PDA

View Full Version : Windows "Then" vs. Ubuntu now.



Ryoushi19
August 1st, 2007, 08:15 PM
It's no secret that Windows is by far the most hated Operating System on the market, and for good reason. But it wasn't always that way. Take a look back and you'll find something interesting: the Windows community at its beginning was not so different from the Linux one now. For example, developers refused to support Windows in favor of Apple's computers, but yet the few Windows users insisted on the superiority of their platform. Windows used to push for user innovation and invention, just like the Linux community does now. Windows games, just like Linux ones, used to be community created, because developers refused to support their platform. Windows users vouched that Apple was "holding computer users back", "had a monopoly on GUIs", and many other familiar rants. But then as Microsoft saw growing popularity, they unfortunately changed their ways.
In concept, the similarity between Windows then and the Ubuntu community now is quite frightening. What if Ubuntu becomes just like Windows, holding back users instead of supporting them, and creating new versions for profit instead of innovation? How do we, as a community, stop this from happening? I think it's important, seeing the growing user base of Ubuntu, to think these problems through early, or else we might become what we most hate.

reckless2k2
August 1st, 2007, 08:26 PM
if that were to happen, people would switch to another OS. that simple. the power of open source. there were a lot of people that were pulled into linux because of the red hat name and then when red hat shifted, those users shifted as well. most to another OS. i think it's that simple. i don't think we have to worry about preserving the "spirit" of ubuntu. if the dog at the top wants to change the direction, some will stay on or march to another drummer.

Quillz
August 1st, 2007, 08:28 PM
It's no secret that Windows is by far the most hated Operating System on the market, and for good reason. But it wasn't always that way. Take a look back and you'll find something interesting: the Windows community at its beginning was not so different from the Linux one now. For example, developers refused to support Windows in favor of Apple's computers, but yet the few Windows users insisted on the superiority of their platform. Windows used to push for user innovation and invention, just like the Linux community does now. Windows games, just like Linux ones, used to be community created, because developers refused to support their platform. Windows users vouched that Apple was "holding computer users back", "had a monopoly on GUIs", and many other familiar rants. But then as Microsoft saw growing popularity, they unfortunately changed their ways.
In concept, the similarity between Windows then and the Ubuntu community now is quite frightening. What if Ubuntu becomes just like Windows, holding back users instead of supporting them, and creating new versions for profit instead of innovation? How do we, as a community, stop this from happening? I think it's important, seeing the growing user base of Ubuntu, to think these problems through early, or else we might become what we most hate.
Since when has Windows been the most hated operating system on the market?

Incense
August 1st, 2007, 08:28 PM
I don't think this would happen because of the community. If it did however, we could just all move on to something else. The power of Linux and open source, is the power of choice IMO. :)

Ryoushi19
August 1st, 2007, 08:31 PM
Since when has Windows been the most hated operating system on the market?

Since it started holding it's own user base back with copyrighting, closed source, and unstable computers, as well as became "the only choice" for developers.

Incense
August 1st, 2007, 08:34 PM
Since it started holding it's own user base back with copyrighting, closed source, and unstable computers, as well as became "the only choice" for developers.

I don't think that is a big deal for 90% of computer users out there.

Quillz
August 1st, 2007, 08:34 PM
Since it started holding it's own user base back with copyrighting, closed source, and unstable computers, as well as became "the only choice" for developers.
Windows has never been the "only choice" for developers, it's just damn tempting due to its 90%+ market share. But there is a difference. A developer could support any platform it wants to.

Adamant1988
August 1st, 2007, 08:43 PM
It's no secret that Windows is by far the most hated Operating System on the market, and for good reason. But it wasn't always that way. Take a look back and you'll find something interesting: the Windows community at its beginning was not so different from the Linux one now. For example, developers refused to support Windows in favor of Apple's computers, but yet the few Windows users insisted on the superiority of their platform. Windows used to push for user innovation and invention, just like the Linux community does now. Windows games, just like Linux ones, used to be community created, because developers refused to support their platform. Windows users vouched that Apple was "holding computer users back", "had a monopoly on GUIs", and many other familiar rants. But then as Microsoft saw growing popularity, they unfortunately changed their ways.
In concept, the similarity between Windows then and the Ubuntu community now is quite frightening. What if Ubuntu becomes just like Windows, holding back users instead of supporting them, and creating new versions for profit instead of innovation? How do we, as a community, stop this from happening? I think it's important, seeing the growing user base of Ubuntu, to think these problems through early, or else we might become what we most hate.

You're leaving out one important factor: The company behind the community.

Microsoft had a pretty good mission when they started out "To put a computer on every desktop", and, well, they did that. However, Ubuntu is an open platform that no corporation can claim control over, which means that it will almost always serve the needs of it's users. Even Canonical cannot claim exclusive rights to develop and distribute Ubuntu (with the exception of their trademark, they control that).

arashiko28
August 1st, 2007, 08:49 PM
The simple fact of putting on the market an expesive, non working product it's what has been digging windows grave. One thing is that you use a free OS with the knowledge that it is on development, that may have flaws, you take the chance, and yet, this developing OS is by far a lot more stable tan windows. This is my personal opinion who used windows for 10 years and has mereley a few months using linux. In my case, there has to be a very, very, weight reason to make me change back. But it resumes to this: No one in it's sane judgement will or should pay 400 dollars for an unstable, experimental, HDD, RAM devouring OS. That needs at least another 500 dollars of investments into some "extras" and antivirus, just to keep the blessed thing working or been able to make a document.
If it's stable, and truly functional, then go ahead, it's worth it.
Pleople that uses and defend windows do it because they don't know any better and are used to boundaries.:lolflag:

Quillz
August 1st, 2007, 08:51 PM
The simple fact of putting on the market an expesive, non working product it's what has been digging windows grave. One thing is that you use a free OS with the knowledge that it is on development, that may have flaws, you take the chance, and yet, this developing OS is by far a lot more stable tan windows. This is my personal opinion who used windows for 10 years and has mereley a few months using linux. In my case, there has to be a very, very, weight reason to make me change back. But it resumes to this: No one in it's sane judgement will or should pay 400 dollars for an unstable, experimental, HDD, RAM devouring OS. That needs at least another 500 dollars of investments into some "extras" and antivirus, just to keep the blessed thing working or been able to make a document.
If it's stable, and truly functional, then go ahead, it's worth it.
Pleople that uses and defend windows do it because they don't know any better and are used to boundaries.:lolflag:
I defend Windows when obviously false/exaggerated statements are made about it, such as that it's an "experimental" OS. It's not. I would also argue the comment that it's "unstable," but that statement does have some merit, but I also find it a bit exaggerated. I can easily make Linux kernel panic under the right situations, just like someone who intends to crash Windows can.

Sayers
August 1st, 2007, 09:25 PM
I don't think that is a big deal for 90% of computer users out there.

I'd say 98% but yes :)

popch
August 1st, 2007, 09:39 PM
I think that's a non-issue.

While it may be true that Windows is the OS with the most people hating it it, it presumably is at the same time the OS with the most people 'loving' it. That is not empty rhetorics but a very simple consequence of it being the most widespread OS.

That some developers hated working in that environment is easily explained by three reasons: (1) they hated exchanging the environment they knew by one they did not, because of the drop in productivity; (2) they felt that the environment was definitely inferior to the one they were used to.; (3) MS did attempt to gain market shares not by doing the better products but by manoevring itself into that position by other means.

IMO, all three reasons might be quite true.

Thus, the situation is not transferrable to any flavour of Linux. Only the first of the three reasons given above applies, and that will apply for quite some time to come.

Dimitriid
August 1st, 2007, 09:43 PM
I don't think that is a big deal for 90% of computer users out there.

It is a big deal, they just assume they won't have enough technical knowledge to try something else or troubleshoot things themselves. Being thrown into every pc and too many computers at workplaces is what gives people enough familiarity to use the sytem and learn its basics, but of that 90% at least 85% has little or no other knowledge beyond the absolutely needed for everyday use.

Just because the monopoly is successful at "locking" users into windows doesn't means its successful at making them happy. In fact the whole premise of trying to achieve market hegemony is that you do not need to worry about quality control or customer satisfaction anymore.

Nezing
August 1st, 2007, 09:54 PM
I remember when Windows 95 came out.What an innovation that was.Alright,Windows 98 was terrible,but Second Edition mostly sorted out the driver issues.ME was just awful.Badily thought out,limited tested,and the unsuspecting public really got was Windows Third Edition,with a "new" desktop look.Windows 2000 was great.I used it without trouble,then migrated to XP.Now comes Vista....oh dear....
Microsoft,as a monopoly,are simply "in it",to make as much money as they can.Sure,there is the Bill Gates Foundation,under whose umbrella, he,and his wife do charity work,in third world countries.Nice one.But at the end of the day,Microsoft are anti Open Source.They fear linux,hence Ballmer calling it "a cancer".They are,in my opinion,misguided,and uneducated.I make no apology.The linux community is thriving,growing,and littered with very talented people,not to mention a great support forum-bound network.Linux will never "go the way of Microsoft",as it's users,and contributors,have a very different honest ethic.We all "work" for each other,and do not see that twinkle of a huge bank balance looming on the horizon.

popch
August 1st, 2007, 10:10 PM
It is a big deal, they just assume they won't have enough technical knowledge to try something else or troubleshoot things themselves. Being thrown into every pc and too many computers at workplaces is what gives people enough familiarity to use the sytem and learn its basics, but of that 90% at least 85% has little or no other knowledge beyond the absolutely needed for everyday use.

Just because the monopoly is successful at "locking" users into windows doesn't means its successful at making them happy. In fact the whole premise of trying to achieve market hegemony is that you do not need to worry about quality control or customer satisfaction anymore.

Consider how the purchasing decision is made. Coprorate purchasing is often done by the IT department which may have an agenda of its own.

Private customers either know what they are doing (this presumably means you and me), know someone whom they expect to be knowledgeable or they ask at the place they are buying their box.

Sales personnel at the department store are often very willing to give advice to potential customers. After all, they are instructed to do so in order to sell. Only, have you ever listened to that kind of advice? I would not even buy a toaster from some of those people, yet they manage to sell PCs, and not even the cheapest ones.

And guess how well they sell Linux when it's not even installed on one of the PCs they have on stock?

Happy_Man
August 2nd, 2007, 02:22 AM
I remember when Windows 95 came out.What an innovation that was.Alright,Windows 98 was terrible,but Second Edition mostly sorted out the driver issues.ME was just awful.Badily thought out,limited tested,and the unsuspecting public really got was Windows Third Edition,with a "new" desktop look.Windows 2000 was great.I used it without trouble,then migrated to XP.Now comes Vista....oh dear....
Microsoft,as a monopoly,are simply "in it",to make as much money as they can.Sure,there is the Bill Gates Foundation,under whose umbrella, he,and his wife do charity work,in third world countries.Nice one.But at the end of the day,Microsoft are anti Open Source.They fear linux,hence Ballmer calling it "a cancer".They are,in my opinion,misguided,and uneducated.I make no apology.The linux community is thriving,growing,and littered with very talented people,not to mention a great support forum-bound network.Linux will never "go the way of Microsoft",as it's users,and contributors,have a very different honest ethic.We all "work" for each other,and do not see that twinkle of a huge bank balance looming on the horizon.
I don't see what the beef on Windows Vista is, to be honest. I'm using Firefox on it right now, as I type this, and I find it to be a very slick, polished OS. I mean, sure, there's UAC, but that is only at the beginning, when you are installing applications. For the normal layperson, it's perfectly usable as an OS, so long as you take the proper precautions. I don't think I've paid a single cent on the OS, since I got a copy of Home Premium free, and I use free applications like Skype. Please stop bashing Vista. It's really not that bad.

--end rant--


I can't believe I'm posting this on Ubuntu Forums. And yet, well....

g2g591
August 2nd, 2007, 02:32 AM
on 512Mb of ram, (k)Ubuntu runs fast and smooth, while vista runs about as fast as a 2000 pound obese guy.

aysiu
August 2nd, 2007, 02:36 AM
What if Ubuntu becomes just like Windows, holding back users instead of supporting them, and creating new versions for profit instead of innovation? How do we, as a community, stop this from happening? We don't have to do anything to stop this from happening. Ubuntu is open source and can be forked. If they charge money, they're entitled to do so. If they charge an exhorbitant amont of money, someone will take the source code and compile a cost-free or cheap binary to undersell Ubuntu.

Proprietary locks you in. Open source frees you.

brokenstrides
August 2nd, 2007, 02:42 AM
I think the thing is, is that Ubuntu and all other forms of Linux offer such a huge variety in options, meaning that everyone's system can be set up different... In order for developers to develop these MASSIVE games and apps that are popular on windows, there'd need to be more uniformity in Linux... which I consider holding users back... Otherwise, with as many options ar Linux has for its users, hardly any app thast was pushed out on the market would work for ALL computers. For the most part, you can go buy any random computer at the store, and then buy a game or some software and you'll meet the requirements (barring like... brand new games, etc) but for linux, it seems like you always need this distro, with that kernel, and such-and-such drivers installed and some voo-doo/hoo-doo chanting thrown in there to get anything to work.

Ryoushi19
August 2nd, 2007, 03:50 AM
I think the thing is, is that Ubuntu and all other forms of Linux offer such a huge variety in options, meaning that everyone's system can be set up different... In order for developers to develop these MASSIVE games and apps that are popular on windows, there'd need to be more uniformity in Linux... which I consider holding users back... Otherwise, with as many options ar Linux has for its users, hardly any app thast was pushed out on the market would work for ALL computers. For the most part, you can go buy any random computer at the store, and then buy a game or some software and you'll meet the requirements (barring like... brand new games, etc) but for linux, it seems like you always need this distro, with that kernel, and such-and-such drivers installed and some voo-doo/hoo-doo chanting thrown in there to get anything to work.

Well actually if a developer bothered to synchronize their program with synaptic, it wouldn't be that hard to get it to work in terms of grabbing libraries. But then all those Gentoo users and RPM users are left out. So yes, it is very difficult. But possible.

Incense
August 2nd, 2007, 02:48 PM
It is a big deal, they just assume they won't have enough technical knowledge to try something else or troubleshoot things themselves. Being thrown into every pc and too many computers at workplaces is what gives people enough familiarity to use the sytem and learn its basics, but of that 90% at least 85% has little or no other knowledge beyond the absolutely needed for everyday use.

Just because the monopoly is successful at "locking" users into windows doesn't means its successful at making them happy. In fact the whole premise of trying to achieve market hegemony is that you do not need to worry about quality control or customer satisfaction anymore.

So if they have the knowledge needed for everyday use, then what is the problem? I don't think every wants to be an IT expert. For many people, windows does work just fine. I know we hate to admit that around here, but it does. Most people don't really care about open standards, open source, and even DRM. They just sit down, get what they need to get done, and move on.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm all about the open movement. I love the community and would hate to see Ubuntu go the direction of the OP. But with the community, and the code just being out there, the heart and soul of Ubuntu will live on regardless of what happens to Ubuntu itself. So no worries! :guitar:

laxmanb
August 2nd, 2007, 03:58 PM
Windows didn't have games?? there were always plenty of DOS games when windows was released. How old is this 'windows was like linux' thing?

Nunu
August 2nd, 2007, 04:25 PM
I defend Windows when obviously false/exaggerated statements are made about it, such as that it's an "experimental" OS. It's not. I would also argue the comment that it's "unstable," but that statement does have some merit, but I also find it a bit exaggerated. I can easily make Linux kernel panic under the right situations, just like someone who intends to crash Windows can.

I agree it is not an experimental OS it is a XP based system with an experimental GUI and security system. Face facts on Vista, at the moment how many people had to go and buy new hardware to do a successful upgrade?? Why did 20 of my clients (Some large banks) decide to put there Vista migration of until a service pack was brought out and would only go back to TESTING once the SP was available.

Wake up and smell the Coco guys people running Vista is nothing more then a pilot phase for MS the only reason why it was released was because of PR and market pressure... How many times was the launch put off until MS decided to release it with a statement that followed saying that there "might" be compatibility issues.

I agree Linux distros has done this as well but they didn't charge you for it, and they did not force you to go for there software when you bought a new PC.


I can easily make Linux kernel panic under the right situations, just like someone who intends to crash Windows can

If i make an OS Panic by connecting a USB printer to it then someone needs to put that there OS on some Prozac.

FyreBrand
August 2nd, 2007, 06:32 PM
I agree it is not an experimental OS it is a XP based system with an experimental GUI and security system. Face facts on Vista, at the moment how many people had to go and buy new hardware to do a successful upgrade?? Why did 20 of my clients (Some large banks) decide to put there Vista migration of until a service pack was brought out and would only go back to TESTING once the SP was available.

Wake up and smell the Coco guys people running Vista is nothing more then a pilot phase for MS the only reason why it was released was because of PR and market pressure... How many times was the launch put off until MS decided to release it with a statement that followed saying that there "might" be compatibility issues.

I agree Linux distros has done this as well but they didn't charge you for it, and they did not force you to go for there software when you bought a new PC.



If i make an OS Panic by connecting a USB printer to it then someone needs to put that there OS on some Prozac.I think it could be posts like this that Quillz is specifically responding to.

It's not an XP based system. It's an NT based system kernel (and still is). I don't know where you got experimental gui. Maybe you need to elaborate.

When I upgraded to Vista I bought an extra gig of ram and a second hard drive so I could dual boot with lots of room. I wasn't forced to upgrade my hardware. I chose to. Just the same way I chose to upgrade my internet connection when choosing to use Kubuntu because my modem didn't work under Linux (any flavor). I chose to replace my ATI video card with an Nvidia card because I like how they work. No one is forced to upgrade Windows or their K/X/Ubuntu version, but if they do it's possible you might have to make some hardware adjustments.

There are always hardware compatibility issues regardless of the OS. The only OS I can think of that has little or no hardware issues is OSX and that has it's own issues.

Nunu
August 3rd, 2007, 05:59 AM
I think it could be posts like this that Quillz is specifically responding to.

It's not an XP based system. It's an NT based system kernel (and still is). I don't know where you got experimental gui. Maybe you need to elaborate.

When I upgraded to Vista I bought an extra gig of ram and a second hard drive so I could dual boot with lots of room. I wasn't forced to upgrade my hardware. I chose to. Just the same way I chose to upgrade my internet connection when choosing to use Kubuntu because my modem didn't work under Linux (any flavor). I chose to replace my ATI video card with an Nvidia card because I like how they work. No one is forced to upgrade Windows or their K/X/Ubuntu version, but if they do it's possible you might have to make some hardware adjustments.

There are always hardware compatibility issues regardless of the OS. The only OS I can think of that has little or no hardware issues is OSX and that has it's own issues.

Ok in regards to the GUI alot of the technologies used in it was "New"

You decided to go for vista... Good for you. SO now you needed to go and buy a extra gig of RAM to load something that you could accomplish in XP using half the amount of RAM and an app called window blinds. Waste of Money. What did you pay for your XP license ?? now what did you pay for your Vista License ?? some difference in price don't you think. hey would you look at this I payed almost a months worth of my hard earned cash on a operating system that won't support my keyboard, my joy stick, my steering control, my mouse. And look it has this fancy blue screens as soon as i connect my freaking printer to it.

Sorry if I come forth as arrogant but it happens when you loose that much money on a product that dose not support any of the hardware that a completely free OS can support.

Also your are better of with a Nvidia GPU ;)

Nunu
August 3rd, 2007, 06:26 AM
Sorry guys

I guess i am just stressed out about my experiences with MS. every time I get to a post about which OS is better I tend to rant of about it, and it is unfair to the people that has had good experiences on other OS's. If every one agreed on something then life would be pretty boring though.

I promise never to get involved in any other OS topic ever again.

If you want to use Windows then please do so.

PS. I have nothing against ATI

Zzl1xndd
August 3rd, 2007, 06:38 AM
Well Mac was once a little more open as well but that changed, and we also share some common ground with the AmigaOS. the big difference is if Ubuntu does go that was there are a number of other Distro's and *nix based systems we can move to and take most of our software with us.

Also just as a Side note I keep seeing people saying windows has 90%+ of the market I really don't think this is the case anymore. The US is one of the Biggest strongholds for MS and both Linux and Mac are thought to be around 6-7% each there. And over all Mac has been reported as taking 15% of the note book market. Granted MS is still way out in front but we could at least as Linux users report ever % we take as each one is important.

Nunu
August 3rd, 2007, 06:44 AM
When i first started looking at Linux my first choice was ubuntu, back then there where about 200 people on this forum. From what i can see now there is a couple thousand. I wonder how many of them are ex Windows guys and how many are from other Linux and / or Unix distros

Atomic Dog
August 3rd, 2007, 06:47 AM
Originally Posted by Incense
I don't think that is a big deal for 90% of computer users out there.
I'd say 98% but yes


I'd say 98% but yes :)

Oh come on. At least 99.5% love Windows. it's familiar, it's easy to use, and it works. For most users, it's wonderful.

Zzl1xndd
August 3rd, 2007, 06:49 AM
Oh come on. At least 99.5% love Windows. it's familiar, it's easy to use, and it works. For most users, it's wonderful.

my sarcast-O-Meter is off the charts on that one.

Quillz
August 3rd, 2007, 07:27 AM
I don't see what the beef on Windows Vista is, to be honest. I'm using Firefox on it right now, as I type this, and I find it to be a very slick, polished OS. I mean, sure, there's UAC, but that is only at the beginning, when you are installing applications. For the normal layperson, it's perfectly usable as an OS, so long as you take the proper precautions. I don't think I've paid a single cent on the OS, since I got a copy of Home Premium free, and I use free applications like Skype. Please stop bashing Vista. It's really not that bad.

--end rant--


I can't believe I'm posting this on Ubuntu Forums. And yet, well....
We're on the Ubuntu Forums, Microsoft bashing is the "in" thing here. And UAC isn't bad. If it's bad, then so are all the security measures built into Ubuntu.

popch
August 3rd, 2007, 07:36 AM
... it happens when you loose that much money on a product that dose not support any of the hardware that a completely free OS can support.

It may not be readily apparent to all in this thread that prices for Windows vary widely, depending on region. Just the other day someone from South Africa mentioned in another thread that a Windows license was about twice the price of a reasonable laptop, and that a laptop could set one back by several month's income.

Even if I misread that last one, it makes it understandable when not all people find Vista an acceptable choice.

Alterax
August 3rd, 2007, 07:57 AM
Going back to the original post, that is some good food for thought there. Although I doubt it will happen, there is the potential--however unlikely--that Linux could do the same thing as Microsoft. Linus Torvalds himself said that his kernel could never be ported from the 386 and that it wouldn't be anything major. He was (thankfully) wrong there.

However, Linux is a relatively new operating system, not counting the work that the GNU project had been working on, Linux came onto the proverbial market later than Windows, Amiga, Mac OS, et cetera. That has given us an advantage, because we've seen the mistakes that Microsoft and other companies have made, and can learn from them. In many cases, we have taken up policies completely contrary to practices that we have found unacceptable.

So the first thing that will help in Linux not becoming what Microsoft was is the nature of the beast, the very forking that we complain about, from distribution or project to offshoot. It keeps a healthy amount of inside competition (and likewise collaboration) going.
Microsoft in its current state could not afford the instability of forking, working independently, and re-merging on hundreds if not thousands of projects. The whole idea doesn't usually instill public trust, it's incredibly inefficient, but that element of instability has ironically led to some of our greatest and most stable developments. Microsoft (or any other proprietary vendor) can't afford to lose face on failures.

Another thing that helps are the licenses. GPL v2 is the prominent license which specifically forbids anyone from claiming exclusive rights over the source code for the kernel and most programs.
If one group can't claim "ownership" of it, there will be competition to come out with a superior product. Not having much by way of competition actually leads to stagnation. Linux is better in this regard because we can argue over how best to do things, work separately, and then put together the best parts of each.

GPL v3 takes it a bit further in making sure that the source code is publicly available (even if a bit extreme in its application). These also serve as a preventative measure from stagnation, because no one person or group gets to hold all the cards, and no one is forced to work with substandard code if he or she can do better. This makes it impossible to create a monolithic Linux distribution, preventing further stagnation.

So I don't think it's likely that we'll turn out like MS did. We've learned far too much from their mistakes, and the way we do things is almost alien to the proprietary software vendor model.

--Alterax

steven8
August 3rd, 2007, 08:39 AM
We're on the Ubuntu Forums, Microsoft bashing is the "in" thing here. And UAC isn't bad. If it's bad, then so are all the security measures built into Ubuntu.

I'm sorry, but Microsoft deserves to be bashed, for many reasons. Please, I will not even begin to detail them here, Quillz, as you actually know what they are. What I won't do, is bash their product. Windows, and many other pieces of their software are not bad products at all. I have ethical, not technical, reasons not to use their stuff.