---What if you like Unix/Linux, Windows and MAC.
Then you realize that each system has its strengths, and show an open
mind. Mac's are sweet for video editing, my p4 rocks, but there are days
I wish I had a G5, thats for sure
--That's not the premise of MS. There are a lot of people in the world who
aren't all that into computers and the easier they are to use, from their
perspsective, the better.
You've obviously never seen a properly configured Linux terminal server
setup, 1 server, 25 stations, restricted applications for feeding orders
into the DB, nothing accessible/exported to the desktop /other than what
is needed/, if they login using the network account, they can get on the
web, send email, even use some IM (no files) but when they do so, they
are not in the group that can run/access the db and its associated pieces.
Ease of use, click click, web browser, click click, mail, boy thats hard.
Some people have other stuff to do than learn a
complex but powerful os.
Like downloading huge patches? Figuring out which patch to step out of
when it breaks existing applications or settings? Updating your virus
definitions? Running AdAware to clean some of the crap out of your
registry? manually editing registry keys out to prevent a virus from
auto-loading?
Yeah, learning to handle a fickle and at times /useless/ OS over and
over is much better than learning to do it properly ONCE.
What the hell does my grandmother have to gain by
learning Linux over Windows when most of the people she knows use Windows
Protection from a majority of viruses? freedom from the upgrade gerbil
wheel? freedom of her own machine and not having to agree to invasive
EULA's?
How do you know most of the people she knows use windows? I doubt you
asked, and you know what, /I doubt she asked either/.
The OS has fsck all to do with Web and Email.
and given the fact she ain't gonna be around much longer and doesn't want to
spend all her time learning grep.
Great, WHY WOULD SHE HAVE TO?
See, You obviously havent used linux in a while, if you assume that it
is all CLI, or only useable via the CLI.
There are people who change their Oil (clicking in a configuration
screen in a GUI) and people who change their transmission (CLI)
Depending on what you /want/ to do, dictates the commands/programs you
should familiarize yourself with.
You can easily configure a useable system that will access the web, play
mp3's, send email, watch flash animations, and most streaming movie
formats, that /never/ required a person to go to the CLI.
As far as the second part of your comment, what would Microsoft have to gain
by employing such a strategy? Do you really think Bill Gates is going direct
corporate policy in such a way that he'll build inferior stuff just so I can
go out and make money fixing it?
Uhh.... /YES/
Being a MVP, you may not know this, but have you looked at the Course,
and TEST fee's to obtain Microsoft Certifications recently?
Do you know how much money they made off the thousands of monkeys that
went through the MCSE program in the 90's ?
And all those people have (hopefully) started by fixing the machines,
and now (MS hopes) have advanced in their positions enough to influence
the purchasing of new machines/licensing.
Thay are the 'Microslaves' that people joke about, they have learned to
fix a inherently instable system, and their job depends on people 1)
Continuing to use the unstable Operating System and 2) Relying on
SOMEONE ELSE to fix it.
--Microsoft has NO control whatsoever over this. How can they stop me from
learning about other operating systems?
Bullshit, you take a look at the major textbooks for people taking their
MBA, there is little to no reference to linux, and its always tagged as
a 'hobbyist' OS, even though by the times many of these textbooks were
printed, linux was 10+ years old, and in major use as webservers and
databases, and had been adopted by IBM.
Microsoft has paid for 1000's of studies, knocking linux and supressing
its adpotion as long as possible, if you doubt me, look back to the
original Halloween documents, and realize the tactics they are willing
to use to suppress YOUR (the consumers) choices, and knowledge of
alternatives.
--How can you make this claim? There are more people using computers now
than there were pre Win95. More people on the internet too. And even if
your claim is correct, all that would be is a correlation.. how that's a
cause and effect relationship or even could be is beyond me.
Because it was Windows 95+ and its ease-of-use for every 12 year old
with a AOL CD that filled the lower reaches of the net with ****wits and
trolls.
The Internet was not perfect, but pre WWW and pre Win95, the average
intelligence of a Internet user was generally higher, and they tended to
be a bit more polite, because there were not as many ways to hide behind
anonimity.
Nonetheless, are you really trying to argue that on the whole, people are
less computer literate in the US for instance, in 2004 than they were in
1995? Come on, you can't possibly believe that
Sorry to dissapoint, but I /do/ believe it.
It used to take some skill, and intelligence to get on the Internet, or
to use a computer in general, reduce the amount of skill and
intelligence required, guess what, MATURITY and RESPONSIBILITY are
lowered as well.
You cant expect a 13 year old kid to clean his room, or walk the dog on
a regular basis sometimes, he's going to worry about patching his
operating system?
Windows pushed the 'entry level' for computers and the Internet /below
the waterline/ and we are all drowning in Viruses and spam /because of it/
--What about all of the people that know there are choices available but
choose Windows anyway?
Good for them, I just wish they would STFU about their viruses and
worms, and keep the hell off the internet if they cant excercise due
diligence.
How, if Windows is so inferior, do they so
overwhelming choose it in the first place?
Oh come now, you may be MVP, but dont kiss their ass acting stupid too much.
Pre-loads.
You and I know that as long as contracts exist with OEM's that Microsoft
will still count for a higher % of 'desktops shipped'
But HP, IBM, Dell etc are waking up.
And once they start selling larger numbers of desktops, they will be
able to undercut those retailers that still pre-load windows and charge
the windows tax on a new machine, and if /they/ want to stay in
business, MS changes its pricing, or they change the OS they load in
order to stay competitive.
Maybe, just maybe, a lot of
people want their hand held and the value of those alternatives isn't there
for them.
Then they should get a Mac, by far the most user-friendly systems I've
had to work with, and a nice common hardware base makes diagnosing
easier, less driver conflicts.
Do you mean as a desktop accessing the internet or as servers running it?
If it's the former you have to be kidding.
It is BOTH, and I'm not.
It is not secure enough to be allowed unprotected on the Internet. It
can go on the Internet via a firewall or router, but I honestly believe
that with the rapidity that Worms and Viruses are being released and
developed, and the lag time between release and a Antivirus signature
file being available, no Windows box should be DIRECTLY connected to the
Internet.
If it's the latter, then explain
why so many people use IIS and Windows even after they found out about
Linux.
Maybe because MS keeps lying to them about linux having a higher TCO,
and filling their mailboxes with bullshit studies about how difficult
and expensive migration will be, and how much better the next windows
will be....
Trust me, as more and more companies are calculating the patch/antivirus
costs in Overtime into their TCO's they are realizing that instead of
saving them money, their windows machines are COSTING them money.....
Are all of those people just ignorant or could it be many of them
made a conscious, informed decision albeit one that you don't agree with?
I think you confuse ignorant (unaware of a fact) with ignorant (belligerent)
If they chose Windows machines over linux for a Internet facing site,
then they didn't make an 'informed' decision.
I don't think any CEO who SERIOUSLY read up on the security flaws and
problems with windows, and consulted anyone without a vested interest in
Microsoft, would willingly choose to expose their company data to the
world by choosing an insecure server.
That's a pretty broad statement to make and it's a bit presumptuous to claim
that everyone who's running Wind2k, Win 2003 server etc could only have done
so out of ignorance.
I wont make any statement about W2k3, as I havent tried it yet, I have a
perfectly suitable server and desktop OS in one, and I have no wish to
step any further down the upgrade wheel, and I tell clients the same,
the longer they stick with Microsoft, the harder it will be to break
away, even non-techies understand vendor lock in.
Plus, showing business's the Ernie Ball story, and how Microsoft/BSA
treats their customers, and how desperate they are to gouge more $ out
of people is a wake up call.
Anyone who /pays/ thousands of dollars for an operating system that
isn't guaranteed for /any use/ with the manufacturer absolving
themselves of all legal responsibility in event of a problem, and taking
up 3 pages of legalese restricting your rights, and increasing their
own.....
Yes, I call that ignorance.
