LOL for example look at the error when your apt.conf has something wrong with it!
"Syntax error /etc/apt/apt.conf:2: Extra junk at end of file" Friendly or what!?

ygarl
February 20th, 2006, 02:26 PM
I won't disagree that apple got where it is today with the ipod and its store on its own merits, but if you can't see where this is all going than you haven't been paying enough attention to comment on it. Apple has maneuvered itself into a position to keep control of the market even if it's products become completely unusable garbage.

Oh and stop saying there are ipod alternatives .. because every other mp3 player out there pales in comparison to the ipod's price and current quality.

Ah... the same could be said of Toyota. Do I own a Toyota?
No - I own a Suzuki Vitara and a Daewoo. My wife's family own a GM (Vauxhall) van, a Daewoo, and a BMW Z3.
Why? Because quality for price are not the only reasons to buy things.
Sure - and iPod is a lovely music player. But in the UK it's over £150 for the cheapest one. Most people don't WANT to carry about 10gB of music - so they buy 256k/512/1gB flash memory players. They just want a Walkman for MP3s - not the (frankly, people...) geeky "Put all my tunes in a box" iPod.

jeremy
May 14th, 2006, 06:49 PM
I would still criticize them, except that I would laugh rather than feel angry.

RavenOfOdin
May 14th, 2006, 07:52 PM
I absolutely and completely abhor Microsoft.

If XP weren't needed on this comp by my Mom, off it would go.

Of course I'd criticize them, for all they've done and all they're doing.

zubrug
May 15th, 2006, 12:12 AM
I simply trust linux (ubuntu). Microsoft is holding back on Vista, maybe they want to see how the giant telecom companies make out with there huge surveilance legal issue's. I just do not trust them.

ThirdWorld
May 15th, 2006, 04:35 AM
I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Microsoft.

Is it just because you pay much to get crap software? Or you simply don't like their programs?

Will your view on Microsoft change if you use their programs for free?

The reason for asking this is the fact, in a large part of the world (most Asian countries), people use "copied" version of Microsoft applications.... so they often don't bother using Linux applications - everything they use, is free anyway....


I think constructive self criticism is healthy for any mayor human project. i dont think that neither windows is crap nor linux is crap. I think both platforms have their strengths and terrible flaws in design. Microsoft have the backward compatibility issue, serious security issues and the kernel (in windows XP) is not as solid as a unix based kernel. But 99% of the time if it say designed for windows XP it will run on windows XP. the reason is simple: 1 OS, 1 enviroment, 1 way of doing things.

There cant be something designed for linux. the reason is very complex. put in a simple words: linux developers have created a chaotic world for independent software developers. distros manage pakages in diferent ways, and usually they tweak code a little bit, so there is no standard way to install somenthing in linux. some linux developers who are worried about the future of linux are doing a real effort trying to correct it with project portland, but is too little too late.

Linux have teams of developers, mostly volunteers, working for years on diferent enviroments that basically do the same thing. They fight with each others, and at some points in history even dont talk to each other. They will never admit it but, its a chaotic platform where the gnome team are doing what the kde team are already doing, and what the enligthment team are doing and the same thing that the Xfce team is working on etc. they all work on their own native applications packages and they integrate those applications to the point that is totally useless to install a native KDE application like amarok in gnome since in order to work properly you need other KDE applications like konkeror, kde mail and k3b. 3 diferent programs that have nothing to do with the amarok music player but are integrated with the program and offer the browser, mail and burning capabilities. In theory is great. amarok is not bloated piece of software, but when you put that application in another enviroment and with a group of apps designed for that other enviroment then you have a problem.

Of course those things among others only affect end users, most likely home users, not the server segment of the market. therefore the almost non existent precense of linux on the desktop market where windows rules.
when you pay $100 or $200 for something you can turn around and tell the guy who sell that, hey, i want that or i need that feature, if many people requested that feature, developers will include it, its a financial insentive.
but in linux you cant do that. in simple words: is like charity. Since developers are volunteers, if you request a feature that request ends up buried in some feature request list. therefore, there is almost no focus on the end user like apple does. thats a serious flaw in linux, a terrible one.

Lets remember that free software is not the same as open source. I think this is a matter of choice, some people just dont like windows, and they will never use it even if is free. and some people will never use linux just because it feels diferent than windows or because they cant use 3rd party software that those manufacturers dont know how to port to linux since there are so many choices of enviroments and distributions.

BoyOfDestiny
May 15th, 2006, 05:17 AM
I think constructive self criticism is healthy for any mayor human project. i dont think that neither windows is crap nor linux is crap. I think both platforms have their strengths and terrible flaws in design. Microsoft have the backward compatibility issue, serious security issues and the kernel (in windows XP) is not as solid as a unix based kernel. But 99% of the time if it say designed for windows XP it will run on windows XP. the reason is simple: 1 OS, 1 enviroment, 1 way of doing things.

There cant be something designed for linux. the reason is very complex. put in a simple words: linux developers have created a chaotic world for independent software developers. distros manage pakages in diferent ways, and usually they tweak code a little bit, so there is no standard way to install somenthing in linux. some linux developers who are worried about the future of linux are doing a real effort trying to correct it with project portland, but is too little too late.

Linux have teams of developers, mostly volunteers, working for years on diferent enviroments that basically do the same thing. They fight with each others, and at some points in history even dont talk to each other. They will never admit it but, its a chaotic platform where the gnome team are doing what the kde team are already doing, and what the enligthment team are doing and the same thing that the Xfce team is working on etc. they all work on their own native applications packages and they integrate those applications to the point that is totally useless to install a native KDE application like amarok in gnome since in order to work properly you need other KDE applications like konkeror, kde mail and k3b. 3 diferent programs that have nothing to do with the amarok music player but are integrated with the program and offer the browser, mail and burning capabilities. In theory is great. amarok is not bloated piece of software, but when you put that application in another enviroment and with a group of apps designed for that other enviroment then you have a problem.

Of course those things among others only affect end users, most likely home users, not the server segment of the market. therefore the almost non existent precense of linux on the desktop market where windows rules.
when you pay $100 or $200 for something you can turn around and tell the guy who sell that, hey, i want that or i need that feature, if many people requested that feature, developers will include it, its a financial insentive.
but in linux you cant do that. in simple words: is like charity. Since developers are volunteers, if you request a feature that request ends up buried in some feature request list. therefore, there is almost no focus on the end user like apple does. thats a serious flaw in linux, a terrible one.

Lets remember that free software is not the same as open source. I think this is a matter of choice, some people just dont like windows, and they will never use it even if is free. and some people will never use linux just because it feels diferent than windows or because they cant use 3rd party software that those manufacturers dont know how to port to linux since there are so many choices of enviroments and distributions.

The standard way to install things in linux
./configure
make
make install

As for dev's being volunteers. There are paid developers too. Ask OSDL, IBM, RedHat, SUSE, and Canonical. Now, what to do if you want someone to add something to an app. You can pay for a feature. It's called a bounty.

As for it being too late? I doubt it. MS is scared. They finally view open source as a threat, instead of saying it's "amateurish", it's now focusing on claiming windows has a lower TCO...

I'd like to know what the heck multiple DE's has to do with MS. They had/have a DOS cli interface, win16, and then 9x/NT/2000/XP's gui haven't deviated much, now they have aero (or rather will have in 2007, or whenever Vista comes out) Bah.

Anyway, back on topic.

Yes, I would still criticize MS even if they made software free as in beer. If they make it free as in speech, I may change my tune.

Although I can choose other fronts, such as channeling $16,000,000,000 in funds to an offshore Irish subsidiary as a tax haven (sparing them the payment of $500,000,000 in US tax dollars)

As far as I'm concerned, ****'em.

Reshin
May 15th, 2006, 12:23 PM
um, question. why should everyone be able to tinker with every single programs and OS:s (windows in this case) source code?

Sitix
May 15th, 2006, 12:42 PM
The 'hating Windows' movement is quite irritating me. Almost every good programmer has that period where (s)he is just annoyed like hell by the way Windows works. Who cares, most of everybody used it for a long time though.

It's not like Windows is bad, it's rather like Linux fits my needs better. It is faster, more compatible (although Wine is still a pain in the ***..) and I just like the configurability more. I can change everything in it, what can I want more?

I don't hate Windows, neither do I dislike it. I'm in school now and they use Windows, I am not afraid my computer will be hacked. I'm just annoyed McAffee constantly whines about the fact that the computer is not correctly secured. That is not Windows' fault, that is the system administrator's fault. As long as my computer isn't suffering from it, I don't care.

Altogether I just say: everybody has to fit his or her needs. If Windows does that, if it satisfies you, then use it. If you believe Linux has more future for you personally, use Linux.

Leave the fact for a moment that Windows is more insecure, leave the fact that you have to pay for it. Don't act like Microsoft can change their goals now, if they want to turn to open-source that will cause them their death, not their victory.

Deep in my heart I hope Linux shall always be for the programmers, hackers, people who don't just accept the computer as a machine you can write a text document in and print it. But there are more people who look at it that way than a 'programmers' look on it.

Face it... in a short period Linux won't get to be the most used OS or anything. Perhaps, sometime, when Microsoft is floored. Their lies will once fail, they will fall...

I don't hate them, I simply wait for the moment it will happen...

Stormy Eyes
May 15th, 2006, 03:14 PM
I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Microsoft.

Microsoft designs their operating systems around the assumption that the average user knows nothing about computers and isn't interested in learning. I know a reasonable amount about computers, and am interested in learning, so Microsoft's "coddle the user" approach is an annoyance.

If I wanted a computer that second-guessed me, I'd buy a HAL-9000.

Reshin
May 15th, 2006, 03:19 PM
Uh, how is microsoft preventing you from learning about computers?

Stormy Eyes
May 15th, 2006, 03:29 PM
Uh, how is microsoft preventing you from learning about computers?

Let me rephrase: Microsoft operates on the assumption that the average user is a moron. I resent this assumption, and so refuse to deal with Microsoft. Is that better?

Mr_J_
May 15th, 2006, 03:42 PM
If the stuff was free I couldn't complain about it.
After all they would be doing it on there free time...

On the other end we'd still have the fact that they are buggy because of their closed source nature that slows down bug correction.

I might use them, as long as the bugs got exterminated...

I don't hate MSFT personally, they just need to get the bugs out of the system.
A little choice added to the mix wouldn't kill them too.

aysiu
May 15th, 2006, 04:12 PM
People criticize Ubuntu all the time even though it's free.

Free doesn't make people grateful.

Stormy Eyes
May 15th, 2006, 04:16 PM
Free doesn't make people grateful.

I suspect that it makes a lot of people ungrateful.

warp99
May 15th, 2006, 04:40 PM
"With Microsoft, the first hit is always free -- remember that all your life." - Scott McNealy Former CEO of Sun Microsystems.

Check out some more of McNealy's colorful comments:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/software/soa/Say_what_A_look_back_at_McNealy_zingers/0,39023769,39253850,00.htm

commodore
May 15th, 2006, 07:48 PM
If Microsoft would make their programs free I wouldn't criticize them but if they would make their programs free of charge, there would be no difference, I would still criticize them.

Bradley17
May 17th, 2006, 11:39 AM
I would still criticise Microsoft, for expecting people to tolerate an OS that allows the ignorant to get infected with adware, spyware, worms, viruses, trojans, etc.

Ask your self why? thier operating system gets infected, its because sad bastards spend all day attacking it, looking for vunerabilities,

bluenova
May 17th, 2006, 11:42 AM
I would use MS office instead of open office, but there is no way I would go back to windows.

Dragonbite
May 17th, 2006, 02:15 PM
"With Microsoft, the first hit is always free -- remember that all your life." - Scott McNealy Former CEO of Sun Microsystems.


Isn't that how drug-dealers get you hooked? Free samples then when you're addicted they make you pay!?!

Stormy Eyes
May 17th, 2006, 02:16 PM
Ask your self why? thier operating system gets infected, its because sad bastards spend all day attacking it, looking for vunerabilities,

And the sad bastards find plenty, because Microsoft's approach to security in the past can be charitably described as sloppy. However, I said nothing about worms and trojans. My beef is that Microsoft seems to think that its users are morons.

Virogenesis
May 17th, 2006, 02:33 PM
And the sad bastards find plenty, because Microsoft's approach to security in the past can be charitably described as sloppy. However, I said nothing about worms and trojans. My beef is that Microsoft seems to think that its users are morons.
So you expect all users to be extremely smart?
Whats the harm of making a application, simple..
The fact of the matter is by assuming the user is a moron you are not doing as damage as giving someone a terminal and a compiler.
FACT!!!
Those that are new to computers, new something they can get to grips with because of that reason wizards are useful.
you also have to take into account that companies have staff that are morons.
Would you say a website is bad if the links do not have meaningful links?
If you went into a posh restaurant would you expect paper plates?

warp99
May 17th, 2006, 04:03 PM
Isn't that how drug-dealers get you hooked? Free samples then when you're addicted they make you pay!?!

Well drug dealers and software/hardware vendors have one think in common. The end product is not accepted by customers, but by "users". I believe the only two industries in the world that use this reference. :cool:

ubuntu_demon
May 18th, 2006, 10:51 PM
I voted no. But actually it should be "no I don't want to use microsoft products unless I have to".

unbuntu
May 18th, 2006, 11:03 PM
Microsoft has already had many free programs...IE is free, but IE is amongst the most criticized MS programs ever...

Bradley17
May 19th, 2006, 11:54 AM
And the sad bastards find plenty, because Microsoft's approach to security in the past can be charitably described as sloppy. However, I said nothing about worms and trojans. My beef is that Microsoft seems to think that its users are morons.

That is not my point... The point is that if people didnt attack microsoft software in the first place we wouldnt have this problem.

At the end of the day i dont sit a linux and think about how to *** it up

whoa_551
May 19th, 2006, 12:40 PM
It depends what you mean by "free". If you are talking about money, I would probably criticize them less. Would I use their apps if they were free? As long as they were closed-source, I would probably only use them if there were no usable open-source alternative. So, um, I guess I'll abstain from voting hehehe

florizs
May 19th, 2006, 12:55 PM
I believe there should be another option in the poll,
something along the lines of:
"I would pay as long as they open up their source"
the thing which I have against Microsoft is that there is one organisation in controll of the software on my computer.
Also the fact that I can't look in to the sourcecode and modify or change it disturbs me.

Carrots171
May 19th, 2006, 01:15 PM
I didn't vote.

Some Microsoft programs I don't like using, and some programs I have no problem with.

BoyOfDestiny
May 19th, 2006, 07:47 PM
That is not my point... The point is that if people didnt attack microsoft software in the first place we wouldnt have this problem.

At the end of the day i dont sit a linux and think about how to *** it up

Doesn't matter. The security is (well if you run unpatched anyway) somewhat non-existant.
You can argue that MS software is great if it's run in a bubble.

It's not.

Someone somewhere, whether it be a script kiddie, or a cracker (for who knows what purpose). It will get broken into. They aren't going away any time soon.

If they go and fix the holes, it's like building immunity. These "attacks" end up making the software more durable. It's evident with open source. It's not bullet proof, but once an exploit is found and patched, that particular method no longer works...

Stormy Eyes
May 19th, 2006, 08:07 PM
So you expect all users to be extremely smart?

I still retain some optimism after six years of programming for a living.


Whats the harm of making a application, simple.

No harm at all, as long as those who know what they're doing can bypass the wizard. There's a reason everything in Windows has to be done with a wizard: the terminal is rutting useless.


Those that are new to computers, new something they can get to grips with because of that reason wizards are useful.

On Linux, you can have as many rutting wizards as you like. Just don't try to stop me from batting them aside and using the shell.

K.Mandla
May 19th, 2006, 10:13 PM
No. It's no longer worth it to me to use MS programs. They have become irrelevant.

graigsmith
May 20th, 2006, 01:41 AM
suppose they did make it 'free'. what then? once they crush all competetion. they could just make the next version of their os as expensive as they want.

I could see microsoft making it cost nothing, to hold/gain market share. But i couldn't imagine them ever making it free, like linux is free. if there's one thing microsoft will never do is release their control of the windows os. They control it, they always will.

BWF89
May 20th, 2006, 02:09 AM
Even if Microsoft's programs were made free as in beer they still wouldn't be free as in freedom.

Dr. C
May 20th, 2006, 03:52 AM
Yes. Paying for Microsoft software is not the problem DRM is.

The biggest trouble with Microsoft software IMHO is thier use of DRM (product activation etc.) starting around the turn of the millenium.

I also find it interesting that Microsoft stock has being going down since they introduced DRM into thier products.

kriding
May 20th, 2006, 09:01 AM
personally, I tried linux and found I prefered it...especially the peace of mind I got after my windows install was utterly trashed by trojan that not only disabled the vast array of anti spyware/malware/virus programmes (that are necessary on a windows install). I'm also very impatient when i boot up, windows takes a lifetime to boot up after around amonh of usage, and most of the apps you install 'presume' to think you want it to start at boot up...again, slowing everything down to buggery...Linux is just faster.

I wouldn't go back to windows, but I do like and miss some of their apps..like photoshop, Gimp doesn't do it for me, and I can't produce anything near as clean with it as i can with photoshop..possibly due to inexperience and lack of knowledge.

So, to answer, I can't vote as my reasons for using linux over windows aren't covered by that poll, it wouldn't matter if their software was free, their OS is just to insecure and has far more bells and whistles then is necessary for a desktop computer

welders4linux
June 14th, 2006, 04:36 AM
Microsoft has no vision, they USE personnel in India for next to nothing.

There software can be described as very poorly written, overpriced, and has enough backdoors to let every tom **** and hacker in.

They ignore the courts, and the people

grsing
June 14th, 2006, 04:56 AM
I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Microsoft.

Is it just because you pay much to get crap software? Or you simply don't like their programs?

Will your view on Microsoft change if you use their programs for free?

The reason for asking this is the fact, in a large part of the world (most Asian countries), people use "copied" version of Microsoft applications.... so they often don't bother using Linux applications - everything they use, is free anyway....

I'll admit, if Word and Excel ran on Linux (not with Wine or anything, natively, or at least a bundled wine like Picasa that worked well), I would use them. Won't happen, but that doesn't change the hypothetical. I don't use Windows (very much) not because of the cost, but because it is an inferior product compared to Ubuntu for most of my uses. I don't really have much against Microsoft as a company (no better or no worse than most large corporations), just an objective eval of the software they offer, even ignoring price.

NewDisciple
June 14th, 2006, 05:22 AM
Gee...free software, huh? Dp you mean as in poorly written code, numerous security holes, closed source, and oh yes, mustn't forget about patch day. I just don't think so. Been there, done that; ain't going back.

Compucore
June 14th, 2006, 06:53 AM
I think if MS went the way as Ubuntu Linux did. I think that we would have a hay day in rewriting the source code in making it better product under the type of licensing like what Linux is using. Since we all know how bloated windows is and becoming even more bloated as we can see in Vista. (Wishful thinknig on my part if MS went the way as Ubuntu.) For me I prefer Linux since its nice and tightly coded. And if they took out those blooming registry for that thing. I am almost certain that the registry is a good part of the problem. Not totally 100 % but a good chunk.

And I think we can all agree on one thing or another. There is a lot more products that we do not have to worry about buying each application that we install on our linux. (Besides codex of course depending where you are located too.) What microsoft is doing is the spiral effect of programming. And its not really that good. What linux is doing I find better and you don't bust a blood vessel over the whole thing where you patching every nook and cranny once a month. Roll them out as they come even if it is on a daily, weekly, monthly basis as needed. On what you have installed and not just this or that. And everything without going to different websites.

Sorry for ranting all over the place here. There is a little bit of everything that I could think of in this case.

Compucore

ikilledclown
June 14th, 2006, 07:29 AM
I only use because windows is unreliable and so limeted, I usedto use mac osx where programs are stupidly expensive but when that went wrong somehow and wouldn't install on my computer I installed linux, I knew nothing about it excenpt from it would boot of apples, it was only after I got it and started using it that I found out all programs are free.

I'm probably just a eternal windows hater, I always have been, and always will be.:razz:

Harold P
June 14th, 2006, 10:40 AM
I like Open Source, and I like learning. I vote No. It looks like I put one away from 50%. Closest poll I've ever seen. :p

seshomaru samma
June 15th, 2006, 02:30 PM
I live in China and most people who critisise Microsoft are Westerners, many who use MS products exclusively. One American girl in my company gave me a long lecture about evil corporations exploiting the masses, she gave Microsoft as a prime example, but when I suggested she uses gmail rather than hotmail ,she refused saying she is "already used to it".
I think many MS products are good , I especially like the new Live messenger and Microsoft Fax and Pictures viewer (that comes with Office). I dont know how I would feel if I needed to pay for their products though....

G Morgan
June 15th, 2006, 05:12 PM
If it was both gratis and libre then I would certainly give it all the respect I give Linux in respect to philosophy though not necessarily in technical terms.

Personally I think the best thing MS could do is to mimic the GNU/Linux project. Release a kernel and tool chain to the public along with an x-server type setup then release a proprietry desktop. It would certainly be more stable and obviously standards would be open (even if they added a proprietry API, would you use the standard open one and boost portability or use MS's constantly changing fiddled one and abandon other platforms).

If they did this I think MS would be around for a lot longer as market leader but would be playing nice. Their methods will be their demise in the end, people will switch to another OS, its just a matter of who and when and I'd fancy its closer than most people expect (especially if Vista totally knackers backwards compatibility).

Anyway its becoming increasing clear that Windows is not the large profit margin business it used to be. The likelyhood of MS going for Office and other apps only is quite high. At that point open standards would make more sense to their business plan.

ComplexNumber
June 15th, 2006, 05:19 PM
i voted for "Yes, I have no problem if they offer Windows/Office etc. free". it doesn't mean that i'd ever want to use them, though. however, it doesn't seem to be a suitable reply to the question of "Would you criticize Microsoft if their programs are free?". the original question should be "if microsofts products were free, would you use them?".

nuvo
June 15th, 2006, 06:42 PM
I don't really dislike Microsoft, I just chose not to pay through the nose for their products when I can get something that does what I want for free.
I do have issues with how Microsoft brands Open Source and Linux as evils in the computing world simply because they are losing market share to them.
In my view, if they are losing out to Linux in the server sector and to Firefox and such on the desktop, this is a sign that they are the ones who are in the wrong, not us lot.
I always see these little flash adverts saying something about how Microsoft servers could save you battling with issues and costs, but surely, people wouldn't move to other OS's if Windows did what they needed it to.
I enjoy web development and programming, so I chose an OS which is stable, fast and secure.
While Windows has improved leaps and bounds with XP over ME and such, it runs poorly on my 2.53Ghz system with 256Mb of RAM, I had issues with it bugging out at times and I ended up with more security software running than anything else.

I don't use office suites, so I can't comment on if I'd use Office if it was free (I actually have an unopened copy of MS Works somewhere) and from what I recall, Open Office isn't that bad under Linux.

While Explorer is free to download and use, Microsoft would have to make vast changes to it to make me even think of it as a viable web browser.
Internet Explorer, even in Version 7, never appealed to me simply because it used to cause this strange stinging sensation in the part of my brain that gets the warm fuzzy feeling when I'm building web pages.
Microsoft has taken it upon themselves to ignore the W3C (who are headed by London born Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the HTTP protocol and HTML) and this has caused web designers and developers to hate them immensly.
The last good thing to come from Explorer was AJAX's \ JavaScript's XmlHTTPRequest object, and that's only good if used correctly.
Everyone in my house uses Firefox.
My parents tried Opera but didn't like it, it died on me and everyone got annoyed at Explorer being shoddy (though my parents still use XP).

As for other Microsoft software products, it's hard to say as I rarely used them under XP.
Mostly, I used Fireworks MX, HTML-Kit, Delphi 7 PE, SCIte, Firefox and Google Mail (Gmail = lawsuit).

If Office was made Open Source, I'm sure it'd do well.
If Windows was made Open Source, it'd slowly turn into Unix.
If Explorer became Open Source, people would still laugh at it like the awful mess it is.

G Morgan
June 15th, 2006, 07:36 PM
If Explorer became Open Source, people would still laugh at it like the awful mess it is.

If IE went open source it would be the greatest money spinner ever. Imagine the work saved by the 'how not to code' books by being able to import IE code in easily. It would bring a new era of good coding quite frankly.

bruce89
June 15th, 2006, 07:43 PM
It depends what you call "free". Most people here mean free software, not gratis.

jdusablon
June 17th, 2006, 06:27 AM
I am forced to work with and support Microsoft software every day (server and desktop.)

The reason these pet peaves are hard to nail down is in their nature...It's the small things that just add up to a big mess with Windows, Office, Active Directory, etc.

Questions I ask myself every day:

- Why can't NTFS handle large numbers of files and folders? It takes FOREVER to count, determine the size of, delete, etc directories with high file/folder counts. Because I have to work with servers and often hundreds of files/folders, I deal with this a lot. I don't see this problem in linux/ext3. It never takes me over 2 minutes to find out the real size of a folder. Trying to delete 2GB of profiles on a machine running 2K will send you to the loonie bin.

- Why is native FTP support in Windows (IE) abominable? I mean it's terrible.

- For that matter, what's with the crappy TCP stack in windows anyway? I mean YOU'VE HAD 10 YEARS TO FIX IT!!! What gives? ANY networking is better, stronger, more flexible, more secure and faster in linux/unix.

- Why can't I install a "server version" of Windows? Why the hell do I need a GUI to run Windows 2003 Server??? I NEVER log into the machine physically, so why can't I just terminal into the thing with encrypted telnet or something like SSH?? At least give me the option to kill the GUI on the local machine!

- Speaking of GUIs, show me ANYTHING that comes close to Compiz on windows. I used to hack around with Litestep, and that was cool...but nothing like this. Simply amazing.

The list goes on and on and on...small things that get in my way every day with Windows. I'm tired of it.

With linux/unix, every day more roadblocks are lifted from my path...if it doesn't work, here's how to fix it...if you don't like this program, chances are, someone else didn't either and wrote an alternative that suits you better. Install it how you like it.

Yeah, linux is more advanced and technical, but so am I, I guess.

skull_leader
June 17th, 2006, 07:33 AM
I'd use MS stuff if it was Open Source, but I'd still criticize them. Or rather their software, with the optimism that criticism is more productive on an Open Source platform.

If you meant free as in free beer. Meh. Not if I could just use programs that are free as in freedom.

B0rsuk
June 17th, 2006, 05:16 PM
Let's face it, price is meaningless if so much software gets pirated anyway. Here in Poland, it's hard to find someone with legal copy of Windows. Or anything else. You tell them Linux is free, and they just laugh.

MSatterwhite
June 18th, 2006, 05:57 PM
Price has nothing to do with why I abandoned Microsoft. Have you read the EULA that you have to agree to in order to use their stuff?

They have reached the point that their software phones home at least once a day. We *KNOW* their lying about what they say they're doing here - that's been analyzed in the press over and over. Knowing their lying in one area, it's a sure bet they're lying in others (that's what liars do - they continue to lie).

Now, if you're comfortable with them sending information from your computer to Big Brother on a daily basis, by all means use their software. Personally, I don't think they have any business looking at my computer. The price isn't the issue.

nuvo
June 18th, 2006, 06:30 PM
If IE went open source it would be the greatest money spinner ever. Imagine the work saved by the 'how not to code' books by being able to import IE code in easily. It would bring a new era of good coding quite frankly.
To be honest, I don't think Internet Explorer's code base would be worth digging into.
For one, it's rather outdated (if you don't count version 7, which is still in Beta) and I highly doubt other browser development teams would be interested in using it's code in their applications as Microsoft is incredibly bad at supporting W3C standards.
I would assume (and hope) that many would see using Explorer code in other browsers as a step backwards (damaging standards support by encouraging poorly coded sites and hacks) and using other browser code in Internet Explorer as an unneeded step forwards (Firefox and Opera are better browsers already, so why do we need Internet Explorer unless you're using ActiveX ordirectly executing applications from within the browser?).

rai4shu2
June 18th, 2006, 08:21 PM
The day I stop criticizing something is the day I stop using it.

guine
June 19th, 2006, 05:05 PM
Yes, its more than just having to pay for their software. Their software crashes too much so ill always have that to laugh at. And I also dont like their business style and monopoly status in general.

kakalaky
June 19th, 2006, 06:16 PM
If MS made their programs free I still wouldn't use them. If they released them under GPL, I might use some of them after enough time had passed for them to have been looked over.

bruce89
June 19th, 2006, 06:43 PM
Even if it was GPL, it would all need rewritten. Also, they have absolutely no reason to do it, so they wouldn't.

terminatorkobold
June 20th, 2006, 07:18 PM
In my mind, price is only about half the issue. The other half is that they put out shoddy, immature product, and it's all tied in togetherand made to only play nice with other shoddy, half-assed, MSFT products. If they really do include ODF support in Office 12, that'd be a step in the right direction (albeit one that they were forced to take with a financial gun to their heads).

I agree. For me the biggest problem with microsoft products is the lack of compatibility between Microsoft documents and all other application, including other Micrsoft applications. How often did it happen that my nice word document would be corrupted after having been opened on a Mac (hybrid mac/Windows environnement at Work) or would not open properly on an other wersion of Microsoft Word than the one used to write it. ](*,)

Besides I am afraid to lose a plethora of documents when the support of the format disappears from Microsoft products. I don't want to have to convert the totality of my work every couple of years.

ZephyrXero
June 20th, 2006, 08:28 PM
Just to clarify my vote as you didn't make it very clear, if Microsoft programs were free as in freedom (ie...open source) I would have no problem with them. If they were still closed source, yet free as in price, I still would be against them.

And of course, that's just talking about if I have something against them, I probably still wouldn't use them as I have things that are much better to use now ;)

bruce89
June 20th, 2006, 08:40 PM
Just to clarify my vote as you didn't make it very clear, if Microsoft programs were free as in freedom (ie...open source) I would have no problem with them.
They would need a bit of rewriting though!

ZephyrXero
June 20th, 2006, 08:47 PM
They would need a bit of rewriting though!
Of course ;)

Dural
June 21st, 2006, 02:46 AM
If you are going to try and make me pay 80+ dollars for a program, it had better be worth the money. So far, with my experience with Microsoft's programs, whether Windows, Office, or Visual C++, there hasn't been enough to justify the high costs, especially when there's often an open-source or freeware program which does the same thing and does it better. In addition, I am not fond of Microsoft's practices, though I don't have anything personal against Bill Gates. In fact, as soon as I learn more about Ubuntu and can set it up fully, I plan to remove Windows completely from my computer.

Sitix
June 21st, 2006, 04:06 PM
In fact, as soon as I learn more about Ubuntu and can set it up fully, I plan to remove Windows completely from my computer.

The Ubuntu religion is near addition of one more Ubuntu-soul! :D


Back ontopic. It's nonsense to say that if they were free and open-source, that we shouldn't critisize them anymore. Every program gets critisized and that can be both good and bad. Publishing your program open-source just shows maturity and that you can handle the critics, that you are mature enough to listen and accept changes where needed. Microsoft doesn't seem to have that maturity, and doesn't dare to either. Who blames them? As soon as they publish any open-source code of it everybody jumps onto them looking for the tiniest error to complain about. Not that I feel any compassion, but I don't think it's easy to lead the market. It's not as if they have a lot of choice but to remain closed-source in this matter.

Think about it, do you really 'respect' Microsoft if they publish their software as open-source, or will that only be up to a specific level like: "okay, they shown they are making progress, but we ain't there yet". I would feel like the second, and I think that is my good right.

I stick to the opinion that they can never really safely turn their programs into open-source. Perhaps after some time - when the marketing model of Microsoft really collapses - but not much earlier.

guyjohnston
February 7th, 2007, 05:35 PM
I'd use some of them if they were free as in freedom. If they were free as in price but still proprietary I wouldn't.

Adamant1988
February 7th, 2007, 05:44 PM
I have no problem using Microsoft products, even now. My only request is that they make them cross-platform. I know they have office for Mac, but I want office on my Linux box working just fine. Granted OpenOffice is a wonderful alternative, but the Microsoft Office "Ribbon" design is just SOO user friendly looking, it seems to be a massive improvement on the hierarchal menus that we use today. Free as in price would be a nice plus.

I'm not an OSS freak, I like the design philosophy, but I'm not willing to inconvenience myself to support it. So I don't care if they release the code.

SunnyRabbiera
February 7th, 2007, 06:13 PM
Well if its one program I would want for honestly free or at fair price is MS office.
Honestly its the only major MS software I use widescale (with IE a very distant second)
But business wise MS will never go 100% free, nor would they ever release source.
But there is a chance in the near future they might have a MS word for linux if Linux can break down the walls in the next few years...
and I think it will, I think vista is going to be like ME was...

AEDrysdale
February 7th, 2007, 08:08 PM
For me, a lot of M$ products are free, quite legally, through work (corporate licensing agreement). Even so, I don't use them at home, because I prefer not to patronize the company, and I rarely (close to never) have problems doing what I want with free (both senses of the word) products.

Why don't I like M$? A lot of reasons, any one of which would be sufficient. I do use their products at work (have to), I am familiar with them, and they have some irritating glitches, at least as many as the free products. So I don't think they are great products, and that biases me against them. What I like even less is the way they try to lock everybody in to their product, which is way over-priced. (Yes, I know, I don't pay for them, but the government does through our contracts and that offends me, and what about when I retire?) I don't like that they got away with some pretty serious illegalities with barely a slap on the wrist. (I get caught speeding, I get to pay the fine, take the class...) I don't like the way they are moving towards more DRM. I can see why they would like DRM, but it is not a good thing for the customer (i.e. me). They should be on our side, making our computers more usable, not on the side of the xxAA. I don't like the way they have reduced competition in the industry - again good for them, bad for us. I don't like the way they cut deals with manufacturers to restrict my choices, either for entire computers, or for smaller pieces of hardware. I don't like their FUD.

One of the obvious indicators of s/w quality is the number of viruses out there. There are something like 200,000 for Windows (I've heard 150k and 300k recently), and none for Linux. If it was based on market share, you'd think that there would be some for Linux. What is the proportion of computers using M$ vs Linux? Maybe 20:1? Certainly better than 100:1. So with 200,000 viruses for M$ and only 1% for Linux there should be 2,000 for Linux. Where are they? 2,000 vs zero is a pretty big difference. I would really resent somebody having such a poor product that I had to buy additional s/w to secure it, and even more so that that product reduces the utility of the web by eating up resources. If half the electricity coming to our houses was siphoned off by somebody else, we would be up in arms. So why is M$ allowed to eat up half the Internet with insecure products?

Adamant1988
February 7th, 2007, 08:18 PM
For me, a lot of M$ products are free, quite legally, through work (corporate licensing agreement). Even so, I don't use them at home, because I prefer not to patronize the company, and I rarely (close to never) have problems doing what I want with free (both senses of the word) products.

Why don't I like M$? A lot of reasons, any one of which would be sufficient. I do use their products at work (have to), I am familiar with them, and they have some irritating glitches, at least as many as the free products. So I don't think they are great products, and that biases me against them. What I like even less is the way they try to lock everybody in to their product, which is way over-priced. (Yes, I know, I don't pay for them, but the government does through our contracts and that offends me, and what about when I retire?) I don't like that they got away with some pretty serious illegalities with barely a slap on the wrist. (I get caught speeding, I get to pay the fine, take the class...) I don't like the way they are moving towards more DRM. I can see why they would like DRM, but it is not a good thing for the customer (i.e. me). They should be on our side, making our computers more usable, not on the side of the xxAA. I don't like the way they have reduced competition in the industry - again good for them, bad for us. I don't like the way they cut deals with manufacturers to restrict my choices, either for entire computers, or for smaller pieces of hardware. I don't like their FUD.

One of the obvious indicators of s/w quality is the number of viruses out there. There are something like 200,000 for Windows (I've heard 150k and 300k recently), and none for Linux. If it was based on market share, you'd think that there would be some for Linux. What is the proportion of computers using M$ vs Linux? Maybe 20:1? Certainly better than 100:1. So with 200,000 viruses for M$ and only 1% for Linux there should be 2,000 for Linux. Where are they? 2,000 vs zero is a pretty big difference. I would really resent somebody having such a poor product that I had to buy additional s/w to secure it, and even more so that that product reduces the utility of the web by eating up resources. If half the electricity coming to our houses was siphoned off by somebody else, we would be up in arms. So why is M$ allowed to eat up half the Internet with insecure products?


Just thought I would offer this:

The ADM worm was the first virus aimed specifically at Linux users and appeared briefly in 1998. Symantec reported that it has found three Linux viruses in the wild since the start of 2004.

Source: http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2125189/antivirus-vendors-await-major-linux-worm

Linux is not invincible, it's just *more* secure.

daynah
February 7th, 2007, 08:37 PM
Free beer = No. I have a few copies of free (beer) Windows and free (beer) office suites on me right now. I'm a college student so they hand them out like candy. If you folks who said yes want them, I'll mail them to you. I believe it's XP. Before I do, lemme call my boyfriend and make sure he didn't lose his cd, but it's all kosher.

Free speech = Yes. That's what makes microsoft not good. Microsoft, because it has its secrets, is less secure. To keep a secret between three people, two of them have to be dead.

Sepp1
February 7th, 2007, 09:37 PM
I dislike M$, because everything at my school happens i .doc format. That means i forced to pay cash, for a product, that otherwise has a free and open drop-in alternative just to read those documents.
For the most i can read them in OOo, but it is the principle of things.
I really wouldn´t mind them, if they didn´t abuse their superior market position to force more people to use their product.
I allso dislike the fact that i was forced to buy a copy of windows XP1$$ with my laptop.

Well that and because of Steve "Chairs" Balmer. He is just SO obnoxious.

doobit
February 7th, 2007, 09:46 PM
I don't hate Microsoft in general. I buy products when they provide something that's better or unique.

However, I really like the idea of community developed, and maintained software. I like more the idea that people are free to develop their own ideas on a level platform, and that other people can freely add to it. Theoretically, the result should be some awesome kewl stuff.

SunnyRabbiera
February 7th, 2007, 10:29 PM
well "better" is a subjective term, but microsoft has never done anything unique in all its years.
they didnt innovate diddlysquat, GUI had been around long before they set foot in the door.
there is really nothing that MS did that someone had already thought of before.

steven8
February 7th, 2007, 11:21 PM
well "better" is a subjective term, but microsoft has never done anything unique in all its years.
they didnt innovate diddlysquat, GUI had been around long before they set foot in the door.
there is really nothing that MS did that someone had already thought of before.

The one thing no had thought of was how to outsmart IBM at their own game. Bill did that.

SunnyRabbiera
February 7th, 2007, 11:41 PM
Perhaps, and yeh IBM is to blame somewhat of why MS took the market like it did.
But really it was oppertunity that could have easily been taken by someone else.

shining
February 8th, 2007, 12:02 AM
MS being an example of what not to do, I think I would love them if they did exactly the opposite of everything they do (or nearly..) :)

teaker1s
February 8th, 2007, 12:15 AM
poorly coded junkware, a business that builds more junk based on the previous junk.

Ocxic
February 8th, 2007, 12:48 AM
free or not there OS is crap, simple as that.

aysiu
February 8th, 2007, 12:56 AM
free or not there OS is crap, simple as that.
It is?

What's so crap about it?

kragen
February 8th, 2007, 12:58 AM
There is no real reason why the average linux user hates Microsoft - as someone else already pointed out, I think its basicly because its the "cool" thing to do. It's probably because they are the competition / opposition. There is pretty much nothing that Microsoft could do which would make people hate them less.

EDIT: My position is that Microsoft are good at what they do - the produce decent software at relatively competitive prices, they have a lot of satisfied customers, and contary to populat belief in the linux community, those customers have good reason to be satisfied. Despite this, there is still gonna be 10-20 or so posts after this one saying "but Microsoft are crap and etc...".

I think people just have too high expectations :)

EmilyRose
February 8th, 2007, 01:04 AM
Yes I'd still criticize MS if they gave there stuff away (they already give IE away, and I criticize that all the time). Now, if they made it open-source and free of DRM, then that is a different story entirely. Untill that happens (and we all know it never will), I'll never touch MS stuff again.

roger99
February 8th, 2007, 01:12 AM
I wouldn't say that the OS is crap, it's just a case of what you want to get out of your computer. With the explosion of computer use and the sheer number of of noobs who have a computer these days MS products rock, as you can insert a cd, everything's automatic and bang it works. The majority of people don't want to have to faff around for hours trying to get hardware to work. They just want their computer to surf the internet, remove some red eye before printing etc etc.

As far as I am concerned (and I only discovered it a while ago) linux is the OS that rocks. I've tried converting some friends but as i've just said, they want a computer that just works without any of the time involved in configuration. I may have found it relatively easy (with the help of this forum) to get Ubuntu working on my computers, but others just can't be ars*d with that.

And yes I have to say the MS line does have some good (dare I say amazing) software such as premiere, and as a friend of mine would swear, vs2005 (although I prefer gedit a makefile and gcc), but I won't be going back anytime soon, not because I hate MS and it's products or that I have some vendetta against Mr Gates but because I like the world where you can watch software develop through things such as svn and if you are so inclined you can even contribute yourself.

As far as I am concerned Linux and Open source is the way forward and I look forward to seeing it mature even more then it allready has. More and more users are coming this way and I say * Welcome to all *

Somenoob
February 8th, 2007, 01:22 AM
Free as in freedom or free is in "free of charge?"

I for one am completely indifferent to Microsoft, but if i had a choice i would not use their programs.

slimdog360
February 8th, 2007, 01:52 AM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7941901498664355924
next time someone has a spare hour and thirty seven minutes, watch it. Then see why some dislike microsoft.

steven8
February 8th, 2007, 04:32 AM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7941901498664355924
next time someone has a spare hour and thirty seven minutes, watch it. Then see why some dislike microsoft.

I've watched 5 or 6 times. It drives it all right home for me.

BarfBag
February 8th, 2007, 05:26 AM
It depends on the circumstances. If Microsoft open sourced their software and came clean about some of their questionable business practices - I wouldn't have a problem. If they just gave them away, but kept them closed - then no.

samjh
February 8th, 2007, 11:28 AM
Among the two choices, I choose the top one: I'll use their software if they are free. But also I use their software even though they are not free.

I never really understood some of the logic behind MS-bashing in Linux communities. It seems more of a fad than reason.

In terms of quality, Microsoft provides quality software in proportion to the complexity of their software, and the depth and scope of their market -- ie. they are technically well-made but too many compromises creep into them to accommodate an extremely broad base of users. From what I've read by former employees and third-party consultants, their software engineering practices are exemplary, especially in their applications development teams (ie. responsible for Office, etc.). Problems with Microsoft's designs stem from the need to accommodate an impossible range of users and usage environments, coupled with lack of consumer sensitivity among the company's upper ranks of management. Their system development teams (ie. Windows) appear to be worst-effected by this.

My gripe with Microsoft has more to do with their ridiculous patenting, so-called "anti piracy" measures (eg. DRM, ridiculously restrictive licenses), and their sometimes anti-competitive business practices.

Adamant1988
February 8th, 2007, 12:51 PM
Among the two choices, I choose the top one: I'll use their software if they are free. But also I use their software even though they are not free.

I never really understood some of the logic behind MS-bashing in Linux communities. It seems more of a fad than reason.

In terms of quality, Microsoft provides quality software in proportion to the complexity of their software, and the depth and scope of their market -- ie. they are technically well-made but too many compromises creep into them to accommodate an extremely broad base of users. From what I've read by former employees and third-party consultants, their software engineering practices are exemplary, especially in their applications development teams (ie. responsible for Office, etc.). Problems with Microsoft's designs stem from the need to accommodate an impossible range of users and usage environments, coupled with lack of consumer sensitivity among the company's upper ranks of management. Their system development teams (ie. Windows) appear to be worst-effected by this.

My gripe with Microsoft has more to do with their ridiculous patenting, so-called "anti piracy" measures (eg. DRM, ridiculously restrictive licenses), and their sometimes anti-competitive business practices.


I'm with you. Many people dislike Microsoft on the idea that they're closed and proprietary, I dont' see the logic in it. Not everyone has to be OpenSource, kudos to those who find it suits them.

ghandi69_
February 8th, 2007, 07:25 PM
One of the main advantages, among others, listed here for ubuntu and all linux distrobutions is that they are free of charge, as opposed to Windows Xp which can cost over 100 dollars and vista even more. The software as well is free, with many quality applications, can be seen as another major asset of linux.

However, at my university, all you have to do is stop in the Bookstore, present your student ID, and you are presented with a free copy of the windows of your choosing, XP home, XP Pro, and two weeks ago Business Vista was just added as more software that is available for free for all students. As a computer user, I've already grabbed my legit copy of XP pro, and today I picked up my copy of Vista.

As for windows software, back when I used windows, thanks to torrent sites, it was very easy for me to obtain cracked copies of a lot of the software. I had free and working copies of Photoshop, Tag & Rename, DVD Shrink, Data Recovery Software, Pro Engineer, AutoCad, AutoDesk Inventor, Microsoft Visual Studio, Sony Acid, Cakewalk Music Mixer, among others. Now, I understand this is illegal, but either way, it was free to me. And in some sense, playing a DVD on ubuntu using proprietary codecs is illegal as well.

Now, saying all this, over the last year, I have chosen to use linux/ubuntu anyway, mainly because of the challenge and knowledge gained by getting things to work under linux,(I think getting Half Life 2 to work under linux might be more fun than playing the game itself!!), also because of development, I prefer using the linux environment for writing code and homework projects, and also because of the visual effects and effenciency of linux which lets my computer look amazing while being blazingly fast at the same time. the question for the rest of you is... if windows and all of its software was free, would you still make the same choice of linux?

fk4n
February 8th, 2007, 07:34 PM
If the windows is free. There wont be that many worker to test it. It will have even more bugs. MicroSoft won't have enough money to push the OS to public. There will be no microsoft hardware in store. And it will lost so many other stuff.

PS: Let's dont compare.

Surgeon General
February 8th, 2007, 07:35 PM
Yes I would still, and continue, to use Linux for reasons you have stated and for other things like security and stability. those two words are hard, if they exist, to find in an OS from the dark side. ;-)

az
February 8th, 2007, 07:36 PM
I would only run Windows if it were free as in software freedom. If I could obtain and use the software for any purpose. If I could obtain the source code and study it. If I could make changes to the source code and redistribute it.

etank
February 8th, 2007, 07:37 PM
I am one that can see a use for different operating systems. Each one has its use. That being said, I would continue to use Linux (Ubuntu) as my primary OS.

kevinlyfellow
February 8th, 2007, 07:38 PM
WHen I was an undergrad in college, I downloaded a copy of winxp just in case, but didn't install... (I had a winxp home installed, but I only ran when I got curious about my other os, and quickly reboot after updating my security softwares). Now, my old computer is not really used anymore, and my laptop is my primary computer, and only has ubuntu. I'm working towards a masters now and my school again has free copies of ms, but unless someone forces me to, I'm not going to use it. (btw while the school seems ms crazy, my department is linux crazy! tux is posted on the walls everywhere and people randomly are talking 'bout open source. I feel right at home :) )

joshkidd
February 8th, 2007, 08:01 PM
It was never really cost that was keeping me away from Windows. I switched over to Linux so that I could learn Linux. It was useful to me professionally. Since then, I've become a believer in open source software. I'm also addicted to the command line. I couldn't even imagine using Windows without Cygwin.

Since Vista has come out I've thought about buying a copy just to see what it's like. I'm not planning on pitching Ubuntu; it works great for me. But, again, it's good for me to know about Vista. But I won't buy Vista because I'm not entirely sure that it will work with my hardware. Even if Vista were free, it wouldn't be worth it to me to shell out the cash for the latest and greatest hardware that Vista requires.

ghandi69_
February 8th, 2007, 09:08 PM
I would only run Windows if it were free as in software freedom. If I could obtain and use the software for any purpose. If I could obtain the source code and study it. If I could make changes to the source code and redistribute it.

I think that sums it up right there.

go2dell
February 8th, 2007, 09:15 PM
Are you certain the copies of Windows in your bookstore are free? If anyone can walk in and get one, then they are. If only students, who are paying tuition and very likely an annual technology fee, can get it, then those students have already paid for the software. Whether they actually take advantage of their purchase or not is their decision.

Topsiho
February 8th, 2007, 09:18 PM
If Windows were free...
Would the Windows applications be free too?

If the applications were free too, would the source be available, for Windows and the applications?

If not, I would not use Windows except if forced to, considering an OS is a tool to help you accomplish your task.

It may be that the hardware you use only runs with Windows, then you try and find some other hardware, or you use Windows. Or the app you have to use runs only with Windows. Or as a teacher or student, if the school forces you to use Windows. Or your work environment does.

I think that I should stress that I consider using software that is not open source (needs not necessarily be free) irresponsible in any environment: science, business, administration, defense, elections: you can not know what is inside.

But stop this nightmare: use Linux :)

Topsiho

Zuph
February 8th, 2007, 09:29 PM
I switched to Linux for two primary reasons:

It allowed me to develop skills that will be useful in my chosen career path AND
There are better tools for software development in Linux than Windows.

As an added benefit, I've become part of a welcoming community of people that largely share my hobby, and my computer runs much faster on a stock install of Ubuntu than a stock install of XP.

That said, I would gladly pay twice as much as Microsoft is currently charging if Windows didn't suck. It isn't software "freedom" that gets my motor running, but a lack of suck. If Windows ran quickly, did what I needed it to do without hassle, and afforded me the same freedoms with my data as Linux does, then I'd gladly pay for it. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Beryl looks at least as good and does more tricks than Aero, and aside from niggling hardware support issues, Linux performs much better in the applications I use it for.

So, Microsoft, stop making a sucky operating system, and maybe you'll win back that 4-8% of the Desktop market.

dagnabit dang doohickey
February 8th, 2007, 09:33 PM
He would surely roam the streets, only to kill again.

maxamillion
February 8th, 2007, 09:33 PM
My choice of operating system isn't about money its about my user experience and I prefer linux.

aysiu
February 8th, 2007, 09:37 PM
Merged. And I like the turn the thread has taken to be a bit more neutral.

Phrawm48
February 8th, 2007, 09:38 PM
I'm been running Ubuntu for just under two weeks. Not only is Ubuntu itself easier to use than other Linux distributions I've tried and abandoned, but these forums allow a "newbie" to get useful help and answers without being flamed for their troubles. So far, so good.

Having said that, I think that many "ordinary" users, at least those who don't give up in frustration, develop a love-hate relationship with Linux. Yes, many users want to escape the luxuriously appointed prison cell of Windows, but for those same users Linux, even Ubuntu Linux, remains a bit too much like an unassembled log cabin kit.

Stated another way, Microsoft has in a very real way succeeded by offering users too few options. Conversely, Linux is viewed -- correctly, I think -- by many new users as requiring too many immediate choices. For the large number of users whose computers are by necessity tools of work rather than experimental test beds or recreational research projects, Linux's extreme customizability is not only not an asset, it's an insurmountable liability.

I'd like very much to see Linux mature to become a truly viable choice for the average, mostly non-technical user. My own admittedly subjective sense is that Ubuntu is making progress in that regard.

But I also at this writing remain convinced that even Ubuntu exceeds the comfort level and technical wherewithal of most users, even users who are explicitly looking for alternatives to Windows. Linux's "barrier to entry" in turn prevents those ordinary users from incrementally, iteratively "growing into" Linux's vast number of choices and customizability.

Cheers & hope this helps,
Ric
SFO

kevinlyfellow
February 8th, 2007, 09:51 PM
Microsoft is a monopoly with unethical business practices. In capitalism, the 'invisible hand' guides us to the best products for the lowest price. Monopolies invalidate this theory (the Great Depression is a perfect example). It is up to the consumer to ensure that they are happy with the products they receive for the price they pay. I personally do not use ms products because they do not provide the best product for the best price, and they prevent it from happening. Consumers need to watch out for corporations that try to ward off the invisible hand, because then they will be forced to get bad products for a high price. I'm not saying everything that microsoft makes is a bad product, but they do hold a monopoly and they need to be held in check, since Office for instance could be made into a bad product and everyone would end up using it.

Understand the microsoft is not kmart or walmart for that matter, since they do have to compete. They are close to being the sole provider for operating systems on peoples pcs. They not only have control on software, but on the hardware companies that still need to sell their products. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html Too much power in a profit organization does not produce good results for our economy. The rich are supported on the backs of the poor, and microsoft has made many many people absurdly rich.

Thats why people hate ms

bodhi.zazen
February 9th, 2007, 01:53 AM
Merged. And I like the turn the thread has taken to be a bit more neutral.

At the end of the analysis, each OS obviously has advantages and disadvantages.

You should do an analysis of your needs and choose the OS that best suits those needs.

An analysis may include hardware, software, cost, support, security, etc.

If you do such an analysis you will get best results.



Also, I would like to remind everyone Linux is not "free". It is the product of many dedicated and hard working individuals :p

If you use Linux you should consider giving back to the community. Donate some time to the Ubuntu wiki or UDSF. Write some code. File a bug report.

Lobby your favorite hardware/software Co to support Linux. When you purchase a new computer ask for Linux pre-installed (don't settle for windows if you want Linux, why should you not expect the OS of your choice pre-installed ? )

Even better donate some $$. Imagine what could be done if we all gave as little as $5 / year to Ubuntu or your favorite open source project ?

RAV TUX
February 9th, 2007, 01:56 AM
moving to the Windows discussion forum:popcorn:

carloslosgrande
February 10th, 2007, 05:47 AM
I don't use Windows because I strongly object to their business practices and philosophy. Also I happen to think their products, with a couple of exceptions, are crap.
I'm happy to be rid of them.

mediax
April 30th, 2007, 01:12 PM
What's put me off Windows is not the cost but the copy protection.

When I'm forced to reinstall my operating system because of a plethora of viruses or spyware, or because my hard disk has crashed, or simply because my machine is overloaded and it's the easiest way to tidy up my hard disk, I resent having to justify myself over the phone to obtain an activation code for software I've paid for.

Oh, and the viruses and spyware don't help, either . . .

jclmusic
April 30th, 2007, 06:24 PM
windows can't be trusted on the net due to it's insecurity and spying, therefore, no.

westmatrix
May 1st, 2007, 09:06 PM
I agree with all of you guys and gals!

Windows SUX as I am writing this from a Windows XP box, don't hate me.
I am in the process of changing over.:biggrin:

ShadowVlican
May 2nd, 2007, 05:18 AM
to be honest... if windows (and it's popular apps) were free... i wouldn't be here.

tgoose
May 3rd, 2007, 12:50 PM
If they were free and open source, sure I'd install them on a computer but it's so much easier to get Linux to do what I want I'd only use MS stuff when I had to, just as I do now.

rdd
May 3rd, 2007, 08:50 PM
I am sure there are companies whose business practices are even more malicious, but few have a reach as huge reach as MS. The way they impede technical progress and stifle innovation and get away with it just makes me sad.

If their products were beer-free I still wouldn't use them in a million years, because they would still be bad quality/security and proprietary standards. Cost is not really the issue for me as a private individual. I don't complain that Ubuntu is beer-free either though.

If their products were speech-free today, I would still not use them until they are patched for standards-compliance. I don't think I would ever user Windows though. It's just inferior in so many ways if you use your computer a lot.
Maybe if people (not MS, they obviously can't do it) added

apt
proper security (not UserAnnoyanceControl)
quicker filesystems
a console that can actually do something


I might consider it then.

rdd

PhatStreet
May 3rd, 2007, 08:52 PM
To many, Windows is "free". Plenty of people pirate it, and others get it with their computer. Although I dual-boot, I prefer Kubuntu because of its ease of use and completeness. Windows is very barebones, to be honest. And once you install dozens of 3rd party programs, you have to manually keep up with them yourself.

lakersforce
May 4th, 2007, 12:24 AM
"What if Windows were cost-free?" what do you mean? It is free! :D:rolleyes: :-$

insane_alien
May 6th, 2007, 04:58 PM
nah, i would use it even if they gave me £100. things work better for me in linux. i'm happy where i am and i ain't moving for nobody.

westmatrix
May 6th, 2007, 05:09 PM
Look I have no problems with learning about Linux or Ubuntu but even this manual you get online or on the cd is not informative at all.

I installed Ubuntu, got into an issue with updating Firefox to the latest and then screwed up the whole Ubuntu, everything was in block text [][][][] not very cool as I was told that I updated to the wrong version.:confused:

From Dapper to Feisty.

I think that Ubuntu should have said sorry that is the wrong update, but hey that's asking too mush for a free package!
:lolflag:

Cheers
PS:
Back to windows XP and yes it sux but at least if or when I do an update it says if it will or wont install.

linux_kid
May 6th, 2007, 11:22 PM
Better be free like speach, not like beer (aka. Opera)

No Vista and 07 though, only XP and Office 2003.

ticopelp
May 6th, 2007, 11:36 PM
Even if Microsoft's programs were made free as in beer they still wouldn't be free as in freedom.

Exactly.

I could live with XP's clunky interface and bloated software. It was Microsoft's increasingly aggressive, sneaky stance on DRM and taking away user control with Vista that finally pushed me into Ubuntu.

The price tag doesn't matter to me. Through luck, determination and the kindness of friends, I've managed to avoid ever purchasing a copy of Windows, and that's the way I intend to keep it.

goumples
May 8th, 2007, 02:22 AM
If an OS second guesses me and prevents me from manipulating how it works... its trash. The real big problem I've had is that I've be forced to keep a small windows partition because Linux does suit my games... BAH

nudnik
May 8th, 2007, 10:45 AM
I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Microsoft.

Is it just because you pay much to get crap software? Or you simply don't like their programs?

Will your view on Microsoft change if you use their programs for free?

The reason for asking this is the fact, in a large part of the world (most Asian countries), people use "copied" version of Microsoft applications.... so they often don't bother using Linux applications - everything they use, is free anyway....

The primary reason I use Linux is that Windows security is downright frightening. Even the almighty Vista has been seriously compromised right out the gate. My email account was invaded every few days every single time I used Windows based mail clients, even open source clients. Mysteriously, this has ceased entirely since I switched to Linux clients exclusively. I feel that if I take proper precautions, install the necessary security software, etc. I should be reasonable safe. This just isnt so with Windows, regardless. Some claim this is because of the relative obscurity of OSs like Ubuntu. If that were so, why is Linux so difficult to hack in to on webservers running our favorite kernel around the globe? Linux and similar systems (Unix-like siblings) are the choice of many large companies and financial institutions precisely because of security concerns. This should tell us something.

Second, is the infamous licensing agreement. If I pay what I consider to be a large sum of money for an OS, I resent being told that I cannot install it on every computer in my home if I wish. How many computers does the average person own? Would it kill them to allow me to install it on three PCs? Worse yet, if I change the video card, or something equally as trivial, I am assaulted by MIcrosoft, which attempts to sell me another license despite my having purchased one. I should not have to ask a major corporation permission to modify my system, nor is it any of their business exactly what modifications I have made. Microsoft has made it clear they have total control over their software, I am merely leasing it from them. If I want to breathe on any given component of the OS, I am legally obligated to give them a call and beg permission. I find the idea of a "leased" system of information management which contains all of personal information, perhaps even of the most sensitive financial nature, to be a tad troubling to say the least.

Third, there is what seems to be the standard Microsoft business model. That is; invade the landscape, kill off the inhabitants, take whatever resources they leave behind to facilitate the enlargement of your borders. I fear for Novell.

Finally, no, it would not matter if it were free. That wouldnt change the fact that its riddled with more holes than swiss cheese when it comes to security. It also wouldnt change the fact that Vista is a bloated monstrosity that requires twice the hardware of a proper OS to perform half as well. Perhaps not even half.

Xaimas
May 8th, 2007, 11:15 AM
Don't call me a heretic but i use XP on my Laptop and Vista at home, if they were free then that would be heaven!

But i like Ubuntu better ;)

ElemonGW
July 13th, 2007, 10:46 AM
I would in no way use Windows. Closed source, you can do with them only what they want, they are crappy, full of secuirity riscs.... well, are these enough????

cprofitt
July 15th, 2007, 07:57 PM
I am really curious how people that use Linux can call Microsoft products "unfinished" or "immature"... I mean look at the hoops we have to go through to get Linux to work on a great many boxes. Getting your extra mouse buttons to work, dual monitors, etc. Microsoft gets all that stuff working... and people gripe...

Windows is easier to use than Linux and in many cases the "package" has better fit and finish. Linux distros have "Freedom" both in the GPL sense and the ability to control what your box is doing... but there is no way I would call MS products "unfinished".

Depressed Man
July 15th, 2007, 08:05 PM
If Windows were cost-free I'd still find myself spending more time in Linux like I am now. Simply because I like the Linux way of doing things more then Windows. I spent most of my computer life on Windows, growing up with them. After I saw Ubutu through Wubi I've pretty much been on Linux since then.

And Windows being costly isn't really a factor, as you pointed out, it's possible to get one "free" anyway. Though I do have other reasons. I don't like Microsoft as a company (nor the organizations RIAA and MPAA). They're closed source so if I want to change something. I can't do it. Even if I ask on forums for help.

Plus they have Dr. Watson. Which for some reason on my reinstallation of XP on my desktop plagues me randomly.

deanlinkous
July 16th, 2007, 05:24 PM
windows....you mean microsoft windows??? Are they still around? They fell off my radar years ago when I found something better. :D

Depressed Man
July 16th, 2007, 07:27 PM
I am really curious how people that use Linux can call Microsoft products "unfinished" or "immature"... I mean look at the hoops we have to go through to get Linux to work on a great many boxes. Getting your extra mouse buttons to work, dual monitors, etc. Microsoft gets all that stuff working... and people gripe...

Windows is easier to use than Linux and in many cases the "package" has better fit and finish. Linux distros have "Freedom" both in the GPL sense and the ability to control what your box is doing... but there is no way I would call MS products "unfinished".

Not necessarily. Maybe on prebuilt systems yes. But that's because the hardware companies take care of it for you. I've had situations where Linux detected and properly configured everything and Windows didn't on built computers. And other situations when Windows detected and configured everything while Linux didn't.

For my desktop in Windows I had to manually install all my network (two built in motherboard LAN ports and a wifi card as well as my video card). When I put Ubuntu on here? All detected and properly configured. I don't have another spare monitor to use dual monitor anymore (my last one got toasted last semester for some unknown reason. I left it on (the monitors turn off eventually when not in use) and went to class. When I came back the Benq wouldn't work. After testing it on different computers I concluded it was dead. Shame.. I really liked playing Supreme Commander on two screens.

In the case of the extra mouse buttons on my logitech mouse and keyboard system? I install setpoint drivers (from Logitech) which like I said. Was created for Windows. If I don't, then all these buttons are useless on a Windows install. But does Logitech make a setpoint for Linux? Nope.

It isn't as much a case of Windows being able to detect or make things work at all. It's more of they have the company support, and the money from their business practices to try to grease another company's hand.

donkyhotay
July 25th, 2007, 09:22 PM
depends what you mean by 'free'. I would purchase/download MS products so long as I got the source code along with it and was allowed to tweak it. I don't trust closed software because it gets reviewed by only 1 group that might (probably) doesn't have my best interests in mind. On the other hand with open-source software the whole world gets to review it and make certain there isn't anything malicious hidden within it. If MS were to begin releasing software under a FOSS license then I would purchase/download their products again however short of that I will not do so.

Majorix
July 25th, 2007, 09:25 PM
No I would never use Windows if it was free. Because then it would be far more popular and there would be more viruses etc for it. The problem with Windows is that its popular.

xpod
July 25th, 2007, 09:55 PM
Windows has been free for me so far but it really makes no odd`s either way as far as we`re concerned
There`s been a copy of XP on all 4 of the machines we use just now and the XP cd itself was made from a copy of the i386 directory on the first XP machine i used last year.
I like to wipe Windows ....not install it:)

I also have a (legite) copy of Vista i was given but that lasted all of two months(quite long considering),even the cd is no longer up on my shelf taking up room(it`s a big ole case)......it`s away in a box with all the computer junk.
I`m sure theres all kinds of legality questions as far as making slipstreamed copies of XP is concerend but i`d quite happily bin it if any online lawyers so desire:)

Chrisj303
July 26th, 2007, 01:55 PM
Windows is free if you want it to be.

dbodner
July 26th, 2007, 06:06 PM
I switched over to Linux while I was in college. During that time, windows was free to me. Not even in the illegal sense, our university gave us licenses to XP and Office. The cost (to me) wasn't the reason I switched.

A big part of it is their business practices. I don't expect a for-profit company to be after anything more than making money. However, there are still ethical and unethical means of doing so. After you get annoyed for so long at their ethics, you just feel compelled to switch. Even if you didn't buy Windows, but you use Windows, you're helping them achieve market dominance.

The big reason I switched, however, is the control I have over the OS and the choices. Once I learn how to do what I want, I can pretty much control how I want my environment to react. Once it's setup, it's stable, and light. If there's a bug in gnome, I can switch to XFCE. If there's a bug in explorer, well....I'm just SOL. I had worked in Linux servers a lot prior to switching on the desktop, so I was already familiar with GNU tools.

Another reason was the fact that I'm a tinkerer. I like to try new things. There's always a new toy in Linux to play with. A new distro to try out. A new alpha of KDE to install.

andtsoreyu
July 28th, 2007, 07:42 AM
It is kind of hard to answer this question.

If windows was free would it still be a crappy as it is now?

Also where would we all be without Word, Excel etc..


I love UBUNTU, but it is hard to see where we would be without Microsoft



UBUNTU for LIFE!

omac
July 31st, 2007, 12:57 AM
I used to use Windows XP Home Edition, legal copy, but I had to reformat and re-install Windows several times, mostly because of viruses and trojans that I didn't catch in time. Then, the next time I tried to install, the activation key wasn't working and it said I had to contact Microsoft. When I did, their phone support asked me all these questions about the legality of my Windows software; by the tone of their voice and the questions they were asking, it was like they were trying to scare me, treating me like someone who had an illegal copy. I had to be pretty rude to them back, and I got what I needed, but after that, I decided I needed a better alternative.

Add to this the Digital Rights Management spyware they promote, the Sony DRM fiasco, and others, I needed another OS.

It's not about Microsoft giving their products for free or not; it's about them wanting control of you, and that's really been the way that company operates, specially with their sudden obsolescense of software versions to force paying corporations to upgrade and spend.

Microsoft must never be trusted.

SegMat
July 31st, 2007, 09:56 PM
I cannot believe that there are so many people that say that they would use Windows if it were free. How can you say that after even booting to a Linux Live CD? I was hooked from the first time I booted to SimplyMepis 6.1. I will never go back for many reasons. First, Microsoft is a huge company that doesn't care about their customers, just the income that they get through the customers. Also, the amount of security issues with it is unacceptable. If Linux can do it, why can't Windows? And I actually find Ubuntu more user friendly than Windows!

Cheers, and power to Linux!

Matt

aysiu
July 31st, 2007, 10:00 PM
I cannot believe that there are so many people that say that they would use Windows if it were free. How can you say that after even booting to a Linux Live CD? I was hooked from the first time I booted to SimplyMepis 6.1. I will never go back for many reasons. First, Microsoft is a huge company that doesn't care about their customers, just the income that they get through the customers. Also, the amount of security issues with it is unacceptable. If Linux can do it, why can't Windows? And I actually find Ubuntu more user friendly than Windows!

Cheers, and power to Linux!

Matt
Well, the poll question and answers do not exactly match the thread title.

Thread title: What if Windows were cost-free?

Poll question: Will you Microsoft applications if they are free?

Poll answers:
Yes, I have no problem if they offer Windows/Office etc. free.
No, I shall never use Microsoft applications.

Windows is not the only Microsoft application, and there are a lot of in between answers besides Yes, I have no problem if they offer Windows/Office etc. free. and No, I shall never use Microsoft applications.

raijinsetsu
July 31st, 2007, 10:12 PM
I dislike Microsoft because of it's policies. Their purpose is to make money; I can understand this. But when, in the course of making money, you steal, cheat, lie, coerce, and otherwise make a nuisance of yourself, I think you should be shot.
Microsoft has come out with some nice products. Notepad for instance, never crashes and does exactly what I want it to do. DirectX (pre-10) is very nice, and fairly stable.
As for most other MS products, I believe they're mass-produced merde that is over-priced and under-tested. Vista was still in Beta when they "released" it.
The final straw, IMHO, is the fact that they are pandering to the media companies. As of Vista, they no longer make operating systems. They make security systems solely for the purpose of storing protected content, aka, media. Vista is not, I repeat, NOT a gaming platform, a video editing platform, a multi-tasking platform, nor an office applications platform. It looks pretty, and allows people with DRM licenses to watch movies(sometimes).
I will never again purchase another MS product.

PS - I have legal copies of WinXP-Pro, Office 2k, and VS.Net (the full sh-bang), none of which you will ever find on any of my systems ever again.


I am a bit curious to know why most Linux users dislike Microsoft.

Is it just because you pay much to get crap software? Or you simply don't like their programs?

Will your view on Microsoft change if you use their programs for free?

The reason for asking this is the fact, in a large part of the world (most Asian countries), people use "copied" version of Microsoft applications.... so they often don't bother using Linux applications - everything they use, is free anyway....

jawinterton
August 27th, 2008, 02:59 PM
I don't like Windows because it is so heavily hit with viruses and spyware. --Not the case with Linux. I LOVE how I don't have to run spyware scans practically every day now that I run Ubuntu. :) I trust Ubuntu more for security and would probably be more okay with MS if their software were free. MS Office is pretty nice, I have to admit. Still waiting for a comparable OpenOffice to be released. I think they are getting close.

Vishal Agarwal
August 27th, 2008, 03:07 PM
Define free...

Free as in freedom? or free as in price?

If it will become open source then it can be, Only considered. Linux is also a user friendly O/S nowadays. Those who love Linux, will never give the preferance to windows.

seanc7
August 27th, 2008, 10:39 PM
I'd use Office all the time but Windows would still be relegated for running games only.

But then that's what I do now. I get Office 2007 Enterprise for $30 through my work's home use program agreement with MS. Can't get Windows but I already had a copy anyway for my games.

That's Windows XP by the way.