tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post7812284141437210632..comments2023-08-20T11:07:28.396+01:00Comments on Freeborn John: Linux on DellPeter Risdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-8041916340829954412007-05-04T22:55:00.000+01:002007-05-04T22:55:00.000+01:00Fine stuff. M$ deserves your broadside. ...And I...Fine stuff. M$ deserves your broadside. ...And I'm impressed that you run NetBSD on your watch --- what d'you do on it? (Assuming that wasn't a joke which went over my head.) <BR/><BR/><I>"Install Linux now and everything is detected and loaded automatically (though MS's hardware detection system is the best of the lot)."</I><BR/><BR/>Wasn't aware that MS's hardware detection was better than the Linux kernel's, but you seem a good bit techier than I, so I'll take your word for it. Personally I find that the biggest pain about installing hardware and software and reconfiguring things on Windows is all the damn rebooting --- people don't seem to complain about this. Yet it's unnecessary: you can do pretty much anything on Linux (unless you're modifying the kernel itself) without having to reboot. <BR/><BR/><I>"I'm a free marketeer. I detest what MS has done to subvert and cripple the market."</I><BR/><BR/>I also. And it's good to hear that: most people seem to assume that being in favour of free markets means that one loves every large corporation on the planet. <BR/><BR/>Who are your top five worst offenders in this regard, by the way?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-68248240904785224442007-05-02T23:32:00.000+01:002007-05-02T23:32:00.000+01:00Phil, exactly.Mind you, FreeBSD deserves a mention...Phil, exactly.<BR/><BR/>Mind you, FreeBSD deserves a mention. Yahoo runs on it. MS took its tcp/ip stack, command line ftp and other bits of code, perfectly legitimately under the BSD license. It dominates the Netcraft uptime surveys. For ISP grade servers, I prefer it.<BR/><BR/>And I should have mentioned Debian in the original post; it's always been my favourite base distribution (Ubuntu is built on it, of course).Peter Risdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-54178944437233069072007-05-02T22:42:00.000+01:002007-05-02T22:42:00.000+01:00Linux is better and it is free. The applications a...Linux is better and it is free. The applications are free. The support is free. It is stable and secure. It releases you from the software/hardware escalation circle that both MS and Apple use to suck out your cash. The world's biggest online businesses use it eg Google and Amazon. What is there to discuss? MS is a marketing exercise totally reliant on an ignorant customer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-80593912737085399322007-05-02T14:34:00.000+01:002007-05-02T14:34:00.000+01:00"it was a nightmare to identify and automatically ..."it was a nightmare to identify and automatically load the drivers for all this"<BR/><BR/>It was really IBM's platform being available for other manufacturers to clone that has led to standardisation and ease of drive installation. Install Linux now and everything is detected and loaded automatically (though MS's hardware detection system is the best of the lot).<BR/><BR/>"The only way MicroSoft could lower the price is to give away their software for free (or for less)"<BR/><BR/>Eh? There's space between current pricing and zero.<BR/><BR/>"most people I know develop for IE then for the other browsers"<BR/><BR/>Plenty of developers do the opposite as I suggested. There's no empirical evidence, though, so we just have to disagree.<BR/><BR/>"the small white box in my front room attached to my TV is highly innoviative (not as much as the Wii perphaps) and is the future of much of MS's home computing"<BR/><BR/>It's just a container for existing technology, but it is their future I think, that and DRM.<BR/><BR/>"Didn't Open Office get developed with an eye on MS Office?"<BR/><BR/>No, Star Office, as it began, tried a whole different paradigm (a new virtual desktop). It was crap, though. Open Office has an eye on MS Office to a lesser degree than MSO had an eye on WordPerfect. They're both office suites, but OO is orientated towards open standards, whereas MSO tries to eliminate interoperability, even between versions of itself.<BR/><BR/>"when they did it allowed others to come snapping at their heels, DRDOS and Mozilla etc"<BR/><BR/>Wrong way round. The error messages in early copies of WfW3.11 and then the "compatibility" messages in W95 made people fearful of buying DRDOS and killed it (hence the subsequent litigation). That's when MSDOS development stopped.<BR/><BR/>Having killed Netscape (with a better browser, it has to be said), MS stopped developing IE. Mozilla was the rump of Netscape. Firefox is really a whole new Open Source development, and it has some very nice application orientated features that are underused right now (see Celtx).<BR/><BR/>"are they really a monopoly? For instance Google brand value is $66.4 billion and they spend *nothing* on marketing."<BR/><BR/>Isn't that a non sequitur? They're not a true monopoly like a government can be, but they have monopolistic power and abuse it. Marketing spend is neither here nor there.<BR/><BR/>"MS most valuable assets are fast turning into a liabilities."<BR/><BR/>Very, very true.Peter Risdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-91121561888738636582007-05-02T13:26:00.000+01:002007-05-02T13:26:00.000+01:00Bits I agree with, other bits no.The spread of com...Bits I agree with, other bits no.<BR/><BR/><I>The spread of computers has nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft, and by coupling their software to constantly increasing hardware requirements, MS has raised the price point, not lowered it.</I><BR/><BR/>To argue the point the other way, by disconnecting the software from the hardware it allowed 3rd party manufacters lower hardware costs. I spoke with someone that worked there back in the late 90's it was a nightmare to identify and automatically load the drivers for all this.<BR/><BR/>The only way MicroSoft could lower the price is to give away their software for free (or for less).<BR/><BR/>Even then, if I compare the lines of code in any 3rd generation console game at 50 pound a pop, vs an entire operating system (Vista) at 120 pounds, it starts to looks like more of a bargin.<BR/><BR/><I>When you're writing dynamic web services, you do the standards compliant version, then you put in the fixes for IE.</I><BR/><BR/>This isn't true, most people I know develop for IE then for the other browsers, simply because it is dominant.<BR/><BR/>As for the web standards, they aren't quick enough to define support of stuff. There is a highly amusing piece of dialogue where one developer introduces another to the benefits of XML, I'll see if I can dig it up later.<BR/><BR/><I>There have been MS innovations, but I can count them on the fingers of one hand.</I><BR/><BR/>This is shamefully true in the Windows space. That whole code stream is stagent. I've a copy of Vista and functionality it is just more of the same. However I assure that the small white box in my front room attached to my TV is highly innoviative (not as much as the Wii perphaps) and is the future of much of MS's home computing. The home PC is dying.<BR/><BR/><I>When a company like Apple innovates, then another company copies the innovations without the develoment costs, the ability of innovators to do research is diminished. </I><BR/><BR/>Funny that you chose Apple here, the same applies to any group. Didn't Open Office get developed with an eye on MS Office?<BR/><BR/><I>When MSDOS achieved a monopoly, MS just stopped developing it. When IE achieved a near monopoly, MS stopped developing it.</I><BR/><BR/>... and when they did it allowed others to come snapping at their heels, DRDOS and Mozilla etc. The thing about monopolies is that they cost a fortune to maintain, especially when the barrier to entry is so low.<BR/><BR/><I>"In 2005 Microsoft's annual turnover had reached $40 billion with an annual net profit of $12 billon ...</I><BR/><BR/>Agreed, but are they really a monopoly? For instance Google brand value is $66.4 billion and they spend *nothing* on marketing.<BR/><BR/>Basically, the thick client is dying and giving way to mobile phones, handheld devices. Standards enable Linux and co to run on other devices. Browser technology with Java is making hardware platforms irrelavent, companies like Google are making office programs that run in a generic browser.<BR/><BR/>MS most valuable assets are fast turning into a liabilities.<BR/><BR/>TFIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-6650291359911589552007-05-02T11:30:00.000+01:002007-05-02T11:30:00.000+01:00When MSDOS achieved a monopoly, MS just stopped de...When MSDOS achieved a monopoly, MS just stopped developing it. When IE achieved a near monopoly, MS stopped developing it. IE7 came years after IE6, and only after Opera, Firefox and all the other browsers had introduced innovation after innovation, which MS then copied for IE7. Meanwhile, users had been forced to use insecure, buggy browsers that couldn't even display graphics properly, and didn't comply with CSS2.<BR/><BR/>There have been MS innovations, but I can count them on the fingers of one hand. On the whole their strategy has been to gain dominance in one area of the market, then just stop others competing, stop development, and milk the consumers. They show 80% plus NET margins on some divisions - and you don't do that by investing in your product and delivering savings to your customers.<BR/><BR/>From the link I put in the main post:<BR/><BR/>"In 2005 Microsoft's annual turnover had reached $40 billion with an annual net profit of $12 billon.<BR/><BR/>This is what happens if a monopolist has been allowed to eliminate all serious competitors. By contrast, other Microsoft divisions such as Home Entertainment still have to compete with other players in the market, and these divisions declared losses up to a few hundred million dollars."Peter Risdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-27814247379583462562007-05-02T11:16:00.000+01:002007-05-02T11:16:00.000+01:00"MS have driven it all forward by popularizing and..."MS have driven it all forward by popularizing and lowering the price point"<BR/><BR/>The spread of computers has nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft, and by coupling their software to constantly increasing hardware requirements, MS has raised the price point, not lowered it. What MS's monopolistic practices have done is ensure that most people using the rapidly expanding technology of computing have to use their products.<BR/><BR/>The fancy new google services have <I>workarounds</I> to enable them to run in the broken, non-standards compliant plethora of IE versions. When you're writing dynamic web services, you do the standards compliant version, then you put in the fixes for IE.<BR/><BR/>When a company like Apple innovates, then another company copies the innovations without the develoment costs, the ability of innovators to do research is diminished. Worse, MS has actually bought companies and closed them down to stop good technology reaching consumers.Peter Risdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-421187885427512852007-05-02T11:09:00.000+01:002007-05-02T11:09:00.000+01:00They have set back computer technology by years.Ha...<I> They have set back computer technology by years.</I><BR/><BR/>Have they? Really?<BR/><BR/>It can be argued that the PC has come to end sometime ago, what is apple doing that MS isn't? Sure the UI is more pretty, but its not like there is a entire class of problems what one can solve and MS cannot.<BR/><BR/>All the inovation is going into chip design, mobiles, radio, hosted appilications and virtual machines. MS mobiles are not very good, and all these fancy new Google services etc all are designed to run in IE.<BR/><BR/>I don't really think that the arguement holds, I suspect that MS have driven it all forward by popularizing and lowering the price point at which us comsumers can put a PC in our homes.<BR/><BR/>TFIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com