Topic: Microsoft hero or villain have your say. Also Windows vs Linux.

[Nemesis]

NOTE:  Due to my very successful hi-jacking of the "Norton does it again..." thread I have split the thread into two topics.

Lets look at a typical malware identification checklist:

- resist uninstallation (x)
- persist after uninstallation attempts (x)
- reinstall after uninstallation or "by the roots" removal ()
- hide from the user (x)
- hide from the operating system (x)
- hide what they are doing * (x)
- damage the operating system (x)
- replace, interfere with, spoof, or hijack functions such as DNS resolution, home page, file associations and toolbars (x)
- create problems in order to sell you a "fix" for them (x)

MS Internet Explorer
MS Media Player
MS Messenger

It could be argued that MS Windows is as well.  Once Windows was an Operating Environment, now it has consumed the OS. 

I suspect that systems would be more stable if Microsoft would stop trying to create a monolithic system that includes everything and lets programs that can be separate from the OS be separate.

[Bonk]

I definitely agree about MSN messenger, its a real nasty bugger.

However none of those products from MS will cripple a windows box quite like Norton does. Also, MS is much more forthright with system requirements for such products, nor do they require an annual subscription, so not quite a valid comparison.

MS's success has been based on absorbing what works well with it. Remember the DOS4GW win32s for 3.11 to play stuff like doom?

[Nemesis]

I definitely agree about MSN messenger, its a real nasty bugger.

However none of those products from MS will cripple a windows box quite like Norton does. Also, MS is much more forthright with system requirements for such products, nor do they require an annual subscription, so not quite a valid comparison.

At least with Norton you can do a reinstall of your OS and eliminate the offender.  With the integrated components of Windows if you have a problem you cannot fully eliminate it without dumping Windows  itself and choosing another OS.  You should be able to dump IE, Messenger and Mediaplayer.  There is no technically valid reason to integrate them into the system and good reasons not to.

IE managed with one of its updates to eliminate my ability to access the internet I could connect but not actually interact with the internet.  One of the reasons that I don't allow autoupdate (and abandoned IE).  Another time I was house sitting and the computer there (with autoupdate turned off) did an autoupdate and bluescreened.  The computer was brand new and MS arbitrarily changed a motherboard driver that was not in fact compatible with the system.

Microsoft has tried to work towards subscription but always end up backing off.  But really what is XP activation but a subscription that they can revoke at any time?  They have said that they are likely to release a patch removing activation once they no longer support XP but not in a legally binding way, so once you need to reinstall after support is ended your XP may well be toast.  Under the DMCA using a hack to activate it without Microsofts consent is a potential jail term.

You might like to read this article on Microsoft Windows volume licensing.  (quote below from the article)

The new licensing program was more or less a "replacement" for Microsoft's older volume-licensing agreements, a replacement that is attempting to fuse software subscription ideology with mass licensing. Yep, this is step one in moving to a software-subscription model. Understand: this is ultimately about annualizing software costs and budgeting, both for IT shops in big biz and for Microsoft. No matter what changes Microsoft makes to the license to counter-act its poor reception, this key feature is likely to remain.

In essence volume licensing is a subscription and has been resisted strongly by customers with Microsoft progressively trying to force it on them.

MS's success has been based on absorbing what works well with it. Remember the DOS4GW win32s for 3.11 to play stuff like doom?

Microsofts success is based on "pay me per PC sold" and bundling / integrating products into Windows to kill any potential successor or competitor.  The U.S. anti-trust trial recognized this and forced the end of the "pay me even if they don't buy my product" deals which made competitive products more expensive than the Microsoft option.  It also forced Microsoft to stop bundling so they did an end run around the settlement by integrating.

The pay me per PC sold for DOS made sense until a competing OS was on the market.  After that it was only of use to Microsoft to maintain the dominance it had by being first.

DR DOS began to be competitive and threaten MS including an anti trust case that MS lost resulting in the payment of 100s of million by MS.   DOS and Windows were merged - no more DR DOS.

Netscape began to be viewed as a potential Windows killer.  Internet Explorer was bundled with Windows.  The anti trust judgement said "no more bundling" so they integrated it instead.  More 100s of millions in payment in an anti trust case.

Various media players began to be seen as threatening so MS Mediaplayer was integrated (to avoid the anti bundling judgement).

Now Open Source programs such a Firefox, Thunderbird and Open Office are seen as threatening.  Windows Vista is coming with DRM (Digital Rights Management), will you be able to use those programs without Microsoft restricting them?

Right now there is a fight going on in Massachusetts over office file formats.  There has been a lot of discussion on Groklaw about it.  In essence Massachusetts is adopting ODF (Open Document Format) and Microsoft is fighting it tooth and nail.  They claim that it excludes them from doing business with the Massachusetts government.  They ignore the fact that only Microsoft can be 100% compatible with DOC format and therefore no other company or group can compete for the business with Microsoft (that is the status quo being upset there).  They also ignore the fact that ODF is OPEN and anyone even Microsoft can implement it without fee.  They also conviently ignore the fact that they were part of the group that created the standard.

Here is a quote that really tells the basis of the whys for the Mass. decision.

Nicholas Carr:
Although I'm a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I have to admit that I haven't been paying much attention to this situation up until now. I assumed it was just another case of anti-Microsoftism, an assumption backed up by the press's "Massachusetts Dumps Office" headlines. I was wrong. This isn't about Microsoft. It's about a state government launching a serious and comprehensive initiative to replace its fragmented, inefficient set of traditional information systems with a modern, coherent, and flexible IT architecture that allows data to be shared and reused easily. The adoption of OpenDocument as a standard is just one element of the state's ambitious plan. As described in a comprehensive technical paper, called the Enterprise Technical Reference Model (ETRM), the state aims to make a transition "from siloed, application-centric and agency-centric information technology investments to an enterprise approach where applications are designed to be flexible, to take advantage of shared and reusable components, to facilitate the sharing and reuse of data where appropriate and to make the best use of the technology infrastructure that is available."

To me this is the beginning of the end for Microsoft.  They can either fight to the death or accept a fair place in the computer world.  I don't think that they will accept fairness until the current board is removed by the stock holders.  Notice I said removed not retired, so long as they can influence their successors I don't see any real changes.

[Sirgod]

You know, the more and more I read about Microsoft, The more I want to build another machine, just to use Open source. I'd keep this one of course, for the current library of games, But for buisness, chatting, Internet, It seems the Prudent thing to do.

Stephen

[Bonk]

I guess you disapprove of KDE (Konqueror) then Nemesis? 

Similarly, what about QNX Photon (Voyager)?

Should file managers not be integral to an OS? Where do you draw the line? Should an OS be a bare kernel only?

Stephen, have you checked out Knoppix?

Anyway, we're straying from the topic which is that Norton is undeniably evil.

[Nemesis]

You know, the more and more I read about Microsoft, The more I want to build another machine, just to use Open source. I'd keep this one of course, for the current library of games, But for buisness, chatting, Internet, It seems the Prudent thing to do.

Stephen

There are numerous Open Source programs that you can use on Windows.  For example I use Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, 7-Zip, PDF Creator, Notepad 2 and Filezilla on my Windows 2000 machine and some of those on my new laptop as well.

[Nemesis]

I guess you disapprove of KDE (Konqueror) then Nemesis? 

Different case on three major points.  (I do use KDE)

1/ Konquerer is integrated to a point with KDE.  KDE is an Operating Environment NOT an OS.  Just like Windows was before they set out to kill DR-DOS.  One of the advantages here is that crashing the OE need not mean crashing the OS.  Reloading the environment is quicker than a reboot.

2/ Konquerer is fully able to be replaced by a competing product that anyone should choose to make.  If Microsoft were to decide to make a version of IE 7 to replace Konqueror they could do so and the end user could install IE 7 in place of Konqueror.  You can't do that to IE on Windows.

3/ Except for those programs made specifically to integrate into KDE most programs that are operable on KDE also operate within other Operating Environments on Linux such as Gnome.  Some that you might think too integrated can still run under other environments.  K-Office which is made specifically for KDE is being ported to Windows.  (I've seen claims that Konquerer can run under Gnome and Nautilus under KDE but cannot vouche for that being factual).  I used the windows command line version of SETI on WINE under KDE because the Windows client was faster than the Linux one (faster under WINE than Windows in fact).

A couple of other points.  The HTML renderer used by Konqueror (KHTML) is not so tightly integrated into KDE that Apple was unable to extract it and use it as the renderer for the OSX Safari browser.  Could that be done with IE?  Also the Konqueror / KDE set of teams are looking at separating the various functions of Konqueror (file browser, web browser, image viewer, document viewer) into separate functions - each function could then be replaced individually.

A side note.  If Microsoft were to revert to a separate OS/OE like DOS/Win 3.1 then KDE could be ported to the MS OS.  (and I think would be if the OS had the right capabilities)

Similarly, what about QNX Photon (Voyager)?

Not familiar with it so can't comment.

Should file managers not be integral to an OS? Where do you draw the line? Should an OS be a bare kernel only?

No they shouldn't.  But integrating them (to a point) with the Operating Environment is a different thing.  Especially different if you leave it possible to remove it and replace it with a tool more to the liking of the end user.  Even more acceptable if the Operating Environment can be replaced and your (non integrated) applications can still work.

You used to be able to make replacement file browsers that replaced the one built into Windows.  Microsoft blocked that avenue.  You can still make one that can be installed as well as the integrated one but you can't substitute one for another.

Anyway, we're straying from the topic which is that Norton is undeniably evil.

I won't go so far as to say Norton is evil.  Stupid and greedy more than malevolent.  If they were proven (as some have alleged) to be the source of some of the viruses and worms that they fight then I would have to agree to the evil, but I don't believe them guilty.  I wouldn't say Microsoft is evil either.  Greedy, arrogant and criminal yes but not evil.

[Bonk]

I was aware (of course) that KDE is a windowing system not an OS, and expected you to make that distinction, nevertheless I think my comparison stands.

How come nobody complains about MSPaint when Photohop is obviously a competing product? (In my opinion IE is to Mozilla what MSPaint is to Photoshop). What about Gimp?

I just do not have any problem at all with IE being present on my system, it is not my default browser, I do not enable web content on my desktop or the windows explorer, I do not use IE at all... it's pretty much irrelevant to me that it is still present. It does not do anything unless I ask it to.

Yes, I would like to see different windowing systems for windows as well...

Ok, if neither internet browsers or file managers should be integrated with an OS in your opinion, what about the tcp/ip protocol? Should it be seperate from the OS as well? What about the command line? Doesn't dir,ls... etc. count as a basic file management system? Are you really suggesting that MS should have to be a bare kernel? This is a commercial death sentence. Why don't you feel that Apple should have to follow similar restrictions? What about the pig known as Novell? <gag, puke>

What should the new computer user do? Lets say a first time PC purchaser gets home with their brand new windows PC and they want to connect to the internet. Lets say none of their neighbors is online either. So if IE is not preinstalled on the box then they have to go to the store to buy an FTP program install it to download a web browser which they can then browse with... IE saved me that step.

How come no one complains about Safari on MacOS?

I think this all goes back to the whole silly Netscape anti-trust suit.... totally absurd. People need to let go.  Legislation will never be able to keep up with software, nor should it even try.

Just to be clear, I am not a rabid pro or anti MS type. I like to experiment with all kinds of OSs. QNX being my all-time favorite, you really ought to check it out: http://www.QNX.com

edit: what about Vxworks and the embedded http server that comes preloaded on Linksys routers? Should I have ot install a webserver and DHCP server on my Linksys router after I purchase it? That would be a real pain... I hope you are beginning to see my point.

[Nemesis]

I was aware (of course) that KDE is a windowing system not an OS, and expected you to make that distinction, nevertheless I think my comparison stands.

Only if you neglect 2 facts. 

1st - If SUSE, Redhat or Mandriva (to name the big 3 Linux distributions) wanted to replace Konqueror they could do so.  Dell, HP and IBM (to name the big 3 PC companies) can't replace IE in Windows.

2nd - KDE is one of the 2 major Windowing shells for Linux.  Most programs will work on both major shells and on the minor ones as well.  Microsoft does its best to block competition from running Windows programs. 

How come nobody complains about MSPaint when Photohop is obviously a competing product? (In my opinion IE is to Mozilla what MSPaint is to Photoshop). What about Gimp?

No one complains about MS Paint because it is a toy of minimal usefulness compared to a pro program like Photoshop and you can remove it fully from the system or just choose not to install it (like I do).

Having only the most limited artistic ability I can't say much about the Gimp.  I do know that it has limits on its ability to do some things that Photoshop does because of patents covering certain colour abilities (colour separations for printing I think).  Software patents are a different kettle of fish that also smells.

Ok, if neither internet browsers or file managers should be integrated with an OS in your opinion, what about the tcp/ip protocol? Should it be seperate from the OS as well? What about the command line? Doesn't dir,ls... etc. count as a basic file management system? Are you really suggesting that MS should have to be a bare kernel? This is a commercial death sentence. Why don't you feel that Apple should have to follow similar restrictions? What about the pig known as Novell? <gag, puke>

If you want a command line system to run a print server without the overhead of a GUI why should you be stuck with the GUI?  Why should you be forced to have the GUI and its potential for crashing you programs and security vulnerabilities if you don't need or want them?  Closer to home why does the Dynaverse server for SFC need a GUI? Might it not be more stable if it didn't have to share resources with the GUI that it doesn't actually need?

With Linux ls and other commands are part of a replaceable shell.  You don't have to use the BASH shell that most distributions include if you don't like it.  There are many others the C-Shell and Korne shell for two.  Choose the one you like or create your own.  You used to be able to replace the command line shell in DOS, it was rarely done but you could do it.

Things like the TCP/IP stack need not be integrated into the core of the system.  For Windows Microsoft originally took the BSD/Unix stack and modified it (as Apple did with KHTML from KDE for Safari).  I doubt that they could have done so if it were totally integrated with the BSD kernel.  They don't mind open source where they can take and not give back.  So long as it is not integrated if some competitor comes up with something more useful to you replacement is an option.  Integrated means you are stuck with what Microsoft give you and if it is a problem - too bad.

I do think that other systems such as Apple and Novel should follow the same restrictions.  I know less about them however and they don't have the position and history of being judged an abusive monopoly like Microsoft. 

What should the new computer user do? Lets say a first time PC purchaser gets home with their brand new windows PC and they want to connect to the internet. Lets say none of their neighbors is online either. So if IE is not preinstalled on the box then they have to go to the store to buy an FTP program install it to download a web browser which they can then browse with... IE saved me that step.

Without the mandatory bundling by Microsoft the individual company whether a Dell, HP, IBM or the local store down the street could bundle either the features that they choose or that the customer wants.  If the customer wants to change things later (say strip the old machine down as a print server) then he should be able to.  The choice should ultimately reside with the customer not an abusive monopoly.

How come no one complains about Safari on MacOS?

I don't have any Mac experience so I can't say much. I can't even say if Safari is integrated or bundled. 

If bundled given that the primary competing OS has an integrated browser I don't see a problem as long as distributors can remove it and replace it without punitive actions by Apple.

I think this all goes back to the whole silly Netscape anti-trust suit.... totally absurd. People need to let go.  Legislation will never be able to keep up with software, nor should it even try.

When a company uses a monopoly position to destroy a company that is viewed as having the potential to upset the monopoly I don't call the lawsuit silly. 

Among the things that Microsoft did was forbid Windows distributors from installing Netscape as well as IE.  If they hadn't restricted what distributors could do that way (remove IE and install a replacement or nothing) they would likely not have had the lawsuit.

Then falsifying evidence in the trial (and not being penalized) really annoys me.  Why didn't Microsoft at least face an immediate major fine and jail sentences for the executives who ordered the falsification?  Where were the perjury charges for stating under oath that the evidence was real? 

Just to be clear, I am not a rabid pro or anti MS type. I like to experiment with all kinds of OSs. QNX being my all-time favorite, you really ought to check it out: http://www.QNX.com

Time limits and hardware limits.  I'm learning Linux and can only put just so much time into it.  I can also only dedicate hardware to a limited number of operating systems.  Linux seems to me to be my best choice for a Windows replacement.  You may of course find a different system better for your personal usage.

If Microsoft would understand that it is my computer not theirs and allow me to control it my way and stop activities designed to eliminate my choices I would not be moving towards Linux.  The tighter they close their fist the more people resist and the stronger Linux becomes.  I'm not running away, Microsoft is driving me away.

Myself I would like to see Apple and Linux grow to equal Windows (and leave 5-10% of the market for niche OSs to grow in).

edit: what about Vxworks and the embedded http server that comes preloaded on Linksys routers? Should I have ot install a webserver and DHCP server on my Linksys router after I purchase it? That would be a real pain... I hope you are beginning to see my point.

The router market leaves you many choices. 

If you don't like one router manufacturers choices you can easily choose another and still use all your programs. Unlike the situation with Microsoft.  You can't choose a different model of Windows without IE or switch to a different Windows manufacturer if Microsoft bundles don't suit your needs or desires.

There is (last I knew) even a Linksys router based on Linux and since they released (reluctantly) the source there are many variations on the software which allows you to pick and choose what abilities you want with that model(s) of router.  No company is in the position to force you to use only what they choose.  Open standards allow competition.  I wish more hardware manufacturers would open up the software for their hardware. 

Here is a question for you.  Why did Microsoft buy a license to "Unix technologies" from the SCO group?  (May 2003)  If you have been following the SCO VS the World lawsuits you will know that SCO seems to have no patents.  The only "Intellectual properties" that they may have are trade secrets (that you don't have to license if you independently create them) and maybe some source code copyrights (which you don't need to license if you don't have access to the code).  What did they they get for their multi million dollar licensing fees, what are they doing with it and why did they need it?  Or were they just funding The SCO Groups anti Linux campaign?

[Bonk]

When a company uses a monopoly position to destroy a company that is viewed as having the potential to upset the monopoly I don't call the lawsuit silly.

What was stopping Netscape from building an OS to bundle with its browser as MS had done? I still see this as Netscape being a bunch of cry babies. I mean its basically a Mozilla skin for chrissake...    Conversely IE is based on NCSA Mosaic which MS paid for.

Here is a question for you.  Why did Microsoft buy a license to "Unix technologies" from the SCO group?

Maybe because as a corporation, they were prophylactically trying to legally protect themselves by doing so, as opposed to any open source project which really has nothing to lose by just taking from SCO. (if indeed they have).

Oi, cool your evangelical jets there boy! 

This thread is supposed to be about the evils of Norton however, and I actually am rabidly anti-Norton. MS does not compare at alll with Norton. Not at all... (check the very first post in this thread to see why).

[Nemesis]

What was stopping Netscape from building an OS to bundle with its browser as MS had done?

The Microsoft tax.  Remember the Microsoft contracts where they were set up as "pay me per PC sold".  No major company could afford not to sell the dominant OS.  Any competing OS price was that of the author plus the auto 7payment to Microsoft.

I still see this as Netscape being a bunch of cry babies. I mean its basically a Mozilla skin for chrissake... 

You are backwards there.  After AOL bought Netscape (and won the anti-trust suit) they spun out Mozilla as an open source version of Netscape.  Mozilla evolved out of Netscape and now AOL rebrands Mozilla as Netscape.

In a way things have come full circle and Netscapes grand children Firefox and Thunderbird are once more challenging Microsoft.  This time they are open source and not economically vulnerable.

Conversely IE is based on NSCA Mosaic which MS paid for.

Here is something you may have forgotton (or never knew) about Mosaic and Netscape.

While an undergraduate at the University of Illinois, Andreessen and seven other programmers wrote the first graphical browser for the World Wide Web called MOSAIC (1992). After graduating, Jim Clark and Adreessen founded Netscape (1994) to market the browser.

The same authors created MOSAIC and Netscape. Link to some history

Maybe because as a corporation, they were prophylactically trying to legally protect themselves by doing so,

What were they doing (or planning to do) that they could get in trouble with SCO for? 

Remember The SCO Group has no patents and any copyrights they may have are only on source code and manuals.  What use are Unix source code and manuals to Microsoft?  Add that SCOs Unix is considered to be far out of date, what would Microsoft want with outdated Unix?  SCO doesn't even own the Trademark to the Unix name.  They give every appearance to having paid millions for absolutely nothing tangible.

If they needed UNIX code, BSD/Unix code is freely available to them so long as they acknowledge that they are using it.  BSD/Unix is also up to date unlike the SCO version.

as opposed to any open source project which really has nothing to lose by just taking from SCO. (if indeed they have).

Oi, cool your evangelical jets there boy! 

About a year ago the judge in the SCO vs IBM case (now ending its third year of discovery) stated that SCO had not yet shown a single shred of evidence of any copyright violation. 

When you consider that the code for Linux is all public it should be extremely easy for SCO to find and show code taken from them and put in Linux. 

Remember that Linux based Linksys router?  The author of part of that code was able to identify its use even though he did not have access to the source from Linksys.  If he could discover and prove copyright violation of his source without access to the Linksys source then SCO should be able to do the same quite easily when they have access to the Linux source.  So far they have failed utterly. 

Not only has SCO been unable to show any evidence to the judge, some code that they showed semi-publicly in "encrypted" form (displayed with a wingdings font instead of a text font) was converted back to normal text and shown to be code legally transferred from BSD and which has a traceable history back to a court case between the University of Berkeley and AT&T where it was proven to belong to BSD not AT&T.

The only instances where they have shown code that they claim it has been proven they don't own it and never did.

this thread is supposed to be about the evils of Norton however, and I actually am rabidly anti-Norton. MS does not compare at alll with Norton. Not at all... (check the very first post in this thread to see why).

Maybe time to see if I can figure out how to split a thread?  I've been thinking of that in any case as the discussion has two threads now.  Maybe even 3 if we get going on the SCO case seriously .

[Mr_Tricorder]

Instead of arguing what an OS should be, who's limiting who, and who are the supreme winners or sore losers of legal battles, just look at it objectively.  How much should the OS incorporate?  As much as you want it to.  That's the real beauty of Linux.  You can find a distro with as many or as few of programs you like with a wide variety of operating environments to choose from.  Microsoft doesn't give you that wide range.  Linux comes in 31 thousand flavors.  Windows comes in Vanilla and slightly different Vanilla.
Why doesn't anyone complain about software bundled with the Mac OS?  Basically, the people who use Macs are the people who especially like Macs over Windows, so why would they complain about using a product that they liked?  Windows, being so much the mainstream that you have to go out of your way to not use it, is not the same case.  There are many unhappy Windows users that either can't use anything else or don't want to take the time and effort to use something else.  Once these people get so fed up with Windows and Microsoft in general, they will finally have enough encentive to look elsewhere for their computing needs.  It's happening with IE, it's beginning to happen with MS Office, and it's moving in that direction for the whole OS in general.  There are more non-Windows users than there have been in a long time, and the Mac, Linux, and FreeBSD communities are growing.

[E_Look]

Get developers to write apps that most people normally use for Linux and I'll be happy to sign on.  I used to like DOS over Unix and I suppose, despite my kvetches about Windows, I prefer it over any Linux for a similar reason.  However, an OS can be easily learned, even if it takes just a bit of getting used to it.  So what's holding me back?  Like I said, I don't think I can write, calculate, prepare presentations, and play SFC on Linux.

If the Linux ond open source folks can make this come true, they'd have a real revolution on their hands, instead of one that is only in computer magazine articles.

THIS is where Bill Gates and Microsoft are ingenious and enduring- he/they know how to grab a market by the horns and hold it in a headlock.  What we need is a couple, or better yet, a few bigger bullies to loosen his stranglehold and make sure not one of them gets killed, not even Microsoft so that competition reigns supreme, not one of those self interested businesses/businessmen.  It really doesn't matter if the type of OS gets changed, only that it is accessible and widely accepted.  It's no good if I completely embrace Linux and reject Windows and find that no one else's computers can read my files or be linked to my computer.

Ye proselytizers of Linux!  Go ye among all men, not only thine geekdom brethren and see to it that they useth and writeth apps for Linux!  Else, thine efforts are for naught.

[Mr_Tricorder]

Just about every major app that most people use either has a Linux version or there is a very similar Linux app that does the same job and is just as easy to use.  With most distros you can surf the net, use office apps (compatible with MS Office), chat, upload and download via FTP client, create 2D and in some cases 3D art, listen to music, edit sound files, watch movies, edit video files, program, do p2p file transfering, burn CDs and DVDs, and much more right out of the box with no prior Linux experience or extra head-scratching  needed.  Hardware support has been increasing exponentially, the install process is becoming much easier even with the traditionally tougher distros, such as debian.  The need for using the command line interface has pretty much disappeared on the more user-friendly distros, and even the ones geared towards intermediate and advanced users are adding new user-friendly GUI features so users don't need to muck around with a command line as much.

You say Linux doesn't have the apps?  Linux has all of the apps you need.  Just download a Live CD distro and try it out for yourself.  I'll find you'll be able to write, calculate, and prepare presentations just fine running Linux straight off the CD.  Playing SFC is a slightly different matter, but it is possible.  You can use Cedega, a Wine based app that lets you play hundreds of games, including all of the SFC games, on Linux.  Sadly, it isn't free, but it's an option if you want Linux but have to have your games too.  Personally, I'm perfectly happy dual-booting in order to play my games (just about every Linux distro can very easily be set up to dual-boot with Windows or any other OS without any extra software required).

[E_Look]

You know, I am, like many, many others, not all that aware of all this and the availability of such an array of programs for Linux.

There has to be a bit more publicity!  I hate extreme Madison Avenue style advertising as much as the next guy, but there has to be a bit more effective communication to get the word out.  As it is, I still foresee running Windows boxes in my house for some time.  Say, can the Linux office applications port their files out to (other folks') Windows machines and programs?

[Mr_Tricorder]

Most Linux distros come with Open Office pre-installed, which is also available for Windows, FreeBSD, Macintosh, and Solaris.  It can read and write all MS Office file types and is comparable to MS Office in just about every way.  You can download it for free here http://www.openoffice.org/.  Also, there is a portable version that runs straight off of a flash drive (also free) found here http://portableapps.com/apps/office/suites/portable_openoffice.

In fact, many Linux apps have been ported to Windows, Mac, and other OSes.  For IM, I use Gaim, and open source IM client that uses multiple protocols, such as AIM, ICQ, Gadu-Gadu, GroupWise, IRC, Jabber, MSN, Napster, SILC, and Yahoo.  It integrates multiple accounts seamlessly into one buddy list.  You can download it here http://gaim.sourceforge.net/downloads.php and the portable version here http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/chat/portable_gaim.

I'm sure you already know about Firefox and Thunderbird, which were originally developed for Linux and then ported to Windows and Mac.  There is also a portable version of Firefox here http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/browsers/portable_firefox and Thunderbird here http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/email/portable_thunderbird.

Linux has a reputation of being a "geeks only" OS, and up until fairly recently that was true.  Because of this stereotype, most people tend to ignore anything that has to do with Linux.  Because Linux is more community based and less corporate based, the funding for an aggressive ad campaign to rival Microsoft just isn't there.  Linux spreads mainly by word-of-mouth, which is pretty much how Firefox spread.  I don't remember ever seeing one single Firefox commercial on TV, and I didn't start seeing Firefox adds in newspapers or magazines until after it became the second most widely used browser.  The same thing is slowly happening for Open Office and Linux.  More and more "non-geeky" people are testing out open source alternatives to apps that they've been using for years.  Microsoft is slowly but steadily losing their iron grip on the computing world, and I hope this trend continues.  I'm not anti-Microsoft, but I hate the way it and similar companies, such as Symantec, have been putting mediocre software on the shelves and raking in the dough because people believe that there is no better alternative.  Open Source is not only cheaper (and usually free), I've found out that in many cases it's much better quality.

You say there has to be more publicity.  I totally agree with you and am therefore providing a little bit more publicity with this post.

[Nemesis]

Get developers to write apps that most people normally use for Linux and I'll be happy to sign on.  I used to like DOS over Unix and I suppose, despite my kvetches about Windows, I prefer it over any Linux for a similar reason.  However, an OS can be easily learned, even if it takes just a bit of getting used to it.  So what's holding me back?  Like I said, I don't think I can write, calculate, prepare presentations, and play SFC on Linux.

Open Office For Windows and Linux will let you "write, calculate, prepare presentations" without Microsoft office and handles MS DOC format.  Also includes a database and is available in numerous languages, one of my co-workers uses it in Romanian.

Portable Office if you want to try Open Office on Windows without installing

Playing SFC or other windows games on Linux I haven't tried.

What other apps do you want?  Seriously tell us they may well be out there.  Many open programs available for Windows started on Linux and were ported to Windows.

If the Linux ond open source folks can make this come true, they'd have a real revolution on their hands, instead of one that is only in computer magazine articles.

Go to a large bookstore and look at the computer magazine rack.  If it is anything like here there will be 6-10 Linux magazines on the shelf, several including CDs or a DVD of software.  Check you book stores computer section and you will find a significant variety of Linux books.  There are also beginning to be books on other open source software like Firefox for example. 

Linux growth is like "The year of the Network".  That year was declared by the media over and over but never happened.  What did happen is slow steady growth until one day networks just were everywhere.  Linux and open source software if following that path.

THIS is where Bill Gates and Microsoft are ingenious and enduring- he/they know how to grab a market by the horns and hold it in a headlock.  What we need is a couple, or better yet, a few bigger bullies to loosen his stranglehold and make sure not one of them gets killed, not even Microsoft so that competition reigns supreme, not one of those self interested businesses/businessmen.  It really doesn't matter if the type of OS gets changed, only that it is accessible and widely accepted.  It's no good if I completely embrace Linux and reject Windows and find that no one else's computers can read my files or be linked to my computer.

Linux can read/write FAT32 (see note below on FAT patent).  With SAMBA it can handle networking with Windows machines.  Open Office can handle MS Office formats (not 100% on complex documents but close).  These two things let you read files from Windows disks and use many of the files that people want.  What other access abilities would you like?  They may already exist so ask away.

Microsoft is stuggling to get a handle on Linux.  The traditional marketing techniques don't work when your opponent does not need to make money to be successful.  How do you undercut free?  Open Source programs can really use a release schedule of "when its good enough" not by the date required to make the next revenue forecast.

Red Hat and Mandriva are in the black selling services for Linux.  The first year IBM invested in Linux they spent $1 Billion on it and profited. 

The only substantial fly in the ointment at present is the lawsuits by The SCO Group vs IBM, Autozone and Novel.  Plus the related Redhat vs The Sco Group.  None of those are going well for SCO (which is good for Linux).  The Chrysler case was already won (by Chrysler).

For more info see Groklaw (link in my sig).

Ye proselytizers of Linux!  Go ye among all men, not only thine geekdom brethren and see to it that they useth and writeth apps for Linux!  Else, thine efforts are for naught.

There are only two things that I could see stopping Linux and open source software.  The first is Microsoft getting legislation passed defacto outlawing Open Source (such laws have already been defeated more than once).  The other is getting all the major motherboard makers to change the BIOS in a way that requires an "signed and authorized" OS to boot.  Only a commercial Linux could have the signature and the open development model would be screwed over.

There is however work going on to produce a Linux BIOS.  The big problem is getting it accepted by hardware manufacturers.

You know, I am, like many, many others, not all that aware of all this and the availability of such an array of programs for Linux.

Firefox took out a one day two page add in the New York Times.  Pretty good for a non profit operation. 

Massachusetts is adopting ODF and Open Office is getting a lot of publicity over that.  Microsoft keeps trying to claim that only Open Office supports ODF (which is false).  But that deception keeps Open Office in the news and in front of people.  (ODF = Open Document Format).

Massachusetts is also in discussion with 25 other states on standards for exchanging documents, obviously Massachusetts will be pushing ODF.  If they prevail then half of the U.S. states will be using a common non Microsoft office file format.

Now imagine your company wants to do business with the one of these state governments after the adoption of ODF, you must submit documents in ODF which Microsoft refuses to support.  If you are a small company and the government is a big client you will likely adopt ODF.  To use ODF you would need to use OpenOffice.org, Star Office, IBM Smart Suite, KOffice or WordPerfect Office (more may come later).  Three of those choices work under Linux, 4 under windows (with the 5th being ported).  Two are open source and free.  Even big companies like the auto companies would be under pressure to adopt ODF.

Once the Microsoft Office addiction is broken it becomes much easier for a company to move to Linux.

Note on the FAT patent:  Microsoft several years ago filed for a patent on the FAT file system and it was awarded.  They went after makers of digital cameras and flash media for royalties.  They were fought through the patent office but not yet the courts and initially the patent was ruled invalid.  It was ruled invalid a 2nd time.  The 3rd time (just last week) in a review where only Microsoft was allowed to testify it was ruled valid.  I assume that soon they will go back to trying to enforce it and there will be a court battle which I cannot believe Microsoft can win.  The key thing is that you cannot apply for a patent for something that has been on the market for more than one year.  How long has FAT been in use?  20 years or more?  If by some miracle they win then Linux will have problems reading MS formated disks of all types.

[Bonk]

My opinions in short:

FreeBSD and QNX are both far superior to any Linux Distribution.

Windows is simply the most popular, they are winning at the game of capitalism and strangely being punished for it. Microsoft has been successfull by absorbing technologies that work well with it and by getting boatloads of free feedback from users. Somewhere around Windows 3.11 I decided if MS wants any feedback from me they can damn well pay a consulting fee.

Apple is as bad or worse than MS. (they tend to attack the windows platform with stuff like quicktime and iTunes ona regular basis...)

As soon as llinux becomes the most popular, it will be the bad guy.

[Mr_Tricorder]

It's not strange at all that Microsoft is being punished for winning because Microsoft doesn't play fair or honorably.  Instead of competing honestly by trying to make the best software they can make, Microsoft contunually tries to undercut any competition it decides to consider a threat.  Lawyers, not programmers, are their key assets.  There's a reason why rules against monopolies are called anti-trust laws.  Since Microsoft became so dominant that practically everyone in the mainstream computing world had to use their products, there was no longer a since of competition.  Because of this, growth and development in their products has been stagnant, and consumers can't trust Microsoft to produce quality products.  That's why I started using Linux.  I got fed up with the poor quality of Microsoft products and was disgusted by their constant law suits and business tactics.

I agree with you about Apple.  If Steve Jobs were in Bill Gates' shoes, things would be an even bigger mess.  I hate messing with Quicktime and iTunes.

I'm not one of those free software idealists who think all information should be free and that patents and software corporations are evil.  There are two and only two reasons why I love open source software:  It's free and it works.  Most large software companies have gotten to the point where they care more about making money than about the quality of their software.  If a completely free product, usually with little or no corporate backing, is as good as or better than a big name corporate product, than that should tell the software company that they're in trouble and need to re-evaluate themselves, the market, and their software.

If Linux ever becomes the "bad guy", it will have to be for completely different reasons.  You can't get away with nearly as many as nasty, underhanded things in your software (like Norton, quicktime, iTunes, Windows Media Player, and IE) if you're going to freely share the source code.  Also, Linux as a whole doesn't have the high level of organization and corporate structure in order to bully other people around like Microsoft does on a regular basis.  Linux is just there waiting for you to use it.  If you choose to use something else, you won't hurt Linux in any way, and I can't see the owners of any Linux distro, even the Corporate-owned ones, trying to impose their standards and gain as much market share possible by any means.  It's simply not possible because their not the only ones that own Linux.  Linux is owned by the general public.  Unless that changes, I don't see how Linux could ever become the bad guy.

[prometheus]

At least with Norton you can do a reinstall of your OS and eliminate the offender.  With the integrated components of Windows if you have a problem you cannot fully eliminate it without dumping Windows  itself and choosing another OS.  You should be able to dump IE, Messenger and Mediaplayer.  There is no technically valid reason to integrate them into the system and good reasons not to.

that rather depends on your mission objectives... If your mission is to create a top class OS with reliability and performance as your benchmarks, then you are absolutely right...

If on the other hand, you wish to create a slothful and monolithic monopoly that rumbles along under it's won inertia, then there is every reason to install them as part of the OS...