re: Bootable CD vs Dual-boot or new OS (was: ...AVG free...)
Monday, September 1, 2008 at 3:28 am
Windows 98 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by GG
(1 messages posted)
I agree with trying linux. At least with linux you can try a live cd to see if you
like the operating system and 99.99% of the linux os's are free. Microsoft can't
say that. With vista you don't even have a choice. You can try damn small linux,
ubuntu, xubuntu or puppy linux for your win98 desktop.
On Monday, August 25, 2008 at 3:57 pm, gewg_ wrote:
>|If Linux was so great, everyone WOULD be using it.
>| appleoddity
>|
>That ignores human nature to adapt to what exists.
>How many people do you know
>that buy the same brands their parents did for no apparent reason?
>
>It also ignores a few items at the core of the US vs MSFT case brought by the DoJ,
>not the least of which is the fact that
>for 25 years, someone buying an x86 system was FORCED to pay for a M$ OS
>--whether he wanted it or not; the concept is STILL common.
>http://www.google.com/search?q=Microsoft.Tax
>
>The inertia of decades of the old (monopoly) paradigm are difficult to overcome.
>If all systems came with BLANK hard drives, there would be greater parity.
>
>The European Union is trying to address this through laws forbidding bundling
>(instead, moving to an a la carte listing of all items and their actual costs).
>
>|But, anybody who HAS used it knows its pitfalls, unless they are just blind.
>|
>...as well its strengths (e.g. shell scripting[1]).
>
>Not having to BUY every app you use (Ghost, Partition Magic, M$Office,...)
>but getting equivalents of those for FREE, tips the balance for many
>(e.g. the cities of Largo, Florida and Munich, Germany).
>I also mentioned in this thread how Ernie Ball, Inc.
>butted heads over licensing with the Business Software Alliance
>(an honorary member of MAFIAA)--then
>chose Linux.
>
>|Just a few words: Integration, compatibility, ease-of-use, availability.
>|
>Yup. The inertia and persistent influence of a monopoly are in evidence here.
>I was just in an (ostensibly OS-agnostic) engineering newsgroup
>and Linux's inconsistency of look & feel across desktop environments
>as well as apps-to-app *was* mentioned--by a Linux user.
>
>OTOH, there are enough exemplars of cross-platform apps & hardware out there
>to clearly demonstrate that cross-platform availability is quite do-able.
>Again, outlawing bundling and going to an a la carte spec sheet
>will show folks what is *actually* available and what those items cost.
>Again: Choice is a Good Thing(tm).
>
>Computer users have a choice to make,
>weighing the relative advantages of the lock-in and lockout of proprietary offerings.
>I think planned obsolescence and deliberate lack of interoperability is NOT good.
>
>|The fact is the vast majority of software DOES NOT run on Linux,
>|
>How many of those apps
>actually have versions that will run on THIS version of Windoze?
>How many of them have UPDATES
>that will allow them to be run under LATER versions of M$ OSes?
>How many of those updates are at a low "upgrade" cost?
>How many generate files that cannot be used by a colleague who doesn't have the
app?
>
>Proprietary lock-in and closed source are weapons used against computer users
>to the advantage of unscrupulous for-profit corporations.
>The concepts for the 21st Century are
>"Open Standards", "Gratis and Libre", and "SERVICE-based Businesses".
>--things MSFT doesn't do (or they do them with the intention or BREAKING them;
>mentioned as "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" elsewhere in this thread).
>
>|and the FREE versions often leave much to be desired.
>|
>How many of these whiz-bang features in the payware actually get used?
>...and anyone actually doing a feature-by-feature comparison
>of Free Software vs proprietary apps
>will also find features in the Free column that are not in the payware column.
>
>I will acknowledge that M$ Excel is a shining example of a good proprietary app;
>if it was ported to ALL platforms, it would move up to excellent.
>Again: Choice is a Good Thing(tm).
>
>I can't remember the 19th Century politician's name
>or what exactly the metaphor related to,
>but he mentioned the concept of *What good is an infant?*.
>If monopoly influence was/is allowed to dominate all choices,
>then--just like Herod's victims--we would/will never know what WAS/IS possible.
>
>|You can show me a list of 100 apps that run on Linux,
>|and I can show you 10000 that run on Windows.
>|
>Not if you count all the things done with Linux shell scripts.
>The fact that M$ has the *everything GUI* mentality borked that for Windoze.
>An entirely new scripting language every few years didn't help M$ users either.
>
>Ever see the vast number of extensions for the Mozilla browsers?
>A clear demonstration of the power of Open Source software.
>
>...and most of the Open Source stuff runs on ANY platform.
>You can get familiar with it using it under Windoze
>and it's the SAME app when you start using Linux full-time.
>
>|Big deal. Think of all the huge hit games,
>|
>If you are a Windoze gamer, buy a Windoze box. Anyone with half a brain knows that.
>Serious gamers are moving to consoles.
>
>|and multi million dollar productivity, media, and design packages.
>|
>There is no reason those can't be ported to *n?x.
>Adobe has several items available already.
>As I am fond of saying here: Give your money to vendors WHO SUPPORT YOU.
>These days, SMART developers are choosing cross-platform-compatible widgets.
>
>|And to top it all off, most people wouldn't be able to
>|install, configure or even use Linux if their life depended on it,
>|[whereas] Windows gives you that power with a few intuitive clicks.
>|
>Empirically false. Neophytes will do equally poorly on poorly-supported software
>--no matter what the platform.
>
>...and Linux has better out-of-the-box hardware support
>than Windoze ever dreamed of.
>If it wasn't so, the Linux Live CDs wouldn't work;
>they would ask for device driver disks--AS MOST WINDOWS INSTALLS DO.
>(This is the reason Bart PE and the other bootable Windoze CDs are such a PITA.)
>
>The out-of-the-box config for most of Linux is sufficient for most users
>--just like with most of Windoze and its users
>(if you don't count all the 3rd-party band-aids that have to be applied
>to achieve the pseudo-safe state that passses for "security" with M$ OSes).
>
>WRT the *usable* issue--that's Windoze fanboi FUD.
>There are millions of Linux users who have a bone to pick with you.
>The ones that didn't use Windoze first would rate Windoze equally bad.
>
>An academic installed a Linux computer with a touchscreen in a brick wall
>in a slum in India. The neighborhood kids had it jumping thru hoops immediately.
>Damn. I can't find a link to the story now.
>
>People who are used to using certain key combinations to do certain tasks
>and who are used to having things in a specific place on the screen
>and who are incapable of adapting to new conditions will, of course,
>choose to stick with what they have--even past the point where it is not supported.
>
>Adaptable people, OTOH, will find that payware is largely foolish.
>When that payware uses dirty tricks to try to get you to continue to use it
>or to "upgrade" to later versions for no useful reason, it is unacceptable.
>
>|Linux has benefits, and it is a remarkable operating system, for free.
>|
>Careful. I see your resolve slipping. 8-)
>
>|But, Linux developers should take a look at Mac, and get a clue.
>|
>I won't argue with stealing good ideas.
>It's at the core of M$'s business model--Apple's too.
>
>|Mac is a perfect (Unix based) example of a [USABLE] operating system by the clueless.
>|
>Even the Mac fanbois don't go as far as _perfect_.
>..and I think you meant *for*--not *by*.
>Again, there is a yet another legion of folks who will disagree.
>...and there are folks who don't WANT to futz with their (Mac or other) boxes;
>they have people whose job it is to do that.
>Folks shouldn't have to know how an engine works to get a driver's license.
>
>|Linux is NOT and is not recommended for the faint of heart.
>|
>The existence of this forum and the number of posts to it is evidence
>that few mortals are able to maintain their own boxes--whatever the OS.
>Finding a good Support guy (or forum) is critical.
>
>|Its single biggest downfall
>|that will keep it from [ever] being a mainstream operating system is this:
>|Linux is like a patchwork quilt with dozens of different versions,
>|
>The number of Windows(NT) apps that require admin privileges to run
>(breaking any hope of having a secure operating environment)
>is clear evidence that the *patchwork* thing is not restricted to one OS.
>
>One would think that the *easily-infected* thing
>would have kept Windoze from gaining the market share it enjoys--but nope.
>
>...and the marketplace is full of many *worse* ideas that gained traction:
>QWERTY, x86's segmented model, Iomega Zip disks, VHS, NTSC,...
>
>|with different commands,
>|
>False.
>The CLI of the Unix (POSIX) environment across versions and distros is uniform.
>...and the wide range of utilities *comes* with the OS.
>
>|different looks and feel, and never ending different ways of doing things
>|based on which one of dozens of different versions you have.
>|
>If you want to mention the range of package managers or desktop environments,
>that's another matter; it's also a STRENGTH of Free Software.
>Again: Choice is a Good thing(tm). (I'm reminded of Apple's "1984" commercial.)
>
>...and even the WORST Linux package manager is orders of magnitude BETTER
>than what exists under Windoze for getting/updating apps and the OS.
>
>|And when you have a question about something,
>|the internet has about 1/10th the amount of information about it
>|than a similar [Windows] search - if you can find the answer at all.
>|
>Ah, the flaw of 21st Century existence:
>A *wealth* of Windoze answers--many of them WRONG.
>Obviously you haven't seen the phenomenal Ubuntu forums.
>
>|To anyone who isn't capable of utilizing the power of the Linux operating system
>|it all adds up to one thing - MESS!
>|
>More typical Windoze fanboi FUD.
>
>|Not to mention that Linux was never meant to be a desktop operating system,
>|that was an after thought,
>|
>Patently false. Linus developed it for his own general-purpose use.
>...and if you think the security model of ANY version of Windoze
>is appropriate for a workstation, you are simply delusional.
>
>|and is barely out of its infancy stages IMO.
>|
>I previously mentioned the *infant* thing and contrasted it with the *monopoly*
thing.
>As stated, test drives of Linux are dirt simple.
>Most people will find that if they boot to a Linux CD,
>without stumbling badly, they can do the stuff they normally do with a computer:
>documents, surfing, email.
>
>Power users are likely to find that WINE is a replacement for Windoze
>and their old Windoze-compatible apps will still run under Linux. YMMV.
>
>Trying to use a *WinModem* to do dial-up
>(as mentioned elsewhere in this thread) is a likely exception.
>While SOME "LinModems" 8-) have been gotten to work,[2]
>if you buy hardware that is SPECIFICALLY for Windoze, you get what you get.
>Those kinds of folks would likely go to a Ford dealer for parts for their Toyota.
>
>Using Linux is not significantly different
>that trying to use some random piece of hardware on a more recent M$ OS:
>The hardware has to be on the *Supported* list.
>Fortunately, the chances are BETTER with Linux.
>(Just boot to a Knoppix CD and see if it balks at anything.)
>
>
>[1] BASH scripting has remained consistent since 1978,
>while M$ comes up with a completely different scripting notion every few years.
>
>[2] Again, depending on how eager the vendor is to sell more of his products.
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 | | | | |  | re: Bootable CD vs Dual-boot or new OS (was: ...AVG free...) (GG: Mon, Sep 1, 2008, 3:28 am) |
| |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum
|
|
