The OS Soapbox

[lgromanowski]

Topic created to move operating system debate posts, to prevent derailing of other topics.

Flaming is not tolerated. A fun, progressive atmosphere is what will help this project best.

Will never hurt you - but it will drive this project firmly into insignificance. Mod makers will largely be Windows user. Curious people wanting to dabble (which is often how mods are made and why most of us love Morrowind so much), and they will be blocked if the code does not support 90+% of the Morrowind audience. The majority of these people will not be able to make their own "trivial" headers to get a UNIX-dependent program to compile, and so anything worthwhile they have to contribute will be blocked. This will not only hurt OpenMW's development, but its measured success at being an open source, cross-platform translation of the Morrowind engine. That's not some broken philosophy - that's fact. So, I implore you: ignore your bias attitude of platform/OS superiority and help the project, not your own agenda.

No I agree. OpenMW needs windows in order to be successful. The world just doesn't need windows... I'm not trying to be contrary, I understand the average user is terrified of better operating systems, I'm just expressing my view that people need to not be so resistant to change. In the meantime, I'm all for a windows port of OpenMW.

Glad to hear you agree.

I do disagree with the world not needing Windows, though. Microsoft supplies software and operating system specifications to companies and governments around the world, to help further the technological advancements of this digital age. The average user is not terrified of better operating systems. Fear honestly has nothing to do with it.

I've attempted to switch over to Linux myself, and have installed Ubuntu on other people's computers as an alternative. Each and every time I do so, however, myself or the other person becomes unable to use their computer as effectively and efficiently as they had before the switch. "Better" is a highly subjective word to use. What makes it "better"? Stability? Not in my experience. Security? Again, not in my experience, and only through obscurity. Array of use? Comparatively limited. Friends and family who have attempted Linux have had to spend hours (sometimes days) hunting down drivers and software just so that they can do what they could do natively on Windows.

Windows is not Apple's OS. It is not locked down. Microsoft does not have an anti-developer mentality. The present day of Windows computing does not force users, designers, and developers to bend over backwards, like OSX.

The majority of my Linux-using friends absolutely hate Windows - as do my anarchist friends (not so oddly, the two groups are often one in the same) - and yet they can never specify reasons with any substance behind it. The only thing valid I've ever heard is "price" - which can be avoided by going to your local community college, and taking a $30 class on network protocol, which gives you thousands of dollars of free MSDN software.

Anyway. Being rushed out the door at the moment, but there's my $0.02. Both Ubuntu and Windows 7 are solid operating systems. Stop the hate, and start the dual-platform love.

Heyhey, so all of the below is with the best of intentions. Debates like this quickly get snippy and angry, that's not my intention at all! If my tone ever gets confrontational, it's not meant to be an attack on anyone personally, I'm just caught up in the debate...

And to be honest this sort of thing is good. As entrenched in my ideals as I am, I need to be able to defend them logically and articulately. Here goes!

Microsoft supplies software and operating system specifications to companies and governments around the world, to help further the technological advancements of this digital age. - These tend to be closed though, so only Microsoft can say when/how they get used. Open formats and standardization are much better.

"Better" is a highly subjective word to use. - Very true.

Stability? Not in my experience. - Really? It's always been more stable for me.

Security? Again, not in my experience, and only through obscurity. - Again, really? Have you gotten any viruses on Linux? Also, see below about Open Source.

Array of use? Comparatively limited. - You're absolutely right here. But the problem isn't the OS, it's developers ignoring the OS because it's not as prevalent. But it's not as prevalent because its array of use is comparatively limited... chicken and the egg syndrome.

Windows is not Apple's OS. It is not locked down. Microsoft does not have an anti-developer mentality. - They don't have an anti-developer mentality, but they have an anti-everyone-else mentality. They never support open standards, and basically just try to prop up their monopoly as much as possible.

... they can never specify reasons with any substance behind it. - Open source. See below.

The only thing valid I've ever heard is "price" - which can be avoided by going to your local community college, and taking a $30 class on network protocol, which gives you thousands of dollars of free MSDN software. - I think you're understating the significance of price, and overstating the accessibility people have to community colleges. And if that's how we should get software... why is it sold in stores.

Open Source
As much as I think Linux is good and decently usable and such, the real appreciation I have for it is the FOSS nature of it. As far as operating systems go, having the ability to get the source code, modify it, submit patches, look for vulnerabilities, etc, is what really matters. As a windows user I was constantly having to find hacks and cracks to get full functionality out of my system (windows xp themes anyone? utxtheme.dll?). With Linux you don't have to deal with that crap. And the availability of the source code means that bugs and vulnerabilities get fixed when someone fixes them, instead of when the company decides to pay for them to be fixed. Also, you are the one in charge of making decisions about your OS. If you don't like a component of Linux, just replace it with something else. Imagine trying to replace networking support in windows... or the file manager...

It's also a lot of idealism, really. And yes, Linux lags behind Mac and Windows in a lot of places. I don't think people should use it because everything already is better on it, I think people should use it because supporting the development of FOSS will result in a better world for computing overall. I hope you understand what I am getting at... if I am unclear I'll elaborate.

Heyhey, so all of the below is with the best of intentions. Debates like this quickly get snippy and angry, that's not my intention at all! If my tone ever gets confrontational, it's not meant to be an attack on anyone personally, I'm just caught up in the debate...

And to be honest this sort of thing is good. As entrenched in my ideals as I am, I need to be able to defend them logically and articulately. Here goes!

Same - as I said in the first post, flaming will not be tolerated from either side. But seeing people trying to work on a multi-OS translation rip on Windows thinking it's still WinME raises red flags.

Microsoft supplies software and operating system specifications to companies and governments around the world, to help further the technological advancements of this digital age. - These tend to be closed though, so only Microsoft can say when/how they get used. Open formats and standardization are much better.

Untrue. The computing community is huuuuuge. Ever known a Microsoft partner? I have a few just in the (extended) family. Microsoft doesn't come up with these software specifications from their backside - they talk to customers, partners, and so on. It is incredibly rare for Microsoft to pull an Apple, and come up with something without checking it with dozens if not hundreds of other communities/companies.

Stability? Not in my experience. - Really? It's always been more stable for me.

I wouldn't really say it's any more or less stable to be honest. Then again, I've never run Linux for more than a couple of weeks as my main OS. But I don't think it could be better than the crashless experience I've had on Win7.

Security? Again, not in my experience, and only through obscurity. - Again, really? Have you gotten any viruses on Linux? Also, see below about Open Source.

Nope. Never gotten a virus on Windows either, though. I see it a lot like the browser battles. If you're for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, IE, etc.... doesn't matter. A challenge like Pwn2Own comes along, and each browser is typically equally insecure. Before those competitions, however, you see a lot of talk on how the biggest targets are the worse (IE, and Firefox).

Array of use? Comparatively limited. - You're absolutely right here. But the problem isn't the OS, it's developers ignoring the OS because it's not as prevalent. But it's not as prevalent because its array of use is comparatively limited... chicken and the egg syndrome.

Sadly, that's true. And I hope that projects with the same true OS-independent approach (even if that involves OSX!) fix that. I'll comment that projects like Wine and Mono have really, really helped Linux here.

Windows is not Apple's OS. It is not locked down. Microsoft does not have an anti-developer mentality. - They don't have an anti-developer mentality, but they have an anti-everyone-else mentality. They never support open standards, and basically just try to prop up their monopoly as much as possible.

Oh, I'd argue that they have an anti-developer mentality. Ever get involved in the iPhone development fiasco? It's a giant mess. Apple likes their closed down little world, where they control everything - even if that means they screw over their developers. I had the pleasure of sitting down with the head of the Common Language Runtime development team while I was in Redmond last month. He has a Mac in his office, for obvious reasons, and when asked, he told me that the development 'experience', even working for the largest 3rd party Mac development company (Microsoft), was utterly painful.

The only thing valid I've ever heard is "price" - which can be avoided by going to your local community college, and taking a $30 class on network protocol, which gives you thousands of dollars of free MSDN software. - I think you're understating the significance of price, and overstating the accessibility people have to community colleges. And if that's how we should get software... why is it sold in stores.

Free is good, yes! Being able to deploy an infinite amount of OS installs for 0 overhead, and not having to care about licenses is awesome. Then again... welcome to America, home of the capitalists! The community college response comes as an alternative. Two licenses (one 32-bit, one 64-bit) for EVERY version of Windows, from 3.1 to Win7 for the price of one class (which you could then withdraw from for a refund) is a good 'work around'.

As much as I think Linux is good and decently usable and such, the real appreciation I have for it is the FOSS nature of it. As far as operating systems go, having the ability to get the source code, modify it, submit patches, look for vulnerabilities, etc, is what really matters.

I agree! It's one thing that made me really, really excited about the idea of a GoogleOS. Ubuntu is nice and all, but how many people are working on the aspects that, on windows, can not be modified? At Microsoft, you have a loooot of employees, working around the clock on every aspect of the OS experience. That is because it's funded development. With a rich company like Google able to actually put money (and therefor dedicated effort) into an open source OS would be amazing.

As a windows user I was constantly having to find hacks and cracks to get full functionality out of my system (windows xp themes anyone? utxtheme.dll?). With Linux you don't have to deal with that crap.

Really? I remember going through a good bit of trouble to get Ubuntu styled beyond its default appearance settings. Getting Compiz Fusion and Emerald installed on Ubuntu was probably harder than running a simple .exe files to load a XP theme. Then you run into the issue of applications only supporting KDE or Gnome - it was a huge pain (that I don't believe I went through) to get Amerok to run on my Gnome install some time back. So yes, there is more choice... but even in the open source community, you run into large incompatibilities.

And the availability of the source code means that bugs and vulnerabilities get fixed when someone fixes them, instead of when the company decides to pay for them to be fixed. Also, you are the one in charge of making decisions about your OS. If you don't like a component of Linux, just replace it with something else. Imagine trying to replace networking support in windows... or the file manager...

As with the theme, there are ways to replace file managers and the like on Windows. Do a search on Lifehacker, and you'll be pleasantly surprised! It's not always a 'replacement', but more an extension. Network support I'm not so sure on, but I've never had network issues on Windows.

It's also a lot of idealism, really. And yes, Linux lags behind Mac and Windows in a lot of places. I don't think people should use it because everything already is better on it, I think people should use it because supporting the development of FOSS will result in a better world for computing overall. I hope you understand what I am getting at... if I am unclear I'll elaborate.

I do fully agree with you. FOSS is the way of the future - at least the future I want to live in. You originally said that Windows is not needed by the world, however - and that is why I disagree. The world needs an OS like Windows. I think it honestly helps, and has nothing to do with being terrified. What the world does not need is Apple, which is what most Linux users imagine Microsoft to be.

I think you're plenty clear, and hopefully I am too. And, with any luck, what I've typed has made "anti-Windows mentality will never hurt" less of a believable statement.

But seeing people trying to work on a multi-OS translation rip on Windows thinking it's still WinME raises red flags. - See, but I think fully supporting windows while maintaining a perspective that SOMEDAY windows needs to die and go away is the best viewpoint.

Untrue. The computing community is huuuuuge. Ever known a Microsoft partner? I have a few just in the (extended) family. Microsoft doesn't come up with these software specifications from their backside - they talk to customers, partners, and so on. It is incredibly rare for Microsoft to pull an Apple, and come up with something without checking it with dozens if not hundreds of other communities/companies. - I guess I don't have any real world experience with this. I'm still of the mind that a truly open specification is better though...

But I don't think it could be better than the crashless experience I've had on Win7. / Never gotten a virus on Windows either, though. I see it a lot like the browser battles. - Remember that you are an advanced user. The average user isn't going to have the same experience as you.

Sadly, that's true. And I hope that projects with the same true OS-independent approach (even if that involves OSX!) fix that. I'll comment that projects like Wine and Mono have really, really helped Linux here. - Well... Wine does some good, conversely it kind of works against progress. That's a different debate, so I'll just agree with you here.

Oh, I'd argue... - Hmm, I was talking about Microsoft here, not Apple. Microsoft definitely supports developers... as long as the developers are using their proprietary technology. Better than Apple, yes. But not open.

... is a good 'work around'. - But a work-around just to get your computer to boot? Hmmmmm...

I remember going through a good bit of trouble to get Ubuntu styled - Well, there's waaay more to linux that Ubuntu. I'm an XFCE fan myself, running Xubuntu, so no Compiz/Emerald here.

As with the theme, there are ways to replace file managers and the like on Windows. Do a search on Lifehacker, and you'll be pleasantly surprised! It's not always a 'replacement', but more an extension. Network support I'm not so sure on, but I've never had network issues on Windows. - That's a hack though... Added bloat and unknown vulnerabilities? No thanks. And I don't mean hack because it's from Lifehacker, I mean hack because it's exploiting the OS to do what it wants, instead of being an integrated and supported solution.

You originally said that Windows is not needed by the world, however - and that is why I disagree. The world needs an OS like Windows. I think it honestly helps, and has nothing to do with being terrified. - It hinders the adoption of open source, that's the basis of my statement.

And, with any luck, what I've typed has made "anti-Windows mentality will never hurt" less of a believable statement. - Well, I think you realize that when I take the time to fully explain myself, I'm not just bashing all over windows without justification. Windows has its purposes, but in my mind the quicker it's gone, the better. But I suppose I shouldn't make off-the-cuff statements like that, especially when they imply things I don't mean (like not making a OpenMW port for windows).

But seeing people trying to work on a multi-OS translation rip on Windows thinking it's still WinME raises red flags. - See, but I think fully supporting windows while maintaining a perspective that SOMEDAY windows needs to die and go away is the best viewpoint.

When Linux becomes Windows, Windows can die without harm. Until then, the world will always need Windows, or an OS in its exact position.

Untrue. The computing community is huuuuuge. Ever known a Microsoft partner? I have a few just in the (extended) family. Microsoft doesn't come up with these software specifications from their backside - they talk to customers, partners, and so on. It is incredibly rare for Microsoft to pull an Apple, and come up with something without checking it with dozens if not hundreds of other communities/companies. - I guess I don't have any real world experience with this. I'm still of the mind that a truly open specification is better though...

Well, what's a truly open specification? Where do you think they come from? Often times it's a small team of key individuals who come up with, then publish these specs. Or do you mean specs that can be modified as being open? Because most Windows specs can be modified - but then they're no longer specifications, and they're bound to have issues. The difference is that Microsoft works with communities and partners on their specifications, while 'open' specs are often created loudly, but by fewer individuals.

But I don't think it could be better than the crashless experience I've had on Win7. / Never gotten a virus on Windows either, though. I see it a lot like the browser battles. - Remember that you are an advanced user. The average user isn't going to have the same experience as you.

I use a free firewall and antivirus, ISP-provided hardware, and, for the most part, standard security settings. I'm not exactly Steve Gibson - I've been known to open email attachments. So yes, while I'm an advanced user, I'm also not doing anything special on the security/stability side (other than noscript in Firefox). The average user -really- doesn't get viruses. Each time I had gone over to a teacher's house in High School, or to a friend's place to fix their computer, it was always for the same reason: someone who thought they were an 'advanced' user went to go download porn and/or cracks/warez, and did so stupidly. My girlfriend doesn't even have a firewall on her computer - and every time I go to scan her HDD, it's clean. Anyway, I suppose my point here is that the average Windows user and average Ubuntu user have about security/stability experience.

Sadly, that's true. And I hope that projects with the same true OS-independent approach (even if that involves OSX!) fix that. I'll comment that projects like Wine and Mono have really, really helped Linux here. - Well... Wine does some good, conversely it kind of works against progress. That's a different debate, so I'll just agree with you here.

It works wonders for progress, but against the unrealistic technoanarchist FOSS world.

Oh, I'd argue... - Hmm, I was talking about Microsoft here, not Apple. Microsoft definitely supports developers... as long as the developers are using their proprietary technology. Better than Apple, yes. But not open.

Sorry, I misread you earlier. Apple has an anti-developer mentality. Windows is pro-developer. Microsoft creates its standards with its partners, and, occasionally, gives into the more popular chaotic demands of the open source community. What you have to remember is that *nix and Windows are two different operating systems. Windows has its techniques, and Linux has its own. Making cross platform (not XXXX-ported) software is the art of designing for both. It isn't as if Windows goes and actively blocks you from developing on/with anything.

... is a good 'work around'. - But a work-around just to get your computer to boot? Hmmmmm...

No, a work-around to getting a high quality operating system for free.

I remember going through a good bit of trouble to get Ubuntu styled - Well, there's waaay more to linux that Ubuntu. I'm an XFCE fan myself, running Xubuntu, so no Compiz/Emerald here.

Certainly there is more to Linux than Ubuntu, but since Ubuntu seems to be the mainstream Linux distro nowadays, it's what I'm using as my example. I also have more experience with Ubuntu than Fedora, OpenSUSE, and Backtrack (the other 3 I've toyed briefly with), so it's what I'll be basing my opinions on. Now then: You're using XFCE, one of the three main UI systems for Linux. Aren't you typically limited in your software choices by what UI you use? You get bloat and mess, at the very least, when you install a KDE app on a Gnome desktop.

As with the theme, there are ways to replace file managers and the like on Windows. Do a search on Lifehacker, and you'll be pleasantly surprised! It's not always a 'replacement', but more an extension. Network support I'm not so sure on, but I've never had network issues on Windows. - That's a hack though... Added bloat and unknown vulnerabilities? No thanks. And I don't mean hack because it's from Lifehacker, I mean hack because it's exploiting the OS to do what it wants, instead of being an integrated and supported solution.

How is it a hack? It's an extension, which is natively supported by Windows. Part of that whole customizable/extendable aspect of Windows. It's no less of an integrated and supported solution than installing Ksmoothdock on Xubuntu would be.

You originally said that Windows is not needed by the world, however - and that is why I disagree. The world needs an OS like Windows. I think it honestly helps, and has nothing to do with being terrified. - It hinders the adoption of open source, that's the basis of my statement.

Does it, though? How? Why? Do you think that people who are interested in Open Source software sit there on Windows boxes and go, "Oh, damn, if only I could develop open source software on this Microsoft OS!"? Linux has its 5% desktop penetration because that's how much people are interested in using an open source operating system at home. Fact is that most people don't care. Windows doesn't really hinder open source software - capitalism does. People want their software to be worth something, and so they must have 'trade secrets' and 'company property'. That's true on both Linux and Windows.

And, with any luck, what I've typed has made "anti-Windows mentality will never hurt" less of a believable statement. - Well, I think you realize that when I take the time to fully explain myself, I'm not just bashing all over windows without justification. Windows has its purposes, but in my mind the quicker it's gone, the better. But I suppose I shouldn't make off-the-cuff statements like that, especially when they imply things I don't mean (like not making a OpenMW port for windows).

What I want to preach here is true cross-platform development. Windows will never be gone. If Microsoft were to somehow get wiped off the face of the earth, something just like it (and most likely much worse) would rise up to replace it - because who, if not a company that needs to make a profit, is going to fund all of the research and development, like Microsoft does? Google, maybe, but they have a ridiculous income because of their ads to make up for it. True open source in the desktop computing mainstream would boil down to confusion and anarchy for the main user base otherwise. Microsoft is a necessary part of the computer ecosystem, and not purposely malicious. The only person a Linux majority of marketshare would benefit is the 5% - it'd be like the super Upper Class of the United States' lifestyle being inflicted on the middle and lower class families. The resources (in the computer OS case time and interest) just aren't there for the rest of people to be able to live with it. Think, too, of media. How would you like to pick up the back of a game at the store, and see what Linux distros you could install it on, instead of just 'windows'? Plus, you think that developers are going to go for DRM on an open source OS? Nuh-uh. They'd be pumping money into the first closed-source start up they can, so that they can defend their unrealistic idea of piracy. The key word to all of it is just that: unrealistic.

Lol? Too much reading.

Well, what's a truly open specification? Where do you think they come from? Often times it's a small team of key individuals who come up with, then publish these specs. Or do you mean specs that can be modified as being open? Because most Windows specs can be modified - but then they're no longer specifications, and they're bound to have issues. The difference is that Microsoft works with communities and partners on their specifications, while 'open' specs are often created loudly, but by fewer individuals.

I'd just like to point to Internet Explorer as a counter example.

The average user -really- doesn't get viruses.

Not in my experience. I've switched several friends to Linux because I got sick of formatting their computer for them for the Nth time. We'll have to agree to disagree.

It works wonders for progress, but against the unrealistic technoanarchist FOSS world.

Now who's making broad, heavy handed statements.

Now then: You're using XFCE, one of the three main UI systems for Linux. Aren't you typically limited in your software choices by what UI you use? You get bloat and mess, at the very least, when you install a KDE app on a Gnome desktop.

Not at all. I can use all Gnome and KDE apps. They do require a few extra libraries to get running, but it's all integrated and not bloated at all. Gnome and XFCE both use GTK, so Gnome apps in XFCE don't have extra libraries unless they are built as part of the Gnome desktop environment, which does not mean what it sounds like. And again, if something does depend on Gnome libraries they are small and integrated, so it's all fine.

How is it a hack? It's an extension, which is natively supported by Windows. Part of that whole customizable/extendable aspect of Windows. It's no less of an integrated and supported solution than installing Ksmoothdock on Xubuntu would be.

Maybe things have changed since XP. Back in my Windows days, anything like this was most definitely a hack. Good on Microsoft for becoming more flexible, I guess.

Does it, though? How? Why?

Yes, it does... Microsoft has a monopoly, users are resistant to change, Microsoft doesn't comply to cross platform standards (OpenGL?)... etc.

The only person a Linux majority of marketshare would benefit is the 5% - it'd be like the super Upper Class of the United States' lifestyle being inflicted on the middle and lower class families.

I think you contradict yourself here. If Linux had a majority market share it would have more than 5% penetration... so it'd be like the lifestyle of the middle class being inflicted on the middle class?

Think, too, of media. How would you like to pick up the back of a game at the store, and see what Linux distros you could install it on, instead of just 'windows'?

I think you are mistaken here. If an application works on one Linux, it works on all of them. They all use the same kernel and libraries, distributions basically just vary by how packages are distributed.

Plus, you think that developers are going to go for DRM on an open source OS? Nuh-uh. They'd be pumping money into the first closed-source start up they can, so that they can defend their unrealistic idea of piracy. The key word to all of it is just that: unrealistic.

I think the key word is AWESOME. Screw DRM.

Well, what's a truly open specification? Where do you think they come from? Often times it's a small team of key individuals who come up with, then publish these specs. Or do you mean specs that can be modified as being open? Because most Windows specs can be modified - but then they're no longer specifications, and they're bound to have issues. The difference is that Microsoft works with communities and partners on their specifications, while 'open' specs are often created loudly, but by fewer individuals.

I'd just like to point to Internet Explorer as a counter example.

True! At least, in the case of IE6. IE6 is about as old as Windows XP. IE6 is a relic from a time when open standards were laughable - browsers fought to make proprietary features, and no one wanted to play nicely with each other. It's certainly a black mark on Microsoft's history, and one of the reasons people have this stigmata about them. IE7 and IE8 have been slowly feeding people off of non-open code. IE9 will support (as speculation goes) the Web Open Font Format, HTML5, etc.

The average user -really- doesn't get viruses.

Not in my experience. I've switched several friends to Linux because I got sick of formatting their computer for them for the Nth time. We'll have to agree to disagree.

It works wonders for progress, but against the unrealistic technoanarchist FOSS world.

Now who's making broad, heavy handed statements.

Me! They're defended below, in my talk on DRM.

Now then: You're using XFCE, one of the three main UI systems for Linux. Aren't you typically limited in your software choices by what UI you use? You get bloat and mess, at the very least, when you install a KDE app on a Gnome desktop.

Not at all. I can use all Gnome and KDE apps. They do require a few extra libraries to get running, but it's all integrated and not bloated at all. Gnome and XFCE both use GTK, so Gnome apps in XFCE don't have extra libraries unless they are built as part of the Gnome desktop environment, which does not mean what it sounds like. And again, if something does depend on Gnome libraries they are small and integrated, so it's all fine.

Hm. Wasn't my experience with getting Amerok on Ubuntu, but I'll take your word for it!

How is it a hack? It's an extension, which is natively supported by Windows. Part of that whole customizable/extendable aspect of Windows. It's no less of an integrated and supported solution than installing Ksmoothdock on Xubuntu would be.

Maybe things have changed since XP. Back in my Windows days, anything like this was most definitely a hack. Good on Microsoft for becoming more flexible, I guess.

It's just terminology. I define a 'hack' as something that you have to actively break to get around. An extension, like themes have been in XP, is something that someone just has to work at doing. Like Microsoft, Bethesda doesn't publish (as far as I know) their ESM/ESP specifications. People just have had to go in and figure them out so that they can be worked with and extended.

Does it, though? How? Why?

Yes, it does... Microsoft has a monopoly, users are resistant to change, Microsoft doesn't comply to cross platform standards (OpenGL?)... etc.

The only person a Linux majority of marketshare would benefit is the 5% - it'd be like the super Upper Class of the United States' lifestyle being inflicted on the middle and lower class families.

I think you contradict yourself here. If Linux had a majority market share it would have more than 5% penetration... so it'd be like the lifestyle of the middle class being inflicted on the middle class?

Yes, users are resistant to change. It's because most users don't have the resources (as I said: time, and interest) to care about Linux. Think of Windows users being the lower/middle class - they want to buy a computer, and just have it do everything they want. They want their games to play on it, their media to work with it, and so on. They don't really care if an operating system is open source or not - that just makes things more confusing. Ever used Linux without having to pull up a terminal window? That can not happen on the majority of people, because they don't care about their computers enough to try to understand what the flying text and -A -B -C means. Upper class people are those with the resources to dedicate to their computer. Now imagine it was switched - Linux was on 90% of all home computers, and Apple/Microsoft only had 5% market share. Most users would hate their computers, because they do not have the resources available to 'dick around with that thing'. Until Linux is up to the ease-of-use standards that Windows has, it can never be there. That is one reason why the world needs Windows. Sure, it could be fixed by having every elementary school teach Linux classes in addition to the normal typing classes that they typically do, but... Just wont happen. See more on my talk of DRM below.

Think, too, of media. How would you like to pick up the back of a game at the store, and see what Linux distros you could install it on, instead of just 'windows'?

I think you are mistaken here. If an application works on one Linux, it works on all of them. They all use the same kernel and libraries, distributions basically just vary by how packages are distributed.

Said that as leading up to:

Plus, you think that developers are going to go for DRM on an open source OS? Nuh-uh. They'd be pumping money into the first closed-source start up they can, so that they can defend their unrealistic idea of piracy. The key word to all of it is just that: unrealistic.

I think the key word is AWESOME. Screw DRM.

Welcome to America. DRM will never go away, because this country works on money, and businesses want that money protected. As I said, companies would come together if Microsoft never existed, and be creating an OS that was closed source, so that their IP could be protected and so that their DRM could be enforced. This is why I use the word 'technoanarchist' - because the more you think of the implications of a FOSS-controlled computer ecosystem, the more you have to realize that users and companies would not want it here in the country of the DMCA law. America and FOSS is a rather consistent 5% mixture, however - and that's unlikely to ever change.

Hm. Wasn't my experience with getting Amerok on Ubuntu, but I'll take your word for it!

Hehe, Amarok is a pretty terrible application.

It's because most users don't have the resources (as I said: time, and interest) to care about Linux.

I think that Linux is not as difficult to use as you imply, however I understand that there are some things about it that are still a pain. That is changing though, it just takes time for all the little bits to get ironed out. Once they do, then what?

As I said, companies would come together if Microsoft never existed, and be creating an OS that was closed source, so that their IP could be protected and so that their DRM could be enforced. This is why I use the word 'technoanarchist' - because the more you think of the implications of a FOSS-controlled computer ecosystem, the more you have to realize that users and companies would not want it here in the country of the DMCA law.

I think if users really understood DRM they wouldn't want it at all. I understand companies want it, but companies make decisions for profit, not to benefit their customers. One of the biggest reasons I run Linux is because of DRM, it's a practice that I am openly hostile against. There's nothing beneficial about it to the consumer at all.

That said, I don't advocate computer game piracy. Other kinds of piracy may or may not be a different case, but computer games are one thing that have no defensible justification for pirating. However, DRM doesn't solve computer game piracy: there's better ways to go about it.

Hm. Wasn't my experience with getting Amerok on Ubuntu, but I'll take your word for it!

Hehe, Amarok is a pretty terrible application.

I personally liked it. Was my favorite media player on Linux.

It's because most users don't have the resources (as I said: time, and interest) to care about Linux.

I think that Linux is not as difficult to use as you imply, however I understand that there are some things about it that are still a pain. That is changing though, it just takes time for all the little bits to get ironed out. Once they do, then what?

Then, sadly, most likely nothing will happen. With luck, and a company like Dell behind a push, television/internet advertisement, there might be further Linux adoption. For now, however, it's not uncommon to have to open up the terminal in Linux - which drives everyday users away. I'm not saying it's difficult. I'm saying it's not friendly to the average user.

As I said, companies would come together if Microsoft never existed, and be creating an OS that was closed source, so that their IP could be protected and so that their DRM could be enforced. This is why I use the word 'technoanarchist' - because the more you think of the implications of a FOSS-controlled computer ecosystem, the more you have to realize that users and companies would not want it here in the country of the DMCA law.

I think if users really understood DRM they wouldn't want it at all. I understand companies want it, but companies make decisions for profit, not to benefit their customers. One of the biggest reasons I run Linux is because of DRM, it's a practice that I am openly hostile against. There's nothing beneficial about it to the consumer at all.

That said, I don't advocate computer game piracy. Other kinds of piracy may or may not be a different case, but computer games are one thing that have no defensible justification for pirating. However, DRM doesn't solve computer game piracy: there's better ways to go about it.

Again, I think you don't understand the everyday user. Apathy is the typical user opinion - as is proven by the steady rise in Apple's market share. They don't care if they don't actually "own" their content - they just want everything to work in a pretty and easy manner. It's the (typical) minority of users that run into issues that dislike DRM, [flame]along with anyone with half a brain and a penchant for technology.[/flame] As DRM tightens down, those numbers are starting to rise. Nothing is beneficial for consumers when it comes to DRM, with music or video games, and it is a customer's duty to boycott these harmful business practices. Again, however, that's you, that's me. That's not Joe Computeruser, or perhaps even Ms. Generic, Unspoken Morrowoman.

It's also worth noting that DRM has nothing to do with Windows, but rather lawyers, and the music industry.

My point, however, was that this a country run by a myriad of different people. Us computer enthusiasts don't create law, don't run the government, don't control everything, and, while we're a large group, we are not the majority of the nation. Average people that need to casually use the computer, and who are more concerned how pretty their music player is than the philosophy behind the downloaded content, and the companies that fuel the United States ensure that Windows is needed.

A good way to look at it is like a chart. You have average people, significant 3rd parties, and the tech community. Average people want just something that works (Windows). 3rd parties typically want complete control (Apple). The tech community varies. I'm just happy we have an open (if not open source) operating system that supports its users, without shoving anything down its throat. If Windows/Linux users weren't so passionately against DRM, the like, and negative practices (i.e., Apple's), we could all end up with an operating system that is much, much worse than what the general Linux user imagines Windows to be.

Average people that need to casually use the computer, and who are more concerned how pretty their music player is than the philosophy behind the downloaded content, and the companies that fuel the United States ensure that Windows is needed.

I'm confused though. You seemed to be on a pro-windows bent until this point, and now you're suddenly flaming windows users and people unaware of the dangers of DRM?

I'm confused though. You seemed to be on a pro-windows bent until this point, and now you're suddenly flaming windows users and people unaware of the dangers of DRM?

I stated that Windows is the medium between an OS anarchy (Linux) and OS dictatorship (Apple). It's the OS of capitalists. That's why it works in America. It lets companies have a measure of (sometimes offensive) protection, while still allowing users to customize things as much as is needed.

Sidenote: Anarchy is great, but requires an otherwise perfect community. Dictatorships are also fine, as long as the powers in charge are equally flawless. Capitalism has its own flaws, and many of them. It works for the majority, however, so that's why it's commonly used. The political/economic molds described above are commonly translated to the three major operating systems.

My flame was aimed at DRM (and I suppose any technology-focused person who is 'into' OSX, such as the swarms of teachers and students you usually see at my college, who walk around with their MacBooks, eat their vegetarian lunches while wearing animal-tested makeup, yada yada yada. Still, probably shouldn't have mentioned half-wits.), not any OS:

It's the (typical) minority of users that run into issues that dislike DRM, [flame]along with anyone with half a brain and a penchant for technology.[/flame]

Meaning, DRM is only hated by those who run into issues with it, or anyone with an interest in technology, such as you and I. Otherwise, people don't care, and are happy to keep on buying music through iTunes, rather than a DRM-free solution like Amazon. I don't blame the average user for being advertised to buy DRM-corrupt media - they're just not aware. I also don't think that I flamed Windows users. Just a specific subclass of (typically) Mac users, which I'll tone down on from now on.

And:

My point, however, was that this a country run by a myriad of different people. Us computer enthusiasts don't create law, don't run the government, don't control everything, and, while we're a large group, we are not the majority of the nation. Average people that need to casually use the computer, and who are more concerned how pretty their music player is than the philosophy behind the downloaded content. The companies that fuel the United States ensure that Windows is needed.

I stated that Windows is the medium between an OS anarchy (Linux) and OS dictatorship (Apple).

I don't think this is a perfect analogy, but I understand the point you're trying to make with it, so no worries.

Us computer enthusiasts don't create law, don't run the government, don't control everything, and, while we're a large group, we are not the majority of the nation.

But as the most qualified, shouldn't we be the most vocal about what needs to be done? When faced with an unjust dictatorship, shouldn't enlightened rebels take action to bring about change? I'm not saying we should de-facto be put in charge to tell everyone else what to do, but can't we spread our idealism in order to inform others?

I see the windows monopoly as something that needs to change. I see Linux as something that "average users" need to be informed about. That's why I say mean things about windows, to try to spread my ideas.

But as the most qualified, shouldn't we be the most vocal about what needs to be done? When faced with an unjust dictatorship, shouldn't enlightened rebels take action to bring about change? I'm not saying we should de-facto be put in charge to tell everyone else what to do, but can't we spread our idealism in order to inform others?

I see the windows monopoly as something that needs to change. I see Linux as something that "average users" need to be informed about. That's why I say mean things about windows, to try to spread my ideas.

Of course we should speak up! But again, that's just us we're talking about there. If only "computer people" used computers, Linux would have a higher market share and Windows wouldn't be such a dominant force on the desktop.

Telling people in a cross-platform project that their OS of choice sucks probably isn't the best way to bring about change. Be the messiah, not the raving man on the side of the road.

At this point, any addendum would be circular. Windows allows both freedom, and closed systems, so it tends to work with everyone. Big forces of technology in this country would not accept or allow a truly open source OS to flourish. Consumers want to not be locked down, if they care at all. Windows tends to be the happy medium, but that doesn't make Linux or OSX the less viable desktop solutions.

Telling people in a cross-platform project that their OS of choice sucks probably isn't the best way to bring about change. Be the messiah, not the raving man on the side of the road.

Hah, ok I see what you're saying. Agreed.