Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Why Linux Has Failed Beginners

  • Subject: Re: Why Linux Has Failed Beginners
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 07:18:47 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / ISBE, Manchester University / ITS
  • References: <1CTAg.9787$_G.8279@newsfe10.phx> <1154749397.631790.261350@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Saturday 05 August 2006 04:43 \__

> Au79 wrote:
>> CoolTechZone.com - USA
>> (Column) - Over the years, I've had a number of people asking me what I
>> believe the problem was with further migration over to Linux by the public
>> at large. ...
> This is more Microsoft FUD.
> The fact is that Linux has a common core that is source code identical.
>  The same source code is used or core components such as the kernel,
> glibc, and most of the X11 libraries.
> There are also custom interfaces, but it's a bit like the controls on a
> car.  Some cars have the gearshift on the steering column, others have
> it on the floor.  Would you be unable to drive an automatic
> transmission car because it had the shifter on the floor instead of on
> the wheel.

You sure favour the car analogies. Here you compare Linux to a car, whereas
many would argue that car analogies are bad for Linux, primarily owing to
manufacturing costs (in a different context for a different type of

> In the past, the biggest problem has been the inability to know which
> machines are "Linux friendly" and which are "Linux Hostile".  Microsoft
> has tried very hard to create as much confusion as possible.

Perhaps someone can remind me why the Wi-Fi Linux compatibility list was
forced a removal, owing to Microsoft's involvement (it was there on Slapshot
, with proof). For a while, The Web Archive (Wayback machine) could still
bring up that page, but no more!

> In 1995, Linux could configure itself to most VLB based 80486 and
> Pentium machines.
> Microsoft created a different standard in which only Microsoft was
> supposed to know the exact codes for each type of PCI device.  These
> codes were never made public.  The Linux community had drivers, but had
> to figure out each of these codes.
> Last year, HP introduced an AMD-64 based computer, and it continued to
> hold value.
> Meanwhile the "Linux Hostile Machines" weren't selling.  The prices
> collapsed.  Machines initially offered for $1200 were selling for as
> little as $300 on clearance sales.

And eventually, inevitably, these were thrown out the Windows (pun). Machines
that restrict the owner are passed over without hesitance. There is /choice/
as far as vendors are concerned. But there still need to be some laws that
force inclusion of a sticker (or an alternative thereof) that indicates
compatibility with Linux. Here in the UK, this is already being done for DRM
(labelling), at least at a litigious or propsal level.

> This year, most of the "high end" machines are now optimized for Linux
> instead of Windows, and they are selling very well.  They are still
> sold with Windows preinstalled, but   can easily be upgraded to Linux.
> This growth has also been global.  China, for example, has 120 million
> new internet users.  Some countries now have as much as 40% of their
> users using Linux.

China forces all vendors to make their machines Linux-friendly, IIRC.

>> ....................
>> http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
> Best part of the whole post.

Evidence of industry's destruction. Should be in print.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index