Aqua-Soft ForumsGive this a look: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2134730,00.html
Microsoft Authorises Anti-linux Discounts
the linux community have said they've been doing that sort of things for years.
This just proves it :rant:
must be illegal mustn't it?
This might peev some linux purists but for linux to really compete with M$ it has to be as easy as windows. This I beleive is Lindows path. Ease of use Im finding is not easily achieved. lots more 3rd party companies need to make official drivers for products. My big problem is iI cant get my PPPoE to work in RH9 if I could get that right that would be a start. XP has a easy wizard. Logon and password thats it.
i think its true, Linux "isn't there yet" 
its so close though, and things like manufacturers not making drivers, should change as Linux's share gradually grows.
I think Lindows has a good chance if they could ever get KDE 3.1 incorporated and stable. Also a xp like transparency a acelerated desktop and wider multiple desktop support. Does Mandrake 9.1 do it well? Does it come with KDE3.1?
yep, Mandrake 9.1 comes with gnome 2.2 and KDE 3.1
An accelerated desktop would be really nice, but i don't think either of the two main enviroments will build it in, in the near future because its difficult and requires a decent graphics card - Linux is meant to be the low hardware's desktop. Hopefully that will change.
fissy,
ps. i'm ssure Contrasutra will get mad about the low hardware point 
Good computers are soooooo cheap to build anymore. People who are into linux usually have good computers.
thats true i suppose, although my next door neighbour for example, runs slackware 9 on his 486.
OpenGL desktop now!
Remember, Linux isnt trying to compete with Windows. Why does everyone have to be a desktop OS? Linux is a server OS, that people are adapting into a desktop OS.
Linux doesnt care if it beats MS. :rant:
Linux is about Freedom, stability, and community, and if Linux has to give up those things to beat MS, then theres no point in it.
theres no reason why it should have to give up those things to beat MS though is there?
why shouldn't we have our cake and eat it?
Because you people are complaining about simplicity and ease of use, and you cant have that and customizability. Ever heard the saying:
"Build a program that even fools can use, and only fools will want to use it."
Look how hard it is to customize XP. You have to hack your own system files. Sure, its simple to setup, but try adding something new or different, and youve got a big pain.
The Windows philosphy of "decide everything for the user" is whats ruining the industry. Windows is the SOLE reason we have Viruses and crashes. Remember, Linux doesnt crash or have virii.
Originally posted by contrasutra@May 15 2003, 07:35 PMWhy does everyone have to be a desktop OS? Linux is a server OS, that people are adapting into a desktop OS.
i thought unix was the server OS, and linux brought the power of unix to the desktop...i dont know, im really asking 
Contra you sound so much like a zealot it's not even funny. Linux isn't perfect. But it does have a lot less viruses than windows in general which has a larger user base, etc. Also you are saying linux in general.
You can also say the same about any version of MacOS but again there is less of a user base there. Also, you can crash linux. I won't say you can't crash XP\2k. But saying you can't ever crash linux is wrong.
Also do you actually think that say running lindows which runs everyone in root is the most secure thing in the world? A major problem with windows is that by default it has everyone running an administrator.
Actually windows decides less for the user than OSX does. Apple isn't even for theming. When you ar hacking uxtheme to allow unsigned themes for example you are actually hacking less than installing a theme on OSX. When I change a theme it's not all that difficult. A lot of people get OSX because they like the user experience out of the box. Do you think that having defaults is deciding for the user?
Everything is not as dead simple as you might make it out in linux as you make it out to be either. Maybe it is more configurable than windows. But with that comes a price, a lot of users don't know how to configure it to look decent.
Actually if you want the most secure stable OS you need BSD. But you get that kind of OS for it's features like for example servers not for it's looks. Though I have to admit some DE's look good but they all have their minuses in my eyes.
Linux was a made to be an open source clone of UNIX, and unix was a server OS. So therefore, Linux is a server OS.
Linux has NO VIRUSES, 0, nada. Why? Yes, partially because of discouraging users to run in root (and lindows doing that is one of the "windows-ing" problems I was talking about), but also because the system is designed to be much more secure and modular. One program can never have access to the whole system (even as root). And the other reason is that every distro is different, so the virus writer would have to come up with 1000 different versions.
Linux wont crash. I dare you to make it crash. Go ahead, try. Remember, X can crash, but the actual kernel will never crash.
Linux isnt trying to please everyone, and they dont. But the people who work with linux, get a lot in return for their hard work.
Apple is much more customizable in certain respects. The kernel is open source, so that is completly customizable, you cant say the same for Windows. In my opinion, Apple and MS and trying to do a "please everyone" campaign, and thats OK, but Im willing to do some more work to get a better, more customized system.
If linux dominated the market like MS does, and it is because they started MS style practices, why would you want that? It just makes no sense, you dont like what MS does, but you want Linux to do it.
Oh, PS, remember OS X is unix derived as well, so theres a reason it doesnt have any viruses and doesnt crash very often. The only reason OSX crashes at all, is because the GUI is integrated w/ the kernel, so if one goes, they both go. Thats the same problem w/ Windows.
Have you noticed that its like a party on your screen w/ all these emoticons dancing around. :coke-party:
Ok take a look here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-...8&q=linux+virus
I'm sure there are more than 0 there. Well the point is there is more than 0.
Yes there are ways of making it crash.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=...+to+crash+linux
Google is your friend.
Also about OSX. Darwin is open sourced but not the whole thing. You can't compile your own version of it. You still have to get your updates directly from Apple. Ok so how many people have made their own OSX distro? And how many people have made changes to OSX and compiled it? And no the darwin and gnu darwin don't count because they are seperate and don't contain anything that makes OSX famous apart from well, darwin.
Your right that OSX is hardly as customizable as Linux, but I wasnt saying it was. Im just saying that if you WERE a programmer, you COULD change the kernel, if you were so inclined.
Did you actually read any of those links? The 2 "viruses" (they werent really viruses) that were around like 5 years ago were very hard to actually get infected by. You had to like run the program as root, and give it full priveliges.
Just read this: http://www.lwfug.org/~abartoli/virus-writi...ng-HOWTO/_html/ , this shows how hard it is to write a linux virus.
Well the point is if you are careless and dumb then you deserve what you get. I haven't gotten any viruses on my computer in all the years I have been running them. Do you think that perhaps it's just because I'm lucky?
It's actually not hard to run a program as root. *cough* lindows *cough*
Actually about customizeability I would say that most people don't want to reconfigure their kernel anyway. And I would say in OSX and windows there is never a need to recompile your OS like say when something goes on with your cd-rom or something.
And for GUI being able to change all widgets, etc. is more than enough for a lot of people. with freeform borders a la windowblinds you are actually doing more than most people want.
So in the end linux or nay other OS is not the be all end all for everyone.
Well, Windows vs Linux vs OSX is obviously opinion, and we differ in them.
Yes, if you are careless (like Kazaa), then you deserve what you get. But what if you get a virus through an email worm? You recieved an email from your "friend", and you open it up, and it screws up your computer. Was that so careless? And dont say that you should have been running an antivirus, because remember, if there were no viruses, there would be no antivirus.
Actually, EVERY linux user should recompile their kernel. When you compile something on your own computer (instead of using an image, like you MUST do in Windows/OSX), it is customized for it. So it will run faster and more stable. It will also be able to take advantage of any special features your processor might have.
People seem to think compiling is a bad thing, they would rather use packages. Custom compiling is why linux is so stable and fast.
That's why you have to know what you are opening. I don't open any attachments indiscrimenately even from friends. It's assumptions that get you in trouble. If you get an attachment called cutekitty.jpg.vbs what do you think that would be? Most e-mail viruses also target outlook express. One thing you can do to protect yourself is not use outlook express. Or if you insist on outlook express turn off auto download displaying e-mail, turn off attachments that could possibly be a virus, etc.
Also having antivirus wouldn't hurt either.
E-mail worms aren't magical things that fly from e-mail just because it has been sent to you and you have windows even if it is sent to you.
Where you aware there are antivirus programs for MacOS? There is a whole norton suite for OSX.
BTW I never said compiling was bad, but I'm saying that reconfiguring and recompiling their kernel isn't for everyone nor do they desire it. That is one reason why those people won't want ot run linux rather they would pick OSX or windows. Do you think someone would he happy if their changes did not work and they have to go through the whole thing again and again?
Originally posted by contrasutra@May 15 2003, 10:02 PMHave you noticed that its like a party on your screen w/ all these emoticons dancing around. :coke-party:
is it like one of the imfamous coke parties? (no needle emoticon yet?)
time for the ex-s. member coke party.. oops, you didn't hear that from me :evil:
I don't think MS is to worried...
SCO Suspends Distribution of Linux Pending Intellectual Property Clarification; Announces Greater Focus on UNIX and SCOx Strategy
SCO Suspends Sales of Linux, Alerts Customers That Linux Is an Unauthorized Derivative of UNIX and That Legal Liability May Extend to Commercial Users SCO Reaffirms Commitment to SCOx, SCO's Growth Strategy Through Web Services.
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=109149
The SCO are going to do MS's dirtywork for them.
Also contrasutra where did you get the idea there are no virus's in linux...
There sure as hell are...
ie: Bliss, a Linux "virus"
Like I said, that virus was from '97. Nobody is having problems with it at all anymore.
There are Linux antiviruses too, it doesnt mean you need them. Its just companies trying to capitalize on an empty market.
The fact that you have to run an antivirus, and be weary of attachments is proof enough that something isnt right. You live in fear. "I dont open attachments, even from friends". That sounds pretty paranoid to me, but you have to in Windows, just to be safe.
I know you didnt say compiling is bad, but people (not you) seem to want to it "go away" so life can be easier on them. Linux isnt trying to please those people and become a desktop OS. Programs run better when you self compile them, so why wouldnt you? Its really not that hard. ./configure , make, make install . There, your done.
No the point is I'm not living in fear it is if you get something such as lookatmeIkickass.jpg.vbs or ospatch.exe in your e-mail what would you think that is? =Þ
A good dose of common sense is the best antivirus. No I don't run antivirus in my systray 24 hours nor do I go around my house waving a gun around. But I do use common sense and I scan every so often. You have to draw the line between being paranoid and careless. You can't just say oh I don't need to patch or such thing because my OS is perfect god's gift which couldn't possible need to be patched.
And BTW it's not ALWAYS as simple as just doing the usual ./configure, make and make install and then you're done. Especially if you don't have all the depencies and say things in the source need changing for your particular OS or even just the make file. Sure apt-get and emerge help but it's still a problem. It's like all users are supposed to become programmers, "If you need a feature or don't like one or if it doesn't work, program it yourself".
Well my point is things aren't as cut and dried as you try to make them out to be. You can't take for granted that everyone is in the know about this or that everyone prefers the same things. I'm sure a complete ignoramus can get their system exploited no matter which OS they run.