every day linux seems to get a bit stronger, microsoft a bit weaker, dont you agree?

[rbhawcroft]

I think so. I also think that there should be an open standard for linux as a platform like unix, but that each copy should be saleable, so that its actually a pretty viable alternative on a commerical basis, and not some charity case. and since 5 or 10 companies will be offering a similar product the margins should be competetive, as long as the kernel code is standardised.

personally I cant wait to ditch microsoft for a game supporting linux os, it will be so much better, but until it satisfies me needs im not going to, despite swhat microsoft does, after all in not amicrosoft competitor.

 

[ShadowDJ]

I agree, But I don't think linux supporters would like it being for profit. Microsoft seems to be degrading. My windows media player 7.2 is big and bloated and slow (ugly too). I remember 6.4 when it was fast and simple.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: rbhawcroft
I think so. I also think that there should be an open standard for linux as a platform like unix, but that each copy should be saleable, so that its actually a pretty viable alternative on a commerical basis, and not some charity case. and since 5 or 10 companies will be offering a similar product the margins should be competetive, as long as the kernel code is standardised.

You can sell Linux all you want. You can charge 10.000 dollars for it if you so want. You can sell proprietary software with it. And there are standards. There is Linux Filesystem Hierarchy Standard which tells where everything should be located. FHS is part of the Linux Standards Base (LSB) that cover wide variety of things.

One thing that needs to be remembered is that GPL (the license Linux is licensed under) is there to ensure the rights of the USER, whereas EULA (found in MS-software) and other commercial-licenses are there to ensure the rights of the CORPORATION. But there's nothing that stops you from selling GPL-licensed software. IBM (among others) has made alot of money from Linux and GPL'ed software. Even Microsoft sells GPL-licensed software!

As to the kernel.... I don't understand what you mean by "standardized kernel". Kernel-developement is fast, to force everyone to use just one kernel would be counterproductive. People use what best suits them. Some use old, ultra-stable kernels because it suits their needs. Others use cutting-edge kernels because they want the new features. Others patch their kernel that expand it's functionality... They do all that because they have different needs.

 

[rbhawcroft]

but isnt rad hat making a loss because it can sell linux for anything per disk, but that disk can format 1 - 1million computers? dont IBM make linux money from services and linux os based software, I doubt they make money from the OS sales itslef, thats what I am saying, keep the benefits but make the os basically a profitable business for the better os makers, and a loss making one for the worse products.

i just said kernels, i dont know how oses work internally much. but obviously the point of the linux licence is that any company can copy the code of another, so that makes it unprofitable, im saying let them keep propreitary code and have open standardised other bits of more core code thats all.

 

[rbhawcroft]

Originally posted by: ShadowDJ
I agree, But I don't think linux supporters would like it being for profit. Microsoft seems to be degrading. My windows media player 7.2 is big and bloated and slow (ugly too). I remember 6.4 when it was fast and simple.

i took a copy of the old mplayer and put it on my harddisk and linked it to the os by doing a 'run from program list', 'always use this program for this file type association'.

 

[ToBeMe]

Perhaps among the "enthusiasts" crowd.....................but sadly, that's a VERY small portion of the market................in all honesty, as far as numbers go, MS gained a bit more marketshare overall since XP debuted...................

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Perhaps among the "enthusiasts" crowd.....................but sadly, that's a VERY small portion of the market................in all honesty, as far as numbers go, MS gained a bit more marketshare overall since XP debuted...................

Linux does VERY well in servers. As well as graphical workstations (just about all SFX-companies use Linux, including IL&M)

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Perhaps among the "enthusiasts" crowd.....................but sadly, that's a VERY small portion of the market................in all honesty, as far as numbers go, MS gained a bit more marketshare overall since XP debuted...................

Linux does VERY well in servers. As well as graphical workstations (just about all SFX-companies use Linux, including IL&M)

Duh...........but since the thread poster was talking about gaming etc. it didn't seem he was referring to servers........... Of course Linux has a big hunk of the server market and rightfully so!

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: rbhawcroft
but isnt rad hat making a loss because it can sell linux for anything per disk, but that disk can format 1 - 1million computers? dont IBM make linux money from services and linux os based software, I doubt they make money from the OS sales itslef, thats what I am saying, keep the benefits but make the os basically a profitable business for the better os makers, and a loss making one for the worse products.

Red Hat is on it's way to profitability. They gettheir money from sales of the OS and support & service. IBM makes money from selling Linux-enabled mainframes and solutions and such. In order to improve their Linhx-based products, IBM pour alot of money in to Linux, and that benefit the entire community as well as IBM.

One of the benefits of Linux is the freedom to do whatever you want with it. To turn sales of Linux in to huge money-making scheme similar to Microsoft, you would need to drastically alter the license. And that would SEVERLY limit the freedoms of the users. And, as a user, I don't want that to happen. Like I said, the purpose of the license is to protect the user. "ordinary" licenses protect the corporation.

i just said kernels, i dont know how oses work internally much. but obviously the point of the linux licence is that any company can copy the code of another, so that makes it unprofitable, im saying let them keep propreitary code and have open standardised other bits of more core code thats all.

Sure they can copy the code. Sun did just that when they released their own Linux-distro just now. It's basically tweaked Red Hat. Now, you might think that Red Hat suffers because of that. But they don't. Because of the license, they can in return copy Suns code in to their own product. Everybody benefits. You could say that it results in positive feedback-loop. Red Hat improves, Sun copies those improvements to their OS and adds improvements of their own. Red Hat copies the improvements of Sun in to their own product and adds their own improvements... Ad Infinitum. And of course Red Hat and others can sell proprietary software along their OS. And thatsoftware is something that other companies cannot copy.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Perhaps among the "enthusiasts" crowd.....................but sadly, that's a VERY small portion of the market................in all honesty, as far as numbers go, MS gained a bit more marketshare overall since XP debuted...................

Linux does VERY well in servers. As well as graphical workstations (just about all SFX-companies use Linux, including IL&M)

Duh...........but since the thread poster was talking about gaming etc. it didn't seem he was referring to servers........... Of course Linux has a big hunk of the server market and rightfully so!

Well, if you are interested in gaming.... things are getting better. You can run quite alot of games using Wine, and there are alot of Linux-native releases (RTCW, MOHAA, Quake 1, 2, 3, Doom 3, NWN etc. etc) and the performance is there (NVIDIA gets about same FPS in Linux as they do in Windows. In lower resolutions Linux usually beats Windows)

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Perhaps among the "enthusiasts" crowd.....................but sadly, that's a VERY small portion of the market................in all honesty, as far as numbers go, MS gained a bit more marketshare overall since XP debuted...................

Linux does VERY well in servers. As well as graphical workstations (just about all SFX-companies use Linux, including IL&M)

Duh...........but since the thread poster was talking about gaming etc. it didn't seem he was referring to servers........... Of course Linux has a big hunk of the server market and rightfully so!

Well, if you are interested in gaming.... things are getting better. You can run quite alot of games using Wine, and there are alot of Linux-native releases (RTCW, MOHAA, Quake 1, 2, 3, Doom 3, NWN etc. etc) and the performance is there (NVIDIA gets about same FPS in Linux as they do in Windows. In lower resolutions Linux usually beats Windows)

I'm not...........at least not much..........my kids are, and they putter with my 'Nix box from time to time, but always go back to their XP boxes to game. I was merely stating statistics as was eluded to by the thread topic.................MS actually has gained a bit more marketshare than they had one year ago at the same time since the debut of XP.

As far as Wine, that's fine and yes, it does work........but not many people I know whom use Linux for various reasons of course which include price seem to be big "gamers" anyway.................. IMHO, Lindows has the best shot at taking marketshare from MS and eventually bringing that marketshare home to Linux!

 

[stonecold3169]

Well, I'll put it this way. I'm now a sophmore computer science student in college, so I guess that puts me at a little above average when it comes to using comps. My freshman year in college and my senior year in highschool I had done a bit of pure commandline 'nix work, but nothing serious (compiling, renaming, deleting, just the basics more or less.

Well, I decided that I wanted to try something different, so I went to the store and bought for $15 the Mandrake 8.1 standard set (I just wanted the manual, I knew I could download the ISOs for free). I find it amazing that with virtually no 'nix experiance at all I could install, setup, and more or less USE Linux more efficently then I could windows. THIS I think is where MS really takes a hit. It no longer requires a "computer geek" to run Linux. It has reached accesability levels now where it is starting to be possible for home users to use it.

Don't get me wrong, but installing some stuff is still a real pain in the ass, but I'm adjusting. It's nice having for FREE (or, if you want the official hard copy of the manual < $20) all of the tools you would want for most anything.

 

[rbhawcroft]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: rbhawcroftSure they can copy the code. Sun did just that when they released their own Linux-distro just now. It's basically tweaked Red Hat. Now, you might think that Red Hat suffers because of that. But they don't. Because of the license, they can in return copy Suns code in to their own product. Everybody benefits. You could say that it results in positive feedback-loop. Red Hat improves, Sun copies those improvements to their OS and adds improvements of their own. Red Hat copies the improvements of Sun in to their own product and adds their own improvements... Ad Infinitum. And of course Red Hat and others can sell proprietary software along their OS. And thatsoftware is something that other companies cannot copy.

i dont agree that it is better for the code to be open source, its just not commercial enough.
i think there should be fixed standards like with web browsers that they comply with and that a committee can update flexibly and that they all have to be within, and that they can copy each others source code as regards these fixed/ standardised areas of code, and that the more targetted areas like web browsing, software packages and embedded software and services like explorer, cd burning software, wireless support and so on should be vendor specific, its the same as the IEEE standards, all usb devices work together just as all SCSI drives work together, all the companies compete together and only a few gouge like ms do, thats the two big problems with windows, ok its complex, but their software is just not that good, second they price gouge, yet not until linux is a credible sme and enterprise product will the smaller software developers adopt it, when that begins to happen then it will go big time, and i think a commercial version that fuels its own development around a base standard would be beneficial for that. the licence agreement would be easy to change, couldnt linus torvalds just do it?

also are the games you mentioned as stable and as cheap on the linux version?

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: rbhawcroft

Originally posted by: ShadowDJ
I agree, But I don't think linux supporters would like it being for profit. Microsoft seems to be degrading. My windows media player 7.2 is big and bloated and slow (ugly too). I remember 6.4 when it was fast and simple.

i took a copy of the old mplayer and put it on my harddisk and linked it to the os by doing a 'run from program list', 'always use this program for this file type association'.

Windows XP comes with windows media player 6.4. It's located in C:\program files\windows media player\mplayer2.exe. No need to take an old copy.

 

[wyvrn]

Bingo boingo. Linux companies are taking away the excuses people use to have for not trying it. I think Nix is a great OS, but I still use an MS OS for gaming (win2k). I don't find Windows XP attractive at all, and I broke down my XP box and sold it. Windows2k still kicks major ass though.

Originally posted by: stonecold3169
Well, I'll put it this way. I'm now a sophmore computer science student in college, so I guess that puts me at a little above average when it comes to using comps. My freshman year in college and my senior year in highschool I had done a bit of pure commandline 'nix work, but nothing serious (compiling, renaming, deleting, just the basics more or less.

Well, I decided that I wanted to try something different, so I went to the store and bought for $15 the Mandrake 8.1 standard set (I just wanted the manual, I knew I could download the ISOs for free). I find it amazing that with virtually no 'nix experiance at all I could install, setup, and more or less USE Linux more efficently then I could windows. THIS I think is where MS really takes a hit. It no longer requires a "computer geek" to run Linux. It has reached accesability levels now where it is starting to be possible for home users to use it.

Don't get me wrong, but installing some stuff is still a real pain in the ass, but I'm adjusting. It's nice having for FREE (or, if you want the official hard copy of the manual < $20) all of the tools you would want for most anything.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: rbhawcroft
i dont agree that it is better for the code to be open source, its just not commercial enough.

Well, if you prefer to be ripped off by big corporations, then that's your decision. Me? I prefer to use my free OS (both as in speech and as in beer), thankyouverymuch.

i think there should be fixed standards like with web browsers that they comply with

Easy, they just comply with W3C standards.

It seems that you just don't understand how Linux works. For Windows-user it can be alien. In Windows, MS has told you what to do. They hold your hand in everything you do. You get one desktop, one filemanager, one media-player.... In Linux, it's not like that. In Linux, it's all about freedom. You are free to choose your GUI (or you can choose not to use GUI at all), you can choose your apps. The moment some tried to enforce "standards" people who disagree with that standard would start their own project.

I know it might seem weird, but that openness and freedom is the strength of Linux. If you don't like Red Hat, you can find other distro that does things the way YOU want them to be done. The moment you start bringing in comittees and the like, is the moment you kill Linux.

couldnt linus torvalds just do it?

No. Linus works on the Kernel. That's it. He doesn't enforce the "rules of Linux", he leads the kernel-development. As he has said "I don't care what people do with Linux as long as they actually use it".

also are the games you mentioned as stable and as cheap on the linux version?

Cheap? I think they are a bit more expensive (the market is smaller). Stable? Why wouldn't they be stable? There's nothing in Linux that would cause those games to be unstable (quite the contrary)