Well, I am not a computer architect like Steve Wallach. But when working at Trieste Area Science Park I saw the Area abandoning its DEC 9000 mainframe and the Trieste University its Cray mainframe for workstation clusters running Linux. So maybe parallel processing satisfied their needs. I even tried installing Parallel Virtual Network on my LAN including BULL/MIPS Unix R6000, Sunsparc running SunOS and PCs running Windows. My UNIX R6000 was as fast as the 9000 on the Linpack benchmark and cost 10 times less, The test was done by CERN people via Internet. Cheers.
Tullio

There is a saying: the production of a baby takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned to the task.

Same applies here. Some tasks can be divided up, some tasks can't.

Those that can't won't run fast on a modern "supercomputer."

---

I know there was a Japanese project to build a supercomputer half vector and half superscalar, but NEC, which had to build the vector part pulled out, leaving Fujitsu and (I believe) a research institution in the middle of the river. But the Japanese cannot really build a supercomputer. They lack a basic tool; the alphabet.
Tullio

---

I know there was a Japanese project to build a supercomputer half vector and half superscalar, but NEC, which had to build the vector part pulled out, leaving Fujitsu and (I believe) a research institution in the middle of the river. But the Japanese cannot really build a supercomputer. They lack a basic tool; the alphabet.
Tullio

... and we know that due to the lack of Japanese Keyboards.

---

There are only two languages which I can type on any keyboard: English and Latin, since they have no diacritical marks. I am using an Italian keyboard, and I am ill at ease typing a letter in French, or German, or Spanish, the languages I know at varying skill levels. But I know this is possible on a Macintosh.
Tullio

---

There is a saying: the production of a baby takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned to the task.

Same applies here. Some tasks can be divided up, some tasks can't.

Those that can't won't run fast on a modern "supercomputer."

Those that can't won't run fast on an nVidia CUDA GPU either, for the same reason. Luckily, with sufficient ingenuity most tasks can be divided up or down...

                                                                  Joe

So you're trying to excuse Microsoft for the common everyday mischievousness of others? Are you really saying that Microsoft doesn't have the capability to solve or avoid it's systems from being so easily hijacked? And all after more than a decade of such silliness?

No, I am saying that because Windows is such a large target, and because Windows supports so much out there, and because it is hard to test for every single possible situation or scenario, that there are bound to be problems that are taken advantage of, and I believe this would be the case if any other manufacturer (or Linux distro) were the primary OS used by billions.

Sorry... That is still a lame excuse.


Compare and contrast with:

Security measures: Linux vs BSD

If you're looking for a highly secure OS, then you need look no further than OpenBSD, which is probably the most secure operating system ever developed. If that seems a far-fetched claim, just remember that it's been four years since a major (or even minor) remote access hole was discovered in the default installation.


A Linux security story

There's no such thing as perfect security. There are no programs that give you absolute software security. After all, security is a process, not a product. Linux's security process, though, is outstanding, which is one reason why it has great security. Here's an example.


Microsoft Updates for Multiple Vulnerabilities (August 11, 2009)

II. Impact

An attacker may be able to execute arbitrary code, in some cases without user interaction.


That last example is now so very frequent and so disruptive that at one company I know, they have simply "given up". They have a number of machines connected to equipment that have been very expensively disrupted by various 'updates' and random reboots. Just looking after the updates was sucking up most of the life of the IT department. An entire floor of Windows machines are now quarantined from the rest of the world. That in itself is expensive in other ways, but at least that is less expensive and painful than the Windows updates...


Operating systems can be made inherently secure or insecure (vulnerable) by design.

And because I consider myself a scientist and an engineer, for the sake of objectivity, and to give a little background to the source of my views, see:

Those links do not show "objectivity", all they do is point toward other sources that think like you. That doesn't actually make them correct.

So all my comments and quotes (and the authors behind those quotes) are all wrong in your view?

So what objective comments and quotes can you present to corroborate your view?

Or is this where you claim your right to hide away on your desert island idyll to play in utter isolation and unknowing of the rest of the world?

So... Why hasn't Microsoft ended the Microsoft botnet's saga?

Because there are numerous ways to turn a computer into a bot. Its not like there's a singular hole that can be patched to turn off this vulnerability.

For the example of Microsoft Windows, for my view for once I can agree with you.

Note as mentioned earlier: An OS can be inherently secure or insecure by design.


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Well, well, well... Who would have guessed this?!

...

My personal view and comment on that little snippet? Well that is quite an example of why "software" patents are such a Very Bad Idea...

I expect the decision to be appealed to a higher court, or Microsoft will actually have to settle the software patent themselves, because that's the way things work.

Software patents aren't necessarily a "very bad idea", though they can certainly be used as one.

I'm sure Microsoft will be contesting this one for as far as they can. They also have a huge war chest of $$$ to play it out through the courts for as long as they please...

This would be a prime example of how Microsoft's lawyers aren't as intimidating as you implied earlier, and that it is possible to win a case against them if one is so inclined.

Hardly. It takes a very sure case, good backing, or reckless foolhardyness to challenge what is probably the largest and best honed legal department on this planet.


Note also:

Excessive IP protection causes economic gridlock

Too much protection = lack of innovation

Also note:

Microsoft celebrates 10,000 US patents

... filed just over 2,000 patents in 2008.


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Sorry... That is still a lame excuse.

Lame is suggesting that Microsoft has designed their OS to be insecure.

Compare and contrast with:

Security measures: Linux vs BSD

If you're looking for a highly secure OS, then you need look no further than OpenBSD, which is probably the most secure operating system ever developed. If that seems a far-fetched claim, just remember that it's been four years since a major (or even minor) remote access hole was discovered in the default installation.

...and exactly how many hacker's brains have gone toward finding holes in the OS? How many hackers have actually targeted the OS compared to Windows?

If the OS is so secure and superior, why isn't it being used on every desktop? Oh, right, because they don't market it to millions... and Microsoft would aggressively send their lawyers after them if they did. Microsoft actually enjoys the fact that their software has vulnerabilities, and the enjoy the negative press and negative experiences that go along with it.

There's no such thing as perfect security. There are no programs that give you absolute software security. After all, security is a process, not a product. Linux's security process, though, is outstanding, which is one reason why it has great security. Here's an example.

Security is also relies on the user's ability to think skeptically and have a complete understanding of ways they can be hacked as well as what makes them vulnerable.

This means only computer savvy people will ever have a complete understanding. Everyone else is too busy with their everyday lives than to learn any of that.

II. Impact

An attacker may be able to execute arbitrary code, in some cases without user interaction.


That last example is now so very frequent and so disruptive that at one company I know, they have simply "given up". They have a number of machines connected to equipment that have been very expensively disrupted by various 'updates' and random reboots. Just looking after the updates was sucking up most of the life of the IT department. An entire floor of Windows machines are now quarantined from the rest of the world. That in itself is expensive in other ways, but at least that is less expensive and painful than the Windows updates...

Sure, some companies, like humans, have different tolerance levels. I'm sure you're going to show the most extreme cases to support your agenda.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world continues happily with the OS well supported by millions.

Operating systems can be made inherently secure or insecure (vulnerable) by design.

...

For the example of Microsoft Windows, for my view for once I can agree with you.

Note as mentioned earlier: An OS can be inherently secure or insecure by design.

Yes, they can be designed as secure as possible, but due to the scope of hardware and software supported, including the completely unpredictable nature of the way users use their computers, all sorts of unforeseen vulnerabilities can easily be found in hindsight. I am very confident in knowing that if any other *nix company were to have the same market share as MS, they'd either have to have a completely different product that is user-friendly focused and just as full of security holes, or the entire computer industry wouldn't be what it is today, and computers would still be relegated to the geeks who design and code for them - and none of us would have the enrichment that computers have brought us.

So all my comments and quotes (and the authors behind those quotes) are all wrong in your view?

Right and wrong is so black and white. I believe there's more to perspectives than that. I believe that there's always going to be a group of people out there, regardless of the topic, who will find the most biting, resentful, biased and insipid views possible and spout them to the rest of the world in an empirical manner, especially if they can incite emotions of those who like it.

Most people simply ignore those types.

So what objective comments and quotes can you present to corroborate your view?

I think somebody hasn't been following along... but I find it interesting that my comments are not viewed as "objective" by you, and that you expect me to provide quotes, which is the same as providing links as I mentioned before, so that I can show how other people agree with me to somehow "corroborate" or "validate" my views.

I have been giving my views all along, and you simply disagree with them. Now you are asking for quotes to "corroborate" my views, which only leads to the equivalent of "link wars" mentioned earlier. I do not need to offer what someone else thinks to validate my statements.

Apparently you do.

Or is this where you claim your right to hide away on your desert island idyll to play in utter isolation and unknowing of the rest of the world?

This doesn't even make sense.

Oh, wait. I see. Psychological protrusion. You have hidden yourself away on a desert island in complete and utter isolation from "the man" (Microsoft), and that you must find others on your same island (of thought) to "prove" that your self-exiled, ridiculous views and anti-Microsoft rants are empirically right simply because you and a group of others believe your own FUD.

---

I'm sure Microsoft will be contesting this one for as far as they can. They also have a huge war chest of $$$ to play it out through the courts for as long as they please...

Such is the burden of being financially successful.

Hardly. It takes a very sure case, good backing, or reckless foolhardyness to challenge what is probably the largest and best honed legal department on this planet.

Note also:

Excessive IP protection causes economic gridlock

Too much protection = lack of innovation

Also note:

Microsoft celebrates 10,000 US patents

... filed just over 2,000 patents in 2008.

Everything you just said here exemplifies Linus' statement about why he doesn't want to be associated with "free software". For you, the entire argument is about free software without IP vs. proprietary software. For you, the entire argument is about differing philosophies of the two approaches to software development than it is about the actual merits of the software itself.

Every time we have these discussions, this is all you ever focus on, and attempt to steer the conversation in this direction, clearly showing where your focus lies.

Microsoft hatred is a disease. Even Linux's own inventor doesn't want to be associated with such types.

---

Even Linux's own inventor doesn't want to be associated with such types.

...........neither does 1,000,000's of Windows users...otherwise they would be using a vegetable within minestrone(Geek)soup (Ubuntu,Kubuntu,Debian,Fedora or other unknown delicacies).

---

I've used Slackware, Linux Universe, Corel and am now using SuSE. The right to choose, they say in advertising.
Tullio

---

From personal experience, Ive used redhat,mandrake and another one. Whats kinda funny is the arguements *nix afficianados get into about which is the best version of *nix. Keep in mind these guys also had access to win98 so they could play games. ' I need windows to play this?' ' yea' 'darn.' 'ok' load win98 ' This game rawks!'

Linux users may hate it, but Windows is here to stay.

Sincerely,
Daysteppr

---

I've used WIN98 on a dual boot system to run MS Flight Simulator, which is not a game. But I've read that Microsoft is abandoning it.
Tullio

---

Lame is suggesting that Microsoft has designed their OS to be insecure.

Look at the system architecture and "common practice" and judge for yourself.

Note the saying about "shutting the door after the horse has bolted"... Look at how the various "security bolt-ons" for Windows operate.

Also note that "rootkit" checks for Linux systems operate very differently (and for a vastly smaller target compared) to the typical Windows "anti-virus".

So again, why hasn't Microsoft put the virus/malware writers out of business (and directly out of business by removing the profits) as was done for *nix systems back in the big clean-up of 1992 ?

Compare and contrast with:

Security measures: Linux vs BSD

If you're looking for a highly secure OS, then you need look no further than OpenBSD, which is probably the most secure operating system ever developed. If that seems a far-fetched claim, just remember that it's been four years since a major (or even minor) remote access hole was discovered in the default installation.

...and exactly how many hacker's brains have gone toward finding holes in the OS? How many hackers have actually targeted the OS compared to Windows?

More than you imagine, including the writers themselves. Hence why it is so secure.

There is one argument that due to commercial pressures, Microsoft cannot do that for itself because it would simply cost too much to do so.

... Microsoft actually enjoys the fact that their software has vulnerabilities, and the enjoy the negative press and negative experiences that go along with it.

That is a very good question that has had me puzzled for some time. Why does Microsoft appear to generate so much scathingly bad press? Even from websites that are supposedly PC-friendly?

Such as recently from PCWorld.com for various very recent Microsoft related articles (last 2 days):

(My view of whether +ve, neutral, -ve noted:)

I Can Live Without Mac Office -- Perhaps You Can Too
-ve

Outlook on Mac: And They Lived Happily Ever After?
-ve

IE 8 Beats Competition in Microsoft-sponsored Security Tests - UPDATED
+ve

New Office 2010 Is Proof Microsoft Sabotaged Macintosh
-ve

Microsoft Windows XP: Should It Be Allowed to Live?
neutral

Tear Down Those Office Walls, Microsoft
-ve

The Law Can't Keep Up with Technology
-ve

Don't Ban Microsoft Word — Ban Patent Lawyers Instead
neutral

Microsoft Word Patent Ruling: So Who Is i4i?
+ve

Microsoft Ships Entourage Web Services Edition
+ve

Lawyer: IE8 Default Installation 'troubling'
-ve


So, for just over the last couple of days on what I judge appears to be a Microsoft-friendly site, that adds up to x3 +ve, x2 neutral, and x6 -ve. So the press there ain't all bad. It ain't all rosy good either. So, any news is good news?...

To contrast that, is there actually any bad press of that nature for open source?

There's no such thing as perfect security. There are no programs that give you absolute software security. After all, security is a process, not a product. Linux's security process, though, is outstanding, which is one reason why it has great security. Here's an example.

Security is also relies on the user's ability to think skeptically and have a complete understanding of ways they can be hacked as well as what makes them vulnerable.

This means only computer savvy people will ever have a complete understanding. Everyone else is too busy with their everyday lives than to learn any of that.

Exactly so. That is why the systems they use should be safe and secure by design.

For example, you should be able to browse the (untrusted) world-wide-web, visiting any dubious site you wish, and be completely safe that the very worst those sites can do is merely change the colour of the pixels within the the screen area of your browser window. There simply should be no opportunity for "An attacker may be able to execute arbitrary code" and take over your computer just by you merely visiting a malicious website!

So all my comments and quotes (and the authors behind those quotes) are all wrong in your view?

Right and wrong is so black and white. I believe there's more to perspectives than that. I believe that there's always going to be a group of people out there, regardless of the topic, who will find the most biting, resentful, biased and insipid views possible and spout them to the rest of the world in an empirical manner, especially if they can incite emotions of those who like it.

Most people simply ignore those types.

And quite rightly so.

And now back to the original point of balancing the opinion about Microsoft and its strategies used? I think we can both agree that it is very successful at that.

So what objective comments and quotes can you present to corroborate your view?

I think somebody hasn't been following along... but I find it interesting that my comments are not viewed as "objective" by you, and that you expect me to provide quotes, which is the same as providing links as I mentioned before, so that I can show how other people agree with me to somehow "corroborate" or "validate" my views.

I have been giving my views all along, ...

So, you are arguing your own personal myopic view in isolation? And so, no corroboration required to back up your one authoritative view?

You are very welcome to your view. However, please offer more than just your ramblings if you hope to educate my view :-p

Or is this where you claim your right to hide away on your desert island idyll to play in utter isolation and unknowing of the rest of the world?

This doesn't even make sense.

Oh, wait. I see. Psychological protrusion. You have hidden yourself away on a desert island in complete and utter isolation from "the man" (Microsoft), and that you must find others on your same island (of thought) to "prove" that your self-exiled, ridiculous views and anti-Microsoft rants are empirically right simply because you and a group of others believe your own FUD.

Fascinating! :-)


Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

FUD

OK... My counter-quote:

FUD: Contemporary examples

The Microsoft FUD Campaign vs. the Customer

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Everything you just said here exemplifies Linus' statement about why he doesn't want to be associated with "free software".

You need to reread the quote and improve your skills of comprehension. Please try again to appreciate what was actually said compared to your corrupted comment above...

For you, the entire argument is about free software without IP vs. proprietary software. For you, the entire argument is about differing philosophies of the two approaches to software development than it is about the actual merits of the software itself.

You miss the target again. There's much more to it than that, just in case you haven't been comprehending.

Microsoft hatred is a disease. Even Linux's own inventor doesn't want to be associated with such types.

As I've already typed 3 times or so now. I fully agree with that.


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Look at the system architecture and "common practice" and judge for yourself.

I have, and Windows seems to be a decent practice. Linux's practice is good too, but it doesn't run what I want it to run, and it requires too much finagling to get it to work right. Windows just works for me. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that statement.

Note the saying about "shutting the door after the horse has bolted"... Look at how the various "security bolt-ons" for Windows operate.

No different than any other update for any other piece of software after it is released - including updates to Linux.

Also note that "rootkit" checks for Linux systems operate very differently (and for a vastly smaller target compared) to the typical Windows "anti-virus".

I'm sure it does operate very differently, but again, it can only be truly tested when you have thousands, if not millions of hackers working toward breaking the system.

So again, why hasn't Microsoft put the virus/malware writers out of business (and directly out of business by removing the profits) as was done for *nix systems back in the big clean-up of 1992 ?

...the *nix systems never put virus/malware writers out of business. Everyone switched to Microsoft's operating systems because they were easier to use, and it was a new chance for malicious people to hone their craft.

Compare and contrast with:

If you're looking for a highly secure OS, then you need look no further than OpenBSD, which is probably the most secure operating system ever developed. If that seems a far-fetched claim, just remember that it's been four years since a major (or even minor) remote access hole was discovered in the default installation.

...and exactly how many hacker's brains have gone toward finding holes in the OS? How many hackers have actually targeted the OS compared to Windows?

More than you imagine, including the writers themselves. Hence why it is so secure.

Very, very doubtful. The writers themselves don't count because they wrote the code, they will not be thinking how their code can be used unintentionally or outside the box. That's like me saying I like my own cooking because I made it.

This would be why Microsoft has actually started asking hackers to test their code as part of their security focus for future software.

There is one argument that due to commercial pressures, Microsoft cannot do that for itself because it would simply cost too much to do so.

The mere suggestion would be insulting to any programmer who currently works, or has worked previously for Microsoft. If that statement were true, there would be all sorts of disgruntled employees discussing how they were instructed to write weak code.

... Microsoft actually enjoys the fact that their software has vulnerabilities, and the enjoy the negative press and negative experiences that go along with it.

That is a very good question that has had me puzzled for some time. Why does Microsoft appear to generate so much scathingly bad press? Even from websites that are supposedly PC-friendly?

It doesn't make sense because you are trying to force your conclusions to fit your agenda. You have started with the conclusion and have worked backwards to force everything else to make sense. My statement doesn't make sense because it doesn't fit with the rest of your logic or agenda.

Perhaps you should try working the other way around and you might have a different understanding, instead of listening to what everyone else says.

So, for just over the last couple of days on what I judge appears to be a Microsoft-friendly site, that adds up to x3 +ve, x2 neutral, and x6 -ve. So the press there ain't all bad. It ain't all rosy good either. So, any news is good news?...

That wouldn't even make any sense. No respectful programmer would ever want their code to be hacked and say, "Well, at least people know I'm here!"

To contrast that, is there actually any bad press of that nature for open source?

Of that nature? No, of course not. Because open source doesn't have the same dedicated, and extremely large, hacker community looking for weaknesses.

Security also relies on the user's ability to think skeptically and have a complete understanding of ways they can be hacked as well as what makes them vulnerable.

This means only computer savvy people will ever have a complete understanding. Everyone else is too busy with their everyday lives than to learn any of that.

Exactly so. That is why the systems they use should be safe and secure by design.

...and every programmer tries to do exactly that. It is impossible to have such a large base of code without having some holes in it.

For example, you should be able to browse the (untrusted) world-wide-web, visiting any dubious site you wish, and be completely safe that the very worst those sites can do is merely change the colour of the pixels within the the screen area of your browser window. There simply should be no opportunity for "An attacker may be able to execute arbitrary code" and take over your computer just by you merely visiting a malicious website!

Absolutely! Which is why Microsoft has started focusing more on security, because the bad press was too much. Their new software has already taken a more serious eye toward being designed with security in mind. Windows Vista and Windows 7 go along way to that end, as does Office. Internet Explorer is slowly becoming more standards-based and has many options for reducing the amount of arbitrary code security violations previous iterations had suffered from.

Right and wrong is so black and white. I believe there's more to perspectives than that. I believe that there's always going to be a group of people out there, regardless of the topic, who will find the most biting, resentful, biased and insipid views possible and spout them to the rest of the world in an empirical manner, especially if they can incite emotions of those who like it.

Most people simply ignore those types.

And quite rightly so.

And now back to the original point of balancing the opinion about Microsoft and its strategies used? I think we can both agree that it is very successful at that.

Still trying to force the conversation in a singular direction toward Microsoft's business practices?

I don't want to have to do this, but if you continue to try to strong-arm the discussion like this, I will RedX your comments as off topic - not because you'll imply that I'm afraid to have this discussion (as you have already suggested), but because I have already told you that I do not want to focus on the politics of Microsoft and yet you can't seem to get that through your thick skull.

You know yourself that the evidence is stacked in your favor because everyone likes to attack the big dog, and that will generate the most amount of discussion on the internet. Lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence of lacking. I cannot force people to start focusing on Linux and scrutinize every aspect of that OS, primarily because everyone is having too much fun bashing Microsoft - because it has turned into a fun and addictive disease. Nobody is talking about Linux as much as Microsoft because nobody cares about it like they do Windows. Those who are talking about Linux are the geeky types who don't mind running difficult to use software as long as they believe it to be superior to everyone else.

I think somebody hasn't been following along... but I find it interesting that my comments are not viewed as "objective" by you, and that you expect me to provide quotes, which is the same as providing links as I mentioned before, so that I can show how other people agree with me to somehow "corroborate" or "validate" my views.

I have been giving my views all along, ...

So, you are arguing your own personal myopic view in isolation? And so, no corroboration required to back up your one authoritative view?

I am offering my own personal view in isolation because I prefer to stand on my own. Whether that view is myopic is up to the reader to decide.

You are very welcome to your view. However, please offer more than just your ramblings if you hope to educate my view :-p

As you are welcome to yours - but you're doing exactly as you said you weren't doing earlier in the discussion: trying to have a war of links. I prefer to read what someone thinks themselves and discuss the merits of their statements as they stand on their own, not about how other people agree with them, or what they read that made them think this way. Anyone can read a convincing argument and walk away believing what they read to be true, but that doesn't make it so. So again, I don't care about who agrees with your view, I simply want to hear it from you. I want to test your logic and reasoning skills, not the entire internet's.

If you require links and quotes to educate your view, I have already suggested that you do the leg work yourself. If that is not good enough for you, then that is your problem - but continuously bringing it up and asking for it after I have already told you that I will not seems to suggest to me that you are acting as an aggressor to the situation and cannot comply with my stated preference for not having that type of discussion. Try to respect my wishes or start your own thread based upon the type of discussion you want to have.

FUD

OK... My counter-quote:

Precisely. You need to show me what other people think because you are not secure enough in your own position to stand on your own.

[quote]Everything you just said here exemplifies Linus' statement about why he doesn't want to be associated with "free software".

You need to reread the quote and improve your skills of comprehension. Please try again to appreciate what was actually said compared to your corrupted comment above...

Fascinating!. Let's see: what I said was that Linus doesn't want to be associated with "free software" because there are people out there who choose it out of philosophy and use it as a weapon to bash the competition with, which is all you've done since day one, instead of actually arguing the merits and functionality of the software itself - and when you do argue about the "merits", you keep going back to your same false reasoning about Microsoft and viruses that you yourself have admitted doesn't make much sense, but you'll keep trying to fit the conclusion with the data anyway.

Yep, I guess my skills of comprehension must be out of whack. In fact, I'm so stupid that I cannot corroborate my authoritative views with links and quotes, which has left me wondering why someone as clearly intelligent and well spoken as you are continues to be threatened by someone like me and my views. Why someone like you bothers to waste your time on someone like me who is clearly unread, uneducated and clearly outwitted and unmatched against your unbridled brilliance and sheer superior and empiric views as dictated to you by that bias you read even bothers to lower yourself to someone of my standards or lack thereof.

For you, the entire argument is about free software without IP vs. proprietary software. For you, the entire argument is about differing philosophies of the two approaches to software development than it is about the actual merits of the software itself.

You miss the target again. There's much more to it than that, just in case you haven't been comprehending.

If I'm missing the target, its because you're not doing a good enough job of focusing on what it is you are arguing. All I ever read from you is how open source is better than proprietary, and in particular how Linux is better than Windows simply because Windows is full of holes and Linux is not (your words and views [and those who think like you], not mine).

...but I guess its just my damned comprehension skills getting in the way again. Obviously, I need to go back to school and fix that, since it clearly can't be that you haven't actually shown any other substance to your views other than what I stated.

Microsoft hatred is a disease. Even Linux's own inventor doesn't want to be associated with such types.

As I've already typed 3 times or so now. I fully agree with that.

You can type it all you want, but you seem "to lack the comprehension" that you are doing exactly that. Just because you state that you agree with him, doesn't mean you aren't the type that he's talking about.

---

I'm a big fan of open source.

MS office is over £100
Open Office is free

MS windows vist is just under £100
Various distros of Linux are free

There are numerous other examples.

---

www.artpruple.co.uk

I'm a big fan of open source.

MS office is over £100
Open Office is free

MS windows vist is just under £100
Various distros of Linux are free

There are numerous other examples.

Cost is a big factor for many people. Support costs can be very high for open source companies without a tech dept. where the user is required to go find their own answer, and not many casual users are willing to spend that kind of time if there's something else out there that just simply works.

Personally, I like the convenience of being able to buy any software off the shelf and bring it right home and begin using it. I don't want to have to fight with Linux's library hell, or search for Linux drivers if I buy the latest and greatest piece of hardware, or deal with frustration over not being able to play my games under Linux because it is unsupported. I don't care for the hierarchy structure of the location of items on the hard drive, and I don't care to install a third-party package to make it look like I want to. The KDE and GNOME interfaces are too cluttered and not very intuitive on where things are located at. The item descriptions aren't very helpful in explaining what it is that they do. I prefer the MS-DOS command line type of interface, but Linux commands aren't very ingenuously named, nor are their context help menus very descriptive.

I have never ran into a virus on any of my machines because I know what I am doing, therefore the costs of dealing with those are nil. I get very few crashes under Windows XP and newer (XP has more of then than my experiences with Vista and so far Win7), so crashes aren't costing me a thing either.

The only reasons I ever hear in favor of running Linux is the fact that it's not Microsoft (the Underdog syndrome, not any technical reason here. This also applies to people who refuse to run Intel based CPUs), its free (you get what you pay for) and its more secure (less hackers targeting the OS due to its smaller market share, though obviously a few geniuses disagree with me on this one and my comprehension is very low so I must have the information spoon-fed to me and told what to believe instead of being allowed to make up my own mind and coming to my own conclusions, even if they are not inline with what someone else thinks).

There's just too much frustration getting Linux to work the way I want it to and Windows just simply works. I guess you get what you pay for.

---

Things are indeed easy "when you know what you are doing".

Personally speaking I dont find KDE cluttered, it's pretty straight forward but again anything is easy when you know how.

I'm only speaking from the perspective of an individual rather than a business and as an individual i've never needed to to pay for assistance in using or setting up any open source software.

I am a non technical person which might be why "Windows just works" makes me smile to myself. Both at work and at home i've had (and in the case of work others) windows crashing on me, freezing up (generally 2000 and xp).

Just for the record I am using an intel processor on my laptop.

In terms of office software I don't see how you get what you pay for. Open Office (latest version) and MS Office are extremely similar. I'd never pay for MS when OO is free.

I read somewhere that the French police service has saved something like 50 million Euros by changing over from windows to linux as well as numerous other big companies.

As I said before im a non-technical person so I dont know all the ins and outs of the situation but there must be many valid reasons for choosing Linux/Open Source software.

---

www.artpruple.co.uk