Microsoft formally names Windows 7 release date

[CThinker]

I have to agree with Lance on this one. Linux may be great for servers and programmers (of C, C++, PHP and Java - nothing else) but as a business, chess or general user environment it's not up there with Windows. And Windows 7 would seem to be smokin' hot.

Go Bill, Go!

Steve

This is more a case of "I use what I grew up with." And most have grown up with windows. For chess, windows has absolutely no advantage over linux, and in fact, is generally worse. If you are talking about software availability, that is a different issue. There are more bicycles on the planet than automobiles. Doesn't mean the bicycles are better, however. Just that there are more of them.

It is, to me, quite valuable to not have to deal with virus issues and such, whereas the world of windows has a new scare and/or outbreak every day that goes by. A reasonable design would not have this kind of flaw built in.

I grew up with Solaris. But I out grew it. Yes! Freedom! Wasted years. I was also an early adopter of anything from Sun. The first to adopt Java. I'm present at Java One conferences where Scott McNealy would trash talk Microsoft and Windows. Anyone in his right mind can tell that they are all lies of course. Oddly, Sun ended-up as a seller of Windows Server OS.

As for you bicycle illustration, I think that is flawed. There are more bicycles because they are cheap.

You would think that Linux, being free, would have dominated the world by now, after 20 years. Its the other way around - Windows is way better, that users are willing to pay for it, and to overlook the shortcomings that it has.

From the false prophets:
1998 prediction - Linux would take over the world in 2000.
2000 prediction - Linux would take over the world in 2002.
Oops, XP and Win2K are too good.
2002 revised prediction - Linux would take over the world in 2006.
2006 prediction - Linux would take over the world in 2008.

[Zach Wegner]

You can't force garbage on to people. The world is not stupid.

I'm going to have to disagree there. The opposite is quite apparent to me.

[michiguel]

You can't force garbage on to people. The world is not stupid.

I'm going to have to disagree there. The opposite is quite apparent to me.

More than apparent, it is pathetically obvious. Advertising, peer pressure, and monopoly, can make people eat garbage and crave for it. This goes beyond OS's. The forces of social interaction are too strong to ignore.

Regarding W vs X, using popularity as an indication of quality is flawed. The vast majority of desktop users is not "really choosing".

Miguel

[Spock]

As far as installation goes, I can install Fedora 10 (and Fedora 11 as of tomorrow) in under an hour. I can start the process and when I return in 30 mins or so, all that is left is some last minute settings. I just installed XP (again) on my home box because it became corrupted in spite of windows firewall, a wireless router, anti-virus software, and it was a painful and slow process. You can't turn your back for over an hour or you will miss a question and have it sit there waiting on you...

I'm not sure that is entirely a fair comparison. XP is 8 years old, and Fedora 10, less than one year ? Vista and W7 ask you one or two questions, that is it. MS took on board that particular criticism. If you want to compare to XP, choose an 8 yr old Linux distro.

[Vladimir Xern]

Windows "Server" had 100% market share 10 years ago?

Microsoft did not even have a server division at that time. We are talking "servers".

10 years ago, servers were dominated by Sun.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016_3-6041804.html
http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_management ... 1126OSMRMS

Yes, I know 'Rocks', and I also know that you don't know what I am talking about when I say 'management' and MIBs. The question is how do you 'manage' machines. In the IT world, that means a very specific thing. What does Rocks have to do with that?

I quick IT for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatio ... re_Library

The fact is, Linux is very costly to manage. Support calls are plenty. There is no good desktop sharing. No centralized update. What you save in OS license, you pay for extra IT personnel.

I'd say Windows does have an edge here in immediate usability because of its monolithic model. Some of what it offers is very slick. However, as so often happens with Linux, there are a several alternatives to get most of the same functionality I think.

For group policy management, there's Puppet, Cfengine, Bcfg2, etc. Locking down can be as authoritative as you want and run the gamut from liberalism to sadism--withholding root of course, mounting the users' home directories noexec, probably several other things. Centralized updates and application deployment can be administered via an in-company repository, perhaps even automated by Puppet, Cfengine, or just ssh in a loop. There's even stuff like KDE's kiosk mode that "allows a system administrator to configure all aspects of the desktop for an end user and optionally prevent the end user from making modifications to the provided setup."

[bob]

I have to agree with Lance on this one. Linux may be great for servers and programmers (of C, C++, PHP and Java - nothing else) but as a business, chess or general user environment it's not up there with Windows. And Windows 7 would seem to be smokin' hot.

Go Bill, Go!

Steve

This is more a case of "I use what I grew up with." And most have grown up with windows. For chess, windows has absolutely no advantage over linux, and in fact, is generally worse. If you are talking about software availability, that is a different issue. There are more bicycles on the planet than automobiles. Doesn't mean the bicycles are better, however. Just that there are more of them.

It is, to me, quite valuable to not have to deal with virus issues and such, whereas the world of windows has a new scare and/or outbreak every day that goes by. A reasonable design would not have this kind of flaw built in.

I grew up with Solaris. But I out grew it. Yes! Freedom! Wasted years. I was also an early adopter of anything from Sun. The first to adopt Java. I'm present at Java One conferences where Scott McNealy would trash talk Microsoft and Windows. Anyone in his right mind can tell that they are all lies of course. Oddly, Sun ended-up as a seller of Windows Server OS.

As for you bicycle illustration, I think that is flawed. There are more bicycles because they are cheap.

You would think that Linux, being free, would have dominated the world by now, after 20 years. Its the other way around - Windows is way better, that users are willing to pay for it, and to overlook the shortcomings that it has.

You missed my point. Linux is catching up. reasonably quickly. Windows is _not_ pulling ahead in the server market. It is losing ground every year. Ever think why Microsoft has violated a golden principle of advertising, namely that of "do not compare yourself to your competition if you are ahead, because you only give them free advertising." Microsoft can see what is happening. And they know why. Performance. And there windows fails badly on large-scale server applications.

From the false prophets:
1998 prediction - Linux would take over the world in 2000.
2000 prediction - Linux would take over the world in 2002.
Oops, XP and Win2K are too good.
2002 revised prediction - Linux would take over the world in 2006.
2006 prediction - Linux would take over the world in 2008.

[bob]

As far as installation goes, I can install Fedora 10 (and Fedora 11 as of tomorrow) in under an hour. I can start the process and when I return in 30 mins or so, all that is left is some last minute settings. I just installed XP (again) on my home box because it became corrupted in spite of windows firewall, a wireless router, anti-virus software, and it was a painful and slow process. You can't turn your back for over an hour or you will miss a question and have it sit there waiting on you...

I'm not sure that is entirely a fair comparison. XP is 8 years old, and Fedora 10, less than one year ? Vista and W7 ask you one or two questions, that is it. MS took on board that particular criticism. If you want to compare to XP, choose an 8 yr old Linux distro.

Any fedora distro will do. The anaconda mechanism has not changed significantly since fedora came out of RedHat. I know of major businesses that have refused to even migrate to Vista due to problems. Where I work being one of them.

[bob]

OK, Linux or the MAC is for you then
And then, half your chess programs won't run at all.

That many really? I haven't found one that won't run on my Mac yet.

You have to hack around Fritz and 64-bit Rybka to get it to run on Wine. Who has time for that?

Its not politically correct to criticize Linux, but the reality is, its a total crap for the average user. Of the more than 500 distros, a tiny few is usable at all, by geeks.

The average user who has bought a Linux pre-installed on a netbook, returns it and exchanges for a Windows one. The consumer rejects Linux, totally. When netbooks first came out, they were "all" sold with Linux, but very few bought them. Now, almost all that are sold come with Windows. Windows pushed Linux out of the market in the only market that Linux is supposed to be good at - free OS on a cheap hardware.

If all one would do is browse the web, Ubuntu 'might' be usable. Now try installing Flash to watch youtube. Goodluck. "sudo aptget" what? Netflix? Edit raw photos with GIMP - not even doable, even if you could forgive the awful interface and crashing. Play Crysis anyone?

What is Linux good at then? If you can program, then its for you. It runs gcc well. It will surely run a chess engine that has a source code.

So you want an "easy to install" windows, that comes with lots of "easy to install" viruses? Lots of "easy to crash" system applications?

I've installed windows XP on multiple machines. Fedora 10 installs easier and faster. And (gasp) stays up for years unless you choose to take it down for a hardware upgrade or whatever...

Windows is horribly designed to allow the nonsense it allows.

It is not me who wants the easy-to-use and just-works environment. Its the world. That is a fact. Linux has less than 1% desktop use. Given that Linux is free and Windows cost a lot, something is definitely terribly wrong with Linux.

Someone gives you free food, and instead you opt to pay for another (expensive) food, simply says that it must be a terrible food.

Ive been a Linux user since 1993! Back then, X was not yet ported to Linux. Everything fit in 6 floppy disk. You multitask with virtual consoles (alt-1, alt-2,...). I have Ubuntu now, and it still sucks, as much as it did in 1993.

I'm sure you love your Linux. You know how to program right? Of course.

Let me give you another fact on Unix/Linux rejection by the non-programming IT world.

Before the year 2000, the server world is totally dominated by Unix. Windows server had zero market share. When Windows 2000 came out, together with Active Directory, the IT community celebrated. Finally, a server for the non-geeks.

In 2008, Windows Server had 70% market share. That's from 0% - 70% market share in 8 years.

You jumped too far forward too quickly. You do realize that 10 years ago windows was by far the most common server platform? And that over the last 10 years linux has eaten into that to reach the 30% point to day (and still growing). Care to guess why? Performance. Plain and simple. Linux scales far better on SMP boxes and clusters, the system is so much more reliable that we won't even mention windows in the same breath, etc...

Desktop World: Linux, 0% to <1% in 20 years. What a total flop!

Server World: Linux/Unix: 100% to 30% in 8 years, and still dropping.

That's off. Linux is not "dropping". It is climbing. So much that Microsoft has had to take notice. You ought to try to buy a large cluster from Dell and ask them to ship it with windows installed. Won't happen.

How do you configure Linux Servers? "Edit config files". Try enabling PXE on a Linux server. You have to edit at least six config files. What exactly should you put on those text files? Good luck. On Windows Server - one check box. Yes, one check box.

You should try distros from the last 5 years, not something from the 90's. I don't "edit config files". I run one of several dozen configuration utilities. Set up printers. Set up network. Set up file systems. And it is a lot more intuitive doing it in linux today than in windows.

How do you manage Linux/Unix servers? MIBs? That archaic MIBs? That sums up the problem with Linux - zero innovation, zero invention. The Linux kernel itself is a re-implementation of Unix.

Never heard of Rocks? Didn't think so.

Linus Torvalds re-implemented Unix, while Dave Cutler designed and built a totally new OS.

Sorry, but that is dead wrong. Windows NT kernel came _directly_ from a rewrite of DEC's VMS operating system. It is _still_ just as clunky today as it was back then. Shoot, about 6 years ago, Microsoft announced that a couple of their engineers had spent three years and had developed something they called a "symbolic link" in the file system. Ken Thompson had that working in the middle 70's.

I can easily tell you which one is smarter (and way, way richer). I have implemented an OS (Itron) and its a piece of cake. I have not invented one. That is the hard part. Even Apple has abandoned the OS that they invented. They now use BSD Unix, and charging people for it.

The Linux interfaces (confusing, multiple, non-complementing interfaces) is a re-implementation of the Windows interface. And a very bad copy at that. Nothing new, and missing a lot.

"re-implementation of windows."

We live in _different_ universes. Nobody in their right mind wants to re-implement windows. Any more than they want to re-invent the Edsel automobile.

Windows "Server" had 100% market share 10 years ago?

Where did _that_ come from? Not from me. But if you do a simple google search and compare windows vs linux server installations, Linux has steadily gained ground. Particularly in the last couple or three years where the newer kernels simply out-perform windows in real load environments.

Microsoft did not even have a server division at that time. We are talking "servers".

10 years ago, servers were dominated by Sun.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016_3-6041804.html
http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_management ... 1126OSMRMS

Yes, I know 'Rocks', and I also know that you don't know what I am talking about when I say 'management' and MIBs. The question is how do you 'manage' machines. In the IT world, that means a very specific thing. What does Rocks have to do with that?

I quick IT for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatio ... re_Library

The fact is, Linux is very costly to manage. Support calls are plenty. There is no good desktop sharing. No centralized update. What you save in OS license, you pay for extra IT personnel.

Hmmm... interesting to know there is "no centralized update" when we are using that every day.

So, you use Symbolic Links as an example of Windows being late to technology? You obviously don't know the reason why that was even added to NTFS. Unix apps are migrating to Windows. Many customers 'requested' that to help ease the migration. You can't teach these old Unix folks how to do things right, so, yeah, you just give them a compatibility feature.

crock, crock and more crock. Links were added because after 30 years, users said "enough... we want a feature like this so that we don't have to either duplicate files everywhere, or copy them around so that they appear where the app wants them rather than where we want them, etc." Nothing to do with porting from unix to windows. One does _not_ need links to port. Links are a convenience. One that unix has had from the get-go. As is an intelligent process scheduler, good VM management, high-performance file systems, etc...

So, nobody wants to re-implement windows? Tell that to the WINE folks and to ReactOS.

The fact is, Linux is trying to look like and behave like Windows. Taskbar, anyone? UAC? Samba? WINE? You mean, all of these are Linux ideas?

They are linux apps that give users the opportunity to run windows software. Nothing more, nothing less. This isn't the first time this has been done. Dec's alpha gave vax users the ability to use some included hardware to execute vax programs.

Not only is Windows being copied by programmers, it is also the most pirated software. Rather than install a free Linux, people would rather do the 'illegal' task of installing pirated copies of Windows. People go against their morals and avoid Linux. That is how bad Linux is. And that is even after you claim that Windows has viruses. Now, Linux looks even really, really bad.

I don't "claim" that windows has viruses. I "state" it as a fact. We have a computer forensics group here that spends all of their time working with the FBI on this very issue. They work closely with Microsoft as well. They don't deal with linux at all as _we_ don't have these problems and issues.

You can't force garbage on to people. The world is not stupid.

That's right, and the world is getting smarter every year. Linux is gaining, not losing ground.

[Vladimir Xern]

crock, crock and more crock. Links were added because after 30 years, users said "enough... we want a feature like this so that we don't have to either duplicate files everywhere, or copy them around so that they appear where the app wants them rather than where we want them, etc." Nothing to do with porting from unix to windows. One does _not_ need links to port. Links are a convenience. One that unix has had from the get-go. As is an intelligent process scheduler, good VM management, high-performance file systems, etc...

There's one other very obvious thing to add to this argument: Windows PowerShell anyone?

I don't "claim" that windows has viruses. I "state" it as a fact. We have a computer forensics group here that spends all of their time working with the FBI on this very issue. They work closely with Microsoft as well. They don't deal with linux at all as _we_ don't have these problems and issues.

Here's one notable recent example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker#Impact_in_Europe

Linux has its share of security faults. One wonders why they've been rarely exploited. I figure a major reason is its particular brand of security through obscurity (in regards to its popularity). Another one is simply its user architecture and the relative difficulty of privilege escalation, whereas Windows users have had to run as administrator to get any work done at all in the past. And of course, it can be hardened via SELinux, etc.

Then again, they can't all be OpenBSD.

[bob]

crock, crock and more crock. Links were added because after 30 years, users said "enough... we want a feature like this so that we don't have to either duplicate files everywhere, or copy them around so that they appear where the app wants them rather than where we want them, etc." Nothing to do with porting from unix to windows. One does _not_ need links to port. Links are a convenience. One that unix has had from the get-go. As is an intelligent process scheduler, good VM management, high-performance file systems, etc...

There's one other very obvious thing to add to this argument: Windows PowerShell anyone?

I don't "claim" that windows has viruses. I "state" it as a fact. We have a computer forensics group here that spends all of their time working with the FBI on this very issue. They work closely with Microsoft as well. They don't deal with linux at all as _we_ don't have these problems and issues.

Here's one notable recent example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker#Impact_in_Europe

Linux has its share of security faults. One wonders why they've been rarely exploited. I figure a major reason is its particular brand of security through obscurity (in regards to its popularity). Another one is simply its user architecture and the relative difficulty of privilege escalation, whereas Windows users have had to run as administrator to get any work done at all in the past. And of course, it can be hardened via SELinux, etc.

Then again, they can't all be OpenBSD.

The reason they aren't exploited is the mechanism needed. You can't break into a linux box with a virus. Viruses are not possible because unix doesn't allow email messages that get executed automatically by just clicking. The linux security issues, of which there are just a few, deal with login security issues. And as always, if someone doesn't protect their login and password, they open the door. Once the door is open, the issue becomes finding a mechanism to become super-user.

Windows has too many exploits to list. In the past couple of years, each fix adds two more holes. Windows automatic update probably consumes more network bandwidth than all other uses combined.