Hi. Remember me? ;-)

I keep mentioning that I just don't get why people are so willing to say that "Linux is God!" (borrowing from "Clapton is God")...

Oh, FYI and FWIW, I discovered a wonderful command in XP (run at a prompt):

systeminfo

This produced, among other things:

System Up Time: 3 Days, 21 Hours, 52 Minutes, 8 Seconds

The rebooting was required due to installation of a new version of Norton SystemWorks Premier, otherwise it would be up and running longer than that (I think about a week). Yes, Martin, I know your Linux box may have been up for more than that, but unlike a Zealot, I don't go about trying to convert you Linux folks... Too many Linux Zealots seem to have this "jihad" thing, all of them seemingly jonesing for the downfall of Microsoft, or more specifically, Bill Gates.

Anyway, carry on with the entertainment... ;-)

Hi. Remember me? ;-)

I keep mentioning that I just don't get why people are so willing to say that "Linux is God!" (borrowing from "Clapton is God")...

Good you're still around ;-)

I think it's more that Bill Gates knows he's god (to make a pun on a dyslexic dog joke).

More seriously, there is a lot of "collateral damage" in a certain company's extremely aggressive attempts at complete world complete domination. Even to the extent of bailing out some of it's competitors to maintain a sham of 'competition'. The real stings are with the various 'dirty tricks' used to stifle new developments and innovation...

Microsoft even sells Linux now don't you know...

[...]
Too many Linux Zealots seem to have this "jihad" thing, all of them seemingly jonesing for the downfall of Microsoft, or more specifically, Bill Gates.

On a counter-observation, too many of these people that have paid hard cash for a proprietary 'secret black-box' system then try to foist the associated Marketing Hype (and 'assumption') that it just must be the best there is and nothing else could possibly ever be better.

My view is more of using the most appropriate tool for whatever task. I make use of a number of different systems. However, there is just one that requires a disproportionate amount of effort to 'defend' against unwanted 'features'. All by design?

Anyway, carry on with the entertainment... ;-)

All a fun reminder! :-)

(Note, in this thread I've not once said "Use Linux, It's waaaaay cooool!" or whatever Microsoft-esq hype.)



Meanwhile, for the comparison of which OS is "faster" for s@h... Well, you can concoct any comparison you like with whatever restrictions you want to impose.

There's good examples very well discussed over on Einstein@home for how using their "stock application" the performance has varied greatly between different OSes for the various different versions of the stock app. For those examples, Windows has been in the lead sometimes, and sometimes other (unmentionable OSes?) have enjoyed the lead.

Far better is to try to understand what is happening and why.

Computers should be completely deterministic and predictable. With the same hardware, you should get the same results regardless of what OS you use. If you don't, then there are other conditions that must be different for how the hardware is being used. Those differences can be in other things other than just the OS... The e@h example shows how the way that the application is compiled can completely change the rankings, regardless of which OS.

Perhaps it's more a question of whether it is a Windows zealot or an "alternate OS" zealot doing the application compiling?

Note that for s@h, there appears to be greater concerns for what development system they can use rather than taking time they haven't got for platform specific optimisation... Which is where the s@h optimisers come in.


So what is the current rankings for the optimised apps?

And what is the current ranking for the stock app?

And for what figures from where?

(And indeed, I honestly don't know what that latest is.)


Happy crunchin',
Martin

[edit]
ps: Full kudos to the s@h optimiser's group for their optimisations for all the OSes they support.
[/edit]

---

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

More seriously, there is a lot of "collateral damage" in a certain company's extremely aggressive attempts at complete world complete domination.

Too many Linux Zealots seem to have this "jihad" thing, all of them seemingly jonesing for the downfall of Microsoft, or more specifically, Bill Gates.

On a counter-observation, too many of these people that have paid hard cash for a proprietary 'secret black-box' system then try to foist the associated Marketing Hype (and 'assumption') that it just must be the best there is and nothing else could possibly ever be better.

My view is more of using the most appropriate tool for whatever task. I make use of a number of different systems. However, there is just one that requires a disproportionate amount of effort to 'defend' against unwanted 'features'. All by design?

First, could you elaborate upon the afore mentioned "collateral damage"?

Second, could you elaborate upon what you consider "disproprtionate"? You note that I bought a suite from Symantec. It was $80 for 1 year, or $0.2192/day. Last time I checked, a US Quarter Dollar per day won't go very far... My car insurance is substantially more than that... The AV updates come down automatically. There are also "free" AV scanners. I also spent $80 for the Linksys router I have, but that was back in 2004. I don't have a bit of problems. Going beyond AV, there isn't anything that I *need* to do that I haven't been able to do.

The problem I have with your stance is that it is all because you have some specialized circumstance. IIRC, it's some sort of mail server for a small ISP over there. If that's not you, then my apologies... However, if it is you, I understand why you may feel the way you do, given the IIS issues and other email worms and whatnot...however you should try to grasp that for many of us, the "right tool" is Windows. It works just fine. XP has good uptime. Most crashes are due to drivers (not provided by Microsoft) or by 3rd party shareware software.

Anyway, I have to go get a haircut... Be back in a bit...

There's good examples very well discussed over on Einstein@home for how using their "stock application" the performance has varied greatly between different OSes for the various different versions of the stock app. For those examples, Windows has been in the lead sometimes, and sometimes other (unmentionable OSes?) have enjoyed the lead.

Mac OS X had the lead for a very long time because all the other platforms were doing math in x87, while the Intel Macs had SSE code. That's not a fair fight. The only thing I can give you as a knock against Microsoft is that the C++ compiler in Visual Studio caused a stall for the Windows compilation. The team there worked around the issue though...

Gotta run...

---

First, could you elaborate upon the afore mentioned "collateral damage"?

I can't do that! I'd be accused of outrageous Microsoft bashing! I'd likely get erased from s@h for once and for all never to be seen twiddling any bits ever again!! Anathema no less!

You could look at just one small example and consider for yourself:

Ten years of legal wrangling between Microsoft and EU

2001

In August, the Commission issues a second statement of objections asserting that Microsoft held a dominant position in the market for workgroup servers and was hindering interoperability between Windows server and third-party server operating systems.

Separately the commission alleges that Microsoft competes unfairly with Real Networks and other vendors of media players by "tying" Windows Media Player with Windows.

[...]

2008

In February, the Commission imposes a record €899m fine on Microsoft for charging "unreasonable" prices to rivals for access to its software.

Now, most people never see any of that. What it does mean is that anyone who is not Microsoft suffer 'extra' costs in trying to produce anything new to work with or alongside the existing Microsoft monopoly. This slows or stifles new developments just for one example.

There are other more extreme examples.


I'm fully in favour of fair competition. However, monopoly status does not permit that. 'Monopoly' means that someone is paying far more than necessary or appropriate.

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

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

The problem I have with your stance is that it is all because you have some specialized circumstance. IIRC, it's some sort of mail server for a small ISP over there. If that's not you, then my apologies... However, if it is you, I understand why you may feel the way you do, given the IIS issues and other email worms and whatnot...however you should try to grasp that for many of us, the "right tool" is Windows. It works just fine. XP has good uptime. Most crashes are due to drivers (not provided by Microsoft) or by 3rd party shareware software.

Nope, I do far greater variety than just an ISP mailserver. Can't even claim to be an ISP although I do a lot of network twiddling. Also, if you've not guessed, I'm in the UK.

For many people, the tool being used is the one that comes forcibly pre-installed on your PC and you have no choice about it. You've already payed your money.

It is also a great irritation that computers don't work better, despite fantastic advances in the hardware.

So why are we quagmired in futile bloat and malware?

There must be something better?...


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

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

I'm fully in favour of fair competition. However, monopoly status does not permit that. 'Monopoly' means that someone is paying far more than necessary or appropriate.

A monopoly means that you have no choice. As long as you have OSX and *nix, and as long as people use them, Microsoft is not a true monopoly. They may be a de facto monopoly, but its the customers that chose Microsoft. People have always had a choice, and they chose Microsoft because of its compatibility, support (both in hardware and in customer service) and ease of use.


That's the biggest problem with many Linux geeks (and some Mac geeks too) is that they all have the same complaint about Microsoft being a monopoly. If that were so, they would not be running the OS they have chosen. Its fine if you prefer to run your alternative OS, but essentially telling everyone that they chose Windows because they had 'no choice' is a bunch of BS.

I, for one, like Windows (and other Microsoft products). I've used many variations of Linux and other free software, but none of them have ease of use in mind, and most of them require you to search newsgroups or help forums for answers to things that simply 'just work' with Windows. I like the ease of use because I have better things to be doing than searching for drivers for my latest graphics card, or sound driver, or chipset.

I haven't found a single thing in Linux that I don't prefer to do in Windows because it makes my life easier so that I can focus on other things that are more important to me.

---

For many people, the tool being used is the one that comes forcibly pre-installed on your PC and you have no choice about it. You've already payed your money.

Windows comes preloaded on many machines because that's what the majority of people use. If it helps a company sell more systems, then guess which OS is going on their hardware? Windows. While it's great to have choice, many Linux geeks would rather build their own systems and put Linux on afterward. But even if you don't want to build your own, don't put the blame on Microsoft because most customers demand it - put the blame on the companies that don't offer a choice of OS to begin with (of course, that's going to increase their overhead costs because they would have to maintain two images for each machine built - not to mention the additional support costs that come with all the curious people that want to break away from Microsoft, the company has to support Linux which isn't easy to do, especially for your average user).

It is also a great irritation that computers don't work better, despite fantastic advances in the hardware.

I will give you this one. One of my couple complaints with Vista is the fact that it's slower than XP on many applications, especially games. But again, I don't necessarily blame Microsoft too much. It's not like Linux is picking up the slack and giving them competition. Linux and games don't even seem to fit in the same sentence.

I realize that there's more to do on a PC than gaming, but for the majority of households, the PC is still relegated to a gaming machine [and is losing ground to gaming consoles]. If their machine can't run games very well, or at all, then their purchase doesn't satisfy their needs.

So why are we quagmired in futile bloat and malware?

I don't like the bloat or malware, but I'm happy that everything simply works well enough to actually use it without having to search the net for drivers and support.

---

2001

In August, the Commission issues a second statement of objections asserting that Microsoft held a dominant position in the market for workgroup servers and was hindering interoperability between Windows server and third-party server operating systems.

Like Richard told you, it's all nice to know the back story, but how about now? I know for a fact that Ubuntu and RHEL will find Windows resources via Samba. I'm sure Mandriva can do this as well, lest you probably wouldn't be using it since it appears you have to interface with at least one Windows box...

Separately the commission alleges that Microsoft competes unfairly with Real Networks and other vendors of media players by "tying" Windows Media Player with Windows.

As Ozzfan has already pointed out, that's not a "monopoly". It is simply a whine about something being provided with the OS. At the end of the day, any regular Windows user (not including those forbidden by corporate / other rules) has a choice. As for media players, I pretty much stick with Winamp. It doesn't have full codec support for some things though, like Xvid, but neither does Windows Media Player. In both of those, some Xvid files that I have will play video track, but no audio. For those kinds of files, I use Gom.

It is not Microsoft's problem that the public is uninformed. The only thing Linux will do for those users is FORCE them to become informed, as some stuff just simply won't work until they spend hours upon hours trying to get just the right driver, just the right kernel, or just the right config settings...

Let's say that you get people to switch to Linux. Guess what's going to happen? They'll find the one player that's in Synaptic or RPM and use it. They won't play around and try to find the uber-coolest of the cool. They'll find one that mostly works, just like Windows Media Player mostly works, then they'll be upset when something doesn't work and start blaming "Linux", which is just as faulty a blame as is blaming Microsoft for "unfairly competing" or whatever because they sought to make the user experience better (meaning the user doesn't have to go hunting for things)...

2008

In February, the Commission imposes a record €899m fine on Microsoft for charging "unreasonable" prices to rivals for access to its software.

Open Source is only an ideology, unless I somehow missed how it suddenly became "The Prime Directive". When governments start dictating a value for the assets and intangible "IP" resources of a non-bankrupt company, there is a problem. Of course, this problem simply "does not exist" if you lean more towards Socialism and/or Communism.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

Draw your own conclusion.

For many people, the tool being used is the one that comes forcibly pre-installed on your PC and you have no choice about it. You've already payed your money.

Incorrectamundo... You, as a shopper, can look for places that either install Linux or just format a hard drive for you... Alternatively you can buy a system from a local system builder and have them custom-build you a system with exactly the OS you want on it...or you can go "wild and crazy" and build your own, which is what I do for myself. I do not build my own for others though, as I don't really wish to be the primary support...unless a job is not forthcoming sometime soon, then I may think about making a business of building PCs... (???)

However, while we're on this subject, wouldn't Apple be guilty of the same thing, since they "forcibly preinstall" some version of Mac OS on systems purchased from them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

Draw your own conclusion.

ROTFLMHO!

Phew!!!

That little lot is a little dated for some of the comments but is apt enough and good food for thought.


A good idea is just to try Open Source for yourself. You may already do so by using Firefox (web browser), Thunderbird (email), and even OpenOffice.

Take a look at Kubuntu. It works very well on most laptops as well as desktops.

Regards,
Martin

---

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

For many people, the tool being used is the one that comes forcibly pre-installed on your PC and you have no choice about it. You've already payed your money.

Incorrectamundo... You, as a shopper, can look for places that either install Linux or just format a hard drive for you... Alternatively you can buy a system from a local system builder and have them custom-build you a system with exactly the OS you want on it...or you can go "wild and crazy" and build your own...

1. A visit to the local pc emporium tells a different story. Windows, Windows everywhere... And no choice is, well, no choice...
2. Removing Windows (at least here in the UK) CAN invalidate your warranty. There have been cases of this happening at a certain well-known high street chain.
3. The larger body of people will always be happier purchasing their hardware from a 'big name' retailer, rather than 'Freds Back-Street Computer Shack'.
4. System builders are a minority. Most people just don't want to. I have no desire to build my own house, car, telly or fridge either...

However, while we're on this subject, wouldn't Apple be guilty of the same thing, since they "forcibly preinstall" some version of Mac OS on systems purchased from them?

1. Macs are a small percentage of the total computer market, so *not* a monopoly.
2. Apple make it easy to run Windows or Linux.
3. OSX is just the bizz - take a look at the top 20 SETI crunchers.
4. No, really... OSX is just the bizz. ;)

Like Richard told you, it's all nice to know the back story, but how about now? I know for a fact that Ubuntu and RHEL will find Windows resources via Samba. I'm sure Mandriva can do this as well, lest you probably wouldn't be using it since it appears you have to interface with at least one Windows box...

But have you any idea of the pain and effort to make that little lot work despite Microsoft 'changing' the protocols to deliberately break interoperablility?

That effort certainly delayed development and wasted a lot of effort that could have been used to make other things 'better'.

Microsoft has also been able to procrastinate for over TEN YEARS before finally being forced to play a little fairer on that small point of interoperability.

Microsoft, as far as I'm aware, is the only company to have had the audacity to ignore an EU fine...


It all adds up to slowing development and causing additional costs for others and for all computer users that have any interaction with Windows.

And that is just one small example. Windows users pay the price also.

Regards,
Martin

---

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

It is not Microsoft's problem that the public is uninformed. The only thing Linux will do for those users is FORCE them to become informed, as some stuff just simply won't work until they spend hours upon hours trying to get just the right driver, just the right kernel, or just the right config settings...

And that is slowly happening.

Except that there is some very clever Microsoft Marketing and some desperate Microsoft FUD to overcome.

As for 'not user friendly' or 'requiring arcanery', or whatever... Please take a look at Kubuntu. The hardest part there is that just some of the names are a little different. Then again, Kubuntu isn't Windows... Then again again, there are other ways other than the Microsoft way.

And then again, does Windows work 'well enough'? For most people for the time being, it seems to work well enough to not force them to climb over the 'lock-in' barriers.

Good luck,
Martin

---

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

Like Richard told you, it's all nice to know the back story, but how about now? I know for a fact that Ubuntu and RHEL will find Windows resources via Samba. I'm sure Mandriva can do this as well, lest you probably wouldn't be using it since it appears you have to interface with at least one Windows box...

But have you any idea of the pain and effort to make that little lot work despite Microsoft 'changing' the protocols to deliberately break interoperablility?

That effort certainly delayed development and wasted a lot of effort that could have been used to make other things 'better'.

Microsoft has also been able to procrastinate for over TEN YEARS before finally being forced to play a little fairer on that small point of interoperability.

Microsoft, as far as I'm aware, is the only company to have had the audacity to ignore an EU fine...


It all adds up to slowing development and causing additional costs for others and for all computer users that have any interaction with Windows.

And that is just one small example. Windows users pay the price also.

Regards,
Martin

Well for what it's worth you won this time... congratulation on making it to my "Filtered users list"...

If you start singing another song than just the one you do in almost 99% of you posts how evil microsoft/intel is and how good the glorious linux/amd world is and stopped boring all people here ... let me know... as of now i'm looking forward seeing all your posts as
"This post has been filtered (rating: 0) and the user is on your ignore list"

That'll be a relief from you constant complaining an whining...
Thank you.

---

Join BOINC United now!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

Draw your own conclusion.

Thanks, I will. The conclusion I draw is that:

1) It's always easier to target the bigger dog on the block and level criticism at it.

2) Most of the criticism leveled at Microsoft couldn't apply to Linux in any way just because of the difference in business models.

3) There's less criticism of Linux because less people use it, and less people use it because they give up in frustration after trying it for just a short while. They soon miss their software library available on Windows and quickly turn back (unless their running servers, where Linux excels very well).


While no company is perfect, and Microsoft is certainly guilty of their own share of dirty deeds, the idea that Linux is somehow innocent simply because it doesn't have the market share or other resources is utterly unbelievable.

---

4. System builders are a minority. Most people don't want to. I have no desire to build my own house, car or fridge either...

Just because you don't want to doesn't mean you don't have a choice... You made the choice not to. It is also still not Microsoft's fault that a system builder will not just give you a hard drive in either a formatted or unformatted state with no OS on it.

However, while we're on this subject, wouldn't Apple be guilty of the same thing, since they "forcibly preinstall" some version of Mac OS on systems purchased from them?

1. Macs are a small percentage of the total computer market, so *not* a monopoly.
2. Apple make it easy to run Windows or Linux.
3. OSX is just the bizz - take a look at the top 20 SETI crunchers.

So, why is it that Microsoft has to divulge everything and allow everyone to run roughshod over their organization, but Apple can elect to not provide alternative OSes on their products? I checked both Mac Mini and Mac Pro just a little while ago and the OS choice is bundled with the keyboard selection, with no way to say "No Keyboard", so it is forced upon prospective Macintosh buyers whether they like it or not.

I smell a double-standard......

1. A visit to the local pc emporium tells a different story. Windows, Windows everywhere... And no choice is, well, no choice...
2. Removing Windows (at least here in the UK) CAN invalidate your warranty. There have been cases of this happening at a certain well-known high street chain.
3. The larger body of people will always be happier purchasing their hardware from a 'big name' retailer, rather than 'Freds Back-Street Computer Shack'.
4. System builders are a minority. Most people just don't want to. I have no desire to build my own house, car, telly or fridge either...

And if you believe this is somehow all Microsoft's fault, that would be the crazy part. Microsoft is a business and will try to make business deals as best they can. Many companies go over the line in the overly competitive dog-eat-dog market out there, and many get in trouble for doing so (as Microsoft has).

Isn't Dell offering systems with Kubuntu or Ubuntu? There are some options out there if you look beyond your local stores.

However, while we're on this subject, wouldn't Apple be guilty of the same thing, since they "forcibly preinstall" some version of Mac OS on systems purchased from them?

1. Macs are a small percentage of the total computer market, so *not* a monopoly.
2. Apple make it easy to run Windows or Linux.
3. OSX is just the bizz - take a look at the top 20 SETI crunchers.
4. No, really... OSX is just the bizz. ;)

Now that's just overly biased! Just because Apple doesn't have a monopoly (neither technically does Microsoft), doesn't mean they don't try to coerce the market in their own ways. Can I buy a Mac with a legally installed copy of Windows on it?

And I thought we already established that the top 20 SETI crunchers are mostly because of the code they run, not because their OS is superior.

---

As for 'not user friendly' or 'requiring arcanery', or whatever... Please take a look at Kubuntu. The hardest part there is that just some of the names are a little different. Then again, Kubuntu isn't Windows... Then again again, there are other ways other than the Microsoft way.

Tried Kubuntu and Ubuntu. Didn't like either one. They still suffer from the main Linux problem of not having a large library of games, and their office application (OpenOffice) is just not very intuitive or compatible with existing MS documents (another thing to blame on MS, of course).

Both Kubuntu and Ubuntu also had too much clutter. The interface isn't very clean or friendly (not talking about simply just the desktop either). Bottom line is that if I have to switch back to Windows just for gaming (so I'm essentially having to keep a legal copy of Windows anyway), why not just stick with what I know and what I like? I see no reason to switch.

And then again, does Windows work 'well enough'? For most people for the time being, it seems to work well enough to not force them to climb over the 'lock-in' barriers.

I don't see any "lock-in" barriers. I see an OS that allows me to quickly and easily do what I want to get done with maybe a couple exceptions (but there are always workarounds). And the experience is much smoother than while playing in Linux.

---