I have seen many Linux users (Linux users in general and not just linuxers) referring to Windows or it's apps in rather demeaning way e.g. window$,win....,M$ Win.., windoze, etc. Why are we so intolerant ? I mean we have been using this OS since it's arrival .Most of us (I am not sure but I guess) have dual boot system . I am not professing the use of Windows but I think it is imperative for us to understand that Windows is here to stay ,at least in the desktop environment .
Also I think Windows is affordable for most users ( OEM stuff ) .So I think the argument that Windows costs a fortune is not true. In Linux too we have commercial distributions ( Suse,Corel, Red Hat Deluxe Workstation,etc..) whose costs are comparable to that of Windows 95 or 98 .
So the question is why do we hate Windows so much ? Are we jealous of it's success or is it just unwritten rule for Linux users to snub it ?
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Nikhil Joshi wrote:
the argument that Windows costs a fortune is not true. In Linux too we have commercial distributions ( Suse,Corel, Red Hat Deluxe Workstation,etc..) whose costs are comparable to that of Windows 95 or 98 .
Remember These distributions are freely downloadable also.
Regards pankaj
on 21/7/2001 8:31 AM, Nikhil Joshi at nikhiljoshy@yahoo.com wrote:
I have seen many Linux users (Linux users in general and not just linuxers) referring to Windows or it's apps in rather demeaning way e.g. window$,win....,M$ Win.., windoze, etc. Why are we so
You missed one, winDOZE... :-)
intolerant ? I mean we have been using this OS since it's arrival .Most of us (I am not sure but I guess) have dual boot system . I am not professing the use of Windows but I think it is imperative for us to understand that Windows is here to stay ,at least in the desktop environment .
I haven't used winDOZE in 2 years, its either been Linux or my beloved Macintosh. WinDOZE could have stayed, but if you have read up on the net about the XP registration procedures, gawd, I think they are digging their own grave.
Also I think Windows is affordable for most users ( OEM stuff ) .So I think the argument that Windows costs a fortune is not true. In Linux too we have commercial distributions ( Suse,Corel, Red Hat Deluxe Workstation,etc..) whose costs are comparable to that of Windows 95 or 98 .
What happens when you buy an OEMed machine is, you also pay the cost of winDOZE along with the hardware, you just don't know that. I don't think you get winDOZE for Rs.200/- (check out FreeOS.com)
So the question is why do we hate Windows so much ? Are we jealous of it's success or is it just unwritten rule for Linux users to snub it ?
A person would be jealous of something/someone's success only if that thing/person mattered to him/her, winDOZE is something that we are least bothered about :-)
~Mayuresh
Hi Nikhil,
At 08:31 AM 7/21/01 +0530, you wrote:
Also I think Windows is affordable for most users ( OEM stuff ) .So I think the argument that Windows costs a fortune is not true. In Linux too we have commercial distributions ( Suse,Corel, Red Hat Deluxe Workstation,etc..) whose costs are comparable to that of Windows 95 or 98 .
You are comparing the cost of a commercial distro of GNU/Linux with Windows 95/98. You are missing the point that GNU/Linux is a product comparable (I would personally term it superior) to Windows NT and Windows 2000 Server which cost 10 times the cost of the costliest commercial distros on GNU/Linux, and that too for a 5 user licence, as against an unlimited user licence in case of GNU/Linux. Consider the cost of using Windows 2000 Server with about 500 users, along with all licences, as against a commercial distro of GNU/Linux, and you will see an unacceptably high cost.
And no, the assumption of 500 users is not out of the blue, but something we and many others practically have on our GNU/Linux servers (wudnt dare to impose such a `huge' load on NT anyways). Then again, you can always download or use the CDs accompanying PCQ, etc. and spend nothing at all; which is simply not possible in case of M$.
And this covers just one point in the discussion, ie. price. There are a whole lot of other factors such as performance, resource requirements, freedom et al which I believe have been talked about several times here.
Regards, Ninad
I have seen many Linux users (Linux users in general and not just
linuxers)
referring to Windows or it's apps in rather demeaning way e.g. window$,win....,M$ Win.., windoze, etc. Why are we so intolerant ? I mean we have been using this OS since it's arrival
.Most
of us (I am not sure but I guess) have dual boot system . I am not professing the use of Windows but I think it is imperative for us to understand that Windows is here to stay ,at least in the desktop environment .
Yeah, It will.. At least asa long as ppl realise something else is there which does not reboot so often. I had written a more +ve mail just a moment ago. and then when I did M-f-l, The m/c simply rebooted - Cud do nothing.... And then, ur previous question - u can get CD's from freeos (www.freeos.com) , or www.gtcdrom.com and many other places. Bye, SP
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Using AVG antivirus Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.264 / Virus Database: 136 - Release Date: 7/2/01
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
hi all,
When people in security speak of Gates's products, they sneer. It's a fact: Microsoft has never been a particularly secure platform, but then, these products have historically not needed to be secure.
Microsoft products should not be subjected to the same scrutiny as UNIX products because they are in a different class. Despite this fact, many people ridicule Microsoft products. They subject such products to rigorous tests, knowing that the products cannot pass. Then they parade the negative results across the Net, "proving" that Microsoft's security is weak and lackluster.
What we fail to realise is that there are millions of people out there who are not computer savvy and i am sure if u take a general poll people would opt for windows over linux.
So whether windows or linux, remember that each was made for a particular class of users and we have to put ourselves in other's shoes too to pass judgement on a product.
Regards, Prem.
NOTICE: Do not feed the trolls.
On Jul 28, 2001 at 00:11, Prem D'Souza wrote:
It's a fact: Microsoft has never been a particularly secure platform, but then, these products have historically not needed to be secure.
Not an excuse. Read on.
Microsoft products should not be subjected to the same scrutiny as UNIX products because they are in a different class. Despite this fact, many
Yes, they are in a different class. Then don't try to use them outside that class. They are not server-grade products.
Here, we have several computers connected to a DSL modem via a Windows box. The guys are waiting for me to get my comp and install Linux so we can have a secure connection, real firewalls, and generally a server.
So whether windows or linux, remember that each was made for a particular class of users and we have to put ourselves in other's shoes too to pass judgement on a product.
Yes, each is made for a particular class. The problems occur when one tries to use them for the wrong purpose. Linux is not a home desktop OS yet. Windows is not a server OS, unless you want a toy server.
Sometime Today, Prem D'Souza assembled some asciibets to say:
What we fail to realise is that there are millions of people out there who are not computer savvy and i am sure if u take a general poll people would opt for windows over linux.
If they are not computer savvy, they should be using Macs. Trust me. The right mouse button is not intuitive. Having more than one mouse button confuses people who are new to computers.
By your argument, Unix should be used on servers, and Macs on the desktop. Windows has no place anywhere, and is just trying to be a jack of all trades, failing at all.
Philip
Sometime Today, Nikhil Joshi assembled some asciibets to say:
So the question is why do we hate Windows so much ? Are we jealous
It's because of its restrictive licence. In fact, I think we all agree with RMS on this point. It's okay to use windows if you use a pirated copy. Just don't pay Microsoft for it.
Philip
On Saturday 21 July 2001 17:38
Sometime Today, Nikhil Joshi assembled some asciibets to say:
So the question is why do we hate Windows so much ? Are we jealous
You crazy? the only bright spot in my life is WhineDoze. Ah! my mind flows thinking about WhineDoze. Where can you get your daily fix but for CTRL-ALT-DELETE. Just no need for hash when you get your daily M$ CRASH
IT STINKS.
It's because of its restrictive licence. In fact, I think we all agree with RMS on this point. It's okay to use windows if you use a pirated copy. Just don't pay Microsoft for it.
Philip
Thank God. I was worried about my place in Heaven. I hope illegal operations performed by my box do not disqualify me.
jtdyahoo (??!!) wrote:
It's because of its restrictive licence. In fact, I think we all agree with RMS on this point. It's okay to use windows if you use a pirated copy. Just don't pay Microsoft for it.
Philip
Thank God. I was worried about my place in Heaven. I hope illegal operations performed by my box do not disqualify me.
Don't worry! St. Ignucius will take care of us all I guess!
SameerDS.
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Sometime today, Philip S Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, Nikhil Joshi assembled some asciibets to say:
So the question is why do we hate Windows so much ? Are we jealous
It's because of its restrictive licence. In fact, I think we all agree with RMS on this point. It's okay to use windows if you use a pirated copy. Just don't pay Microsoft for it.
It's okay to run Windows on someone else's machine. Just don't waste your machine for it. :-)
On a serious note, I disagree with the idea of using a pirated copy of Windows. You are denying Microsoft the right to make money, that way. If you can't afford to buy it, don't use it! I would say you're lucky, in that case.
Manish
Sometime on Jul 21, Manish Jethani assembled some asciibets to say:
On a serious note, I disagree with the idea of using a pirated copy of Windows. You are denying Microsoft the right to make money, that
According to RMS, it's okay to make money only if you do not hurt people doing it. Microsoft hurts people with their restrictive licence. They do not help people, and should not be rewarded for it.
Philip
Sometime today, Philip S Tellis wrote:
Sometime on Jul 21, Manish Jethani assembled some asciibets to say:
On a serious note, I disagree with the idea of using a pirated copy of Windows. You are denying Microsoft the right to make money, that
According to RMS, it's okay to make money only if you do not hurt people doing it. Microsoft hurts people with their
RMS is Not God.
If you agree with RMS in not wanting to pay Microsoft, simply don't use their products! Microsoft is not forcing you to use their products. You can boycott Microsoft if you want, but they have a right to make money _their_ way as long as they're not forcing anyone to buy their products.
Using pirated Windows is the wrong way of doing it. Just because you don't agree with Microsoft's licence doesn't mean you are going to _violate_ it. If that's fair, then even I can violate the GNU GPL on the grounds of not agreeing with it. How would RMS like that?
It is far easier for Microsoft to violate the GNU GPL than it is for the FSF and friends to violate Microsoft EULAs.
Manish
On Sunday 22 July 2001 15:31, Manish Jethani wrote:
Sometime today, Philip S Tellis wrote:
Sometime on Jul 21, Manish Jethani assembled some asciibets to
say:
On a serious note, I disagree with the idea of using a pirated copy of Windows. You are denying Microsoft the right to make money, that
According to RMS, it's okay to make money only if you do not hurt people doing it. Microsoft hurts people with their
RMS is Not God.
No, he is only a saint.
If you agree with RMS in not wanting to pay Microsoft, simply don't use their products! Microsoft is not forcing you to use their products. You can boycott Microsoft if you want, but they have a right to make money _their_ way as long as they're not forcing anyone to buy their products.
Using pirated Windows is the wrong way of doing it. Just because you don't agree with Microsoft's licence doesn't mean you are going to _violate_ it. If that's fair, then even I can violate the GNU GPL on the grounds of not agreeing with it. How would RMS like that?
He would probaly laugh. In order to violate the gpl I presume you would not publish the code of your derived works. This will benefit you in the very short term only. By the time you are able to leverage your product to a revenue earner it will be overun by a gpld product. The real strength of freesoftware is the inputs from all other participants at no cost. Other violations of gpl are almost passive and IMHO irrelevant. ;-) Piracy is if one sells or profits from an act. One can simply give it away to enemies.
It is far easier for Microsoft to violate the GNU GPL than it is for the FSF and friends to violate Microsoft EULAs.
No need. They can always suck on the BSD. M$ would also be fairly irrelevant in a couple of years if the copyright and patenting system is corrected to include the issues touched upon by FSF. They are important right now because they are in a position to leverage their existing monopoly on the desktop to restrict development by other hackers.
Sometime yesterday, jtdyahoo wrote:
If that's fair, then even I can violate the GNU GPL on the grounds of not agreeing with it. How would RMS like that?
He would probaly laugh.
Sure he won't laugh. He'll get mad at me.
Manish
Manish wrote:
It's okay to run Windows on someone else's machine. Just don't waste your machine for it. :-)
:-D
SameerDS.
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Sometime today, Nikhil Joshi wrote:
I have seen many Linux users (Linux users in general and not just linuxers) referring to Windows or it's apps in rather demeaning way e.g. window$,win....,M$ Win.., windoze, etc.
Sometimes, we just enjoy it. It used to be fun earlier on, but it's beginning to get on everyone's nerves. The Linux Advocacy HOWTO suggests that one shouldn't use such ``creative spelling'' to promote Linux.
Why are we so intolerant ? I mean we have been using this OS since it's arrival .Most of
Not everyone. I know Linux enthusiasts who've never used Windows. Such people consider themselves to be computer enthusiasts, and they like to play with Windows sometimes.
us (I am not sure but I guess) have dual boot system . I am
I am living in a Microsoft-free world. I don't use M$ :):) products anymore. I do sometimes, but that's when I really don't have a choice (e. g. at the cyber cafe).
not professing the use of Windows but I think it is imperative for us to understand that Windows is here to stay ,at least in the desktop environment .
I think Win9x is dead (WinXP sucks, even for the hardcore microserf). Win2k is here to stay. Win2k is a nice OS.
Also I think Windows is affordable for most users ( OEM stuff
But that's not an issue! Cost is Not an issue.
So the question is why do we hate Windows so much ? Are we jealous of it's success or is it just unwritten rule for Linux users to snub it ?
I hate Windows because it's too slow, too unflexible, crashes all the time (non-2k), and doesn't have bash, grep and related tools. More than Linux users hate Windows, they like Linux.
Manish
Nikhil wrote:
<about M$ bashing, affordable windoze, jealousy and stuff>
I would say that you keep an eye on the happenings in the IT world. Keep reading the news that come up on sites like slashdot and others. You will begin to realise quite a few things about the difference in commercial software and free software, the way M$ is moving ahead with its hegemony, etc. And remember one thing that M$ bashing has increased these days because of the active steps they have taken to crush free software and its variants. Earlier it was just a way of taking jabs at the competition.
SameerDS.
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Nikhil Joshi nikhiljoshy@yahoo.com wrote:
I have seen many Linux users (Linux users in general and not just linuxers) referring to Windows or it's apps in rather demeaning way e.g. window$,win....,M$ Win.., windoze, etc. Why are we so intolerant ? I mean we have been using this OS since it's arrival .
Good question.
Most
of us (I am not sure but I guess) have dual boot system . I am not professing the use of Windows but I think it is imperative for us to understand that Windows is here to stay ,at least in the desktop environment .
So? That does not mean we have to like it any better,
Also I think Windows is affordable for most users ( OEM stuff ) .So I think the argument that Windows costs a fortune is not true. In Linux too we have commercial distributions ( Suse,Corel, Red Hat Deluxe Workstation,etc..) whose costs are comparable to that of Windows 95 or 98 .
Bull. You can buy one boxed set of say, SuSe Linux, and install it on all of your computers as well as your neighbor's, without breaking the law. (Caveat: this may not hold good for any proprietary software that the distro has, but then, such packages are never a core part of the product, since they are generally demos or time-limited trials). This is not possible with any flavour of MS Windows, which is licenced on a per PC basis. Unless you negotiate special terms with M$ for a site licence or something similar, and pay through the nose for it, you're (legally) restricted to using your copy of Windows on just *one* PC. Thus, I would suggest that it is inviduous to even think of comparing the costs of Linux and Windows.
The second point here is that GNU/ Linux systems are in any case not comparable to Win9x products. They are incredibly more stable, secure and featureful. If at all you seek to make a (quite odious) comparison, look at Microsoft Windows NT/ 2000, which *claims* to be reliable, stable, secure, etc. The base price for a Win NT 5-user server licence is Rs. 33000+. Add around Rs. 1200 for every additional user, and for say a small establishment woth 15 users, you're looking at a base OS licence cost of Rs. 45000+. And mind you, this does not include anything additional to the base OS. You have to pay for a C compiler, you have to pay for a mail server, you have to pay for a RDBMS system, etc., etc. Addition of these things could double the price of your putative Windows system, at a minimum. And you get industrial-strength products in all thee categories, and many more, when you install Linux. And just think of Linux's incredible stability, performance, uptime, reliability and scalability, especially after the release of the 2.4 kernel. Did you know that Windows NT servers have to be rebooted regularly to keep them working consistently? Whereas Linux boxes just soldier on for years without needing reboots. Guess who's got the better bargain?
So the question is why do we hate Windows so much ? Are we jealous of it's success or is it just unwritten rule for Linux users to snub it ?
I program on Windows for a living, and so am fairly well acquainted with it, its quirks and foibles. One thing I have learned over the years (and I have been using MS products since 1986), is that Microsoft hit the nadir of product quality with the release of Win 9x and NT.
Working with MS is a frustrating experience, especially for systems programmers. Did you know that they charge for just about everything a systems programmer needs in terms of information to program for all the flavours of Windows? And not only do MS charge for some information, they actually hide other information that is critical to understanding the system, and they sometimes actively obfuscate it in their attempt to preserve their dirty little secrets (this last phrase, incidentally is not mine, but was coined by Matt Pietrek in "Windows 95 Systems Programming Secrets" - and Matt is one of the foremost authorities on Windows programming - he is in a senior technical position with Numega). In the final analysis, therefore, every one of Microsoft's actions is geared towards maximizing revenue and getting products to market, ready or not. This has impacted their quality control efforts, with the results that are before us to see, experience and tear our hair out.
Add to this their efforts to keep programming information secret, their attempts to break existing standards, their "embrace and extend" philosophy, their unwarranted and groundless attacks on free software, their long lag time to fix bugs, and their extreme arrogance in dealing with the public, and you have the perfect combination for the creation of a wave of revulsion towards them. I hope this answers your question.
Regards,
Krishnan
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
-
jtdyahoo -
Kompalli SuryaPrakash -
Manish Jethani -
Mayuresh A Kathe -
Nikhil Joshi -
Ninad Gupte -
Pankaj Jangid -
Philip S Tellis -
Prem D'Souza -
S. Krishnan -
Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe -
Satya