Wong outlines the usefulness of some particular Windows
resources, and I think he has a point there. I think Windows
remains in effect today, not because of any technical virtues
it may have, but only because 1) it's closed software and
this works in an environment of ignorant users; and 2)
Microsoft seems very good at market manipulation by way of
buying up competitors and people with proven good ideas,
and at using money to trigger particular processes. The SCO
suit against Linux being a more obvious example.
But Windows has some problems. Doing things in Windows
is *laborious*. And unlike working in a good shell, you can't do
things nicely in Windows. That it's an environment conceals
that it's basically an immense collection of kluges: see Karp,
Windows XP Annoyances for Geeks, O'Reilly 2003, Appendix
A, Setting Locator. *What is that* if not a great big table of
kluges?
A second serious problem with Windows is its ongoing problem
of inflation. It wastes space hugely. A few months ago I was
helping a friend with a technical dissertation. At a point he
changed away from the Windows format he had it in: its size
changed from 30 megabytes to 3 megabytes. Same thing to
look at. *That,* multiplied, is something that has to go from
Windows, but without it, Windows isn't Windows any more.
There is a third thing on my mind about Windows. I'm working
at problems of making living permanent settlements off-Terra,
i.e, in space. The people who live Out There will live greatly
different lives from those here: nowhere in this Solar System,
nowhere in known space, is there a place like here on Terra
where if you want to go somewhere, you step outside and go
there. Etc etc: a practical meaning of this is that any software
in space (and there will be a *lot* of it) must be space-rated,
from known source code, publically accessible. Microsoft,
who uses multitudinous restrictions (or they try to, ref 'BSA'),
cannot be Microsoft any more if they do that.
So that's why I see (that poisonous abortion called) Windows,
and Microsoft who make it, as temporary facades across the
cyberspace environment we live in today and will much-more
live in tomorrow and in space.
Cheers -- Martha Adams
"Oliver Wong" <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dyVfh.67041$aJ6.654198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:2957350.LHcXGAkmCS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> Exactly. The assumption that Windows will be around forever is no
>> longer a
>> valid one.
>
> I don't think that assumption was *ever* a "valid" one (as far as
> assumptions can be valid or invalid). Does anyone seriously really
> think Windows would still be around 80 years from now, nevermind a
> million years from now? Personal computers haven't been around long
> enough to make that kind of extrapolation.
>
>> People depend on critical updates that can only be delivered from
>> one source. To make matters worse, the customer is not in charge. No
>> code,
>> remote kill switches, decisions made arrogantly by one company (no
>> forks)
>> and licensing/costs that instruct future paths and policies. Linux is
>> yours
>> to own, not to just borrow or test drive. With Linux you're at the
>> driver's
>> seat. With Windows you're at the back of the bus. Hold onto the seat
>> in
>> front of you. It's a bumpy ride and the driver doesn't know where
>> s/he's
>> going.
>
> I think you're assuming the quality, or user-experience, or
> whatever, of an OS is timeless. I claim it varies over time, not only
> with improvements done to the OS, but also the availability of third
> party software, what file formats are popular at the time, and what
> your friends are using. Right now, given my present configuration of
> software, file formats and friends, Windows is the best OS for me.
> Ubuntu is very good, and I'm very impressed with it, but I'm simply
> not willing to give up on my computer games (which only runs on
> Windows), the music I've composed (which is saved in formats which
> only Windows software can load), and the activities I share with my
> friends (who play Windows only games, and use features found on MSN
> which are not available on gAim, etc.)
>
> Maybe ten years from now, Vista will have completely died, with no
> successor, and everyone (including all my friends and I) will switch
> to Ubuntu. I'm sure they'll be some smug Linux enthusiasts who'll
> boast "See? I told you so. You should have switched 10 years ago." but
> this is completely fallacious reasoning: I *shouldn't* have switched
> "10 years ago" (i.e. now), 'cause then I'd be missing 10 years of all
> the great stuff I could have been doing with Windows. I should switch
> exactly when it's most beneficial for me to switch. The
> person-specific-subjective-quality of an OS varies with time.
>
> And to remind people I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, I've currently got
> 3 boxes dedicated (i.e. single-boot) to Ubuntu right now, and I'm
> planning on switching one of them to Yellow Dog Linux, or some other
> distribution, as I heard Ubuntu is planning on discontinuing PPC
> support in the near future. And I always encourage my friends and
> family to switch to Linux *if* it makes sense given their specific
> context (i.e. I wouldn't tell a gamer to give up Windows for Linux,
> but for someone who mainly web-surfs/e-mails/listens-to-mp3s, sure,
> why not?)
>
> - Oliver
>
|
|
