In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Simon Templar
<TheSaint@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:04:41 -0400
<471d2eb1$0$29634$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:22ivu4-73b.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dan D. Lyons
>> <DanLyons@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:35:01 -0400
>> <471cfd8d$0$26424$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:1357171.AemHbeNh6q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Running Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit and 4GB Ram
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | I then ordered 4GB (2 sticks of DDR667) of ram
>>>> | from Newegg.com. Everything arrived fine, I installed
>>>> | the ram which is very simple. With a D630 it involves
>>>> | talking off the keyboard to insert the first stick and
>>>> | then to install the second stick you just have to remove
>>>> | the back panel. I stuck in a Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit
>>>> | version and started the install. Everything went fine,
>>>> | Vista installed rather fast so I was really happy at this
>>>> | point. It rebooted after successful install, was loading
>>>> | into windows and then blue screened. I was devastated lol.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://brianleejackson.com/2007/10/21/vista-and-4gb-ram/
>>>
>>>
>>> --- "So I remove one stick of ram, booted up into windows
>>> fine, installed the small patch, restarted, stuck additional
>>> stick back in and yay! it didn't blue screen going into windows.
>>> If you ask me, this update should be part of the Vista install,
>>> and maybe down the road it will be. If you are having trouble
>>> with Vista and 4GB of ram, try the patch. It worked for me, I
>>> hope it helps you."
>>>
>>> And here we have another happy Vista user who didn't even
>>> consider using linux.
>>>
>>
>> What, precisely, is the reason (or, if one prefers,
>> a good set of reasons) someone should use Linux?
>
> It's one of the questions that a product maker must
> ask itself.
Linux has no product maker as such. A product manager,
maybe...but no maker. Linus did initially create the seed,
and manages part of the kernel. I'm not sure regarding
the division of labor now, but at best it's a labor of
love, leveraged by big businesses such as IBM to sell
more actual hardware. But then, this is an inherently
communistic enterprise -- anyone can take the kernel,
and some might be able to give back according to their
abilities. Is this good? An interesting question, which
is probably beyond this particular discussion group.
> Who is our target customer?
Linux has no customers. None. Nada. Zippo. Zilch.
Zero. To be sure, there are a number of salable distros --
Redhat and Novell/SuSE being the most obvious -- and of
course one can modify the Linux kernel as s/he sees fit.
But one does not *buy* the kernel -- one downloads it
(the cost of a download being at most half a cent).
Therefore, no customers as such. Perhaps a different
term would be preferable -- Users? Integrators?
> Why would they choose this product over product X?
s/X/Windows/
And that is indeed the question. The only answer I
have: inexpensiveness and reliability -- and both quickly
evaporate unless one knows exactly what one is doing, nor
is either one all that relevant in a desktop setting (the
inexpensiveness is in the IT budget and therefore hidden;
reliability is not an issue if one has a good NAT blocking
infection vectors and procedures to handle the stupider
phishing/pharming email attempts).
> And
> other questions like this. Amateurs laugh and think this
> is a childish exercise. Senior management calls it product
> focus and knowing your market.
I wouldn't know. I'm a software engineer, schlogging through
the actual code while senior management do their high-level
thinking stuff. One hopes we're in sync but there are days
I do wonder here at $EMPLOYER.
>
>
>> If we advocates can't answer that, Linux is doomed to die,
>> and rightfully so; a user must *want* Linux, and thus
>> far Linux (or many of the distributions surrounding it)
>> is merely a carbon copy of the "innovative" Windows...at
>> least as far as I can see from the publications focusing
>> thereon, and the ignorance of users in general.
>
> It's a question that people don't ask... but they should.
Should? They *MUST*. Does one ask what one needs a car
for? How about that new toaster? House? Boat? Desktop
unit?
It's a significant capital expenditure.
> Because it is
> exactly the question that customers (NEW users) will be
> asking themselves. (Customers does not imply having to
> pay for the product.)
One pays in a way. With Linux, it's a learning curve.
With Windows, it's "ease of use" and preinstallation.
Guess which way works better for Microsoft.
Go on. Guess. ;-)
Now guess which one works better for the individual
business. The answer may depend on whether the business
or individual has Linux expertise or not.
>
>
>> (Some of
>> them are perceiving increased reliability by using Linux,
>> which is good, but hardly spectacular; Windows isn't
>> standing still here.)
>
> Windows is plenty reliable for 99% of users.
s/99%/almost all/
> The only place where people
> complain and whine about the urban legend of needing
> to reboot Windows ever hour is here in COLA.
> It certainly isn't like that out in the real world.
The usual reboot time for Windows has been claimed to be
about 6 weeks on average (the 49.7 day bug is about 7 weeks
and has long since been fixed); however, there are Windows
systems out there that have been running continuously for
over 2 years.
The main problem with Windows is that auto-extending paging
file. Fix that, and I for one surmise most of the performance
problems will evaporate.
>
> As long as the "advocates" here think that they've won
> because people will pick linux to avoid "rebooting every
> hour" then they are more clueless than previously imagined.
Some advocates are more clued-in than others -- or haven't
you noticed? ;-) In any event, Windows is a perfect
solution for many -- and a pricey one for some, both in
terms of initial cost and in terms of maintenance headaches
(primarily brought upon by sloppy management, exacerbated
by common but inadvisable practices caused primarily by
Windows' history of "one machine, one user" -- a practice
that is changing for the better and Vista will complete
that changeover, presumably...though I have my doubts.)
>
>
>> Not that that is anywhere near true, but does Joe Business
>> User really care if Linux uses open() or CreateFile()
>> in its internals? Not even close; the user cares about
>> accurate presentation of a document/spreadsheet (or the
>> GUI representation thereof) and its printout. Windows is
>> adequate (though hardly spectacular) therein, and therefore
>> Joe User is satisfied.
>
> For Joe user the "internals" doesn't matter. Not one bit.
> It's a matter of what they can do with the computer that
> counts... not how the computer does things internally.
> Users think about the "applications" not OS.
I'm not at all sure about that. Users think about the data
and/or the high-level processes. I want to do this with
the information; the tool names are generally irrelevant,
except perhaps as a sales point. I want this unit to help
our customers, who are coming in with Internet Explorer
and Mozilla Firefox web browsers -- a web browser being,
generally speaking, a standardized fat client. I want
to contact XYZ corporation to place an order using
this standardized fat client.
To that end, Microsoft has superb packaging. Want to
write? Use Word. Want to excel in business? Use Excel.
Want to make powerful points in a presentation?
Microsoft Powerpoint. Want to implement a service?
Microsoft Windows Server 2003, and Internet Information
Services. Want to do office work? Microsoft Office.
Want to explore the Internet? Internet Explorer. Want
to browse the Web? Uh, we'll get back to you on that.
And so on. There are some interesting exceptions, such
as "Microsoft BOB" -- but by and large, Microsoft has
succeeded in building a marketing empire that Rome would
have drooled over.
>
>
>> And in the above case, Joe User was quite satisfied
>> after the patch. These things happen with both systems.
>> Clearly, once repaired, Vista is more than adequate for
>> the task at hand (though at this point the task is simply
>> to stay up for more than 5 seconds while booting itself;
>> if a system can't do that, it's very very doomed).
>
> The article didn't mention what the "task" was that the user was going to
> do. But he felt that Windows was the OS to do it with.
The task starts with the machine being made available
for use. To that end, Vista was initially failing --
but came up once the patch was applied. Teething problems.
>
>
>
>> There is, of course, the question of acquisition cost,
>> but that's not the whole problem -- and I'm frankly not
>> sure how much of the problem acquisition cost is.
>
> It matters for places like schools that are on a tight
> budget.
In which case, that budget is expressable both as a
monetary outlay ($$$) and as a time-to-working-system.
That's where Microsoft excels; small scale system
integration is a snap.
(This is not to say Linux can't be set up equally quickly,
by a competent IT staff. However, it *is* different, and
the problem is exacerbated in mid-scale integration if
one has a Linux/Windows hybrid network.)
> But for a
> company the cost of a Windows license every 5 years
3. Equipment is depreciated on a 36 month schedule here.
> (which they buy in bulk
> anyway) is diddly-squat compared to the salary they pay
> employees. They'd save more by switching to cheaper brand
> of coffee in the kitchen.
And to Vista. The IDC report has been questioned many times,
but its conclusions are clear: Windows is cheaper.
(Whether its premises or methodology are correct -- I for one
do not know. I have my suspicions.)
>
>
>> The question of reliability is an interesting one, and
>> Linux does appear to be more reliable in that realm;
>> it either works 99.9999% or it fails all the time.
>> With Windows, one gets some interesting randomicity (if
>> that's a word). IE in particular is not guaranteed to show
>> the user's homepage (it occasionally goes to its update
>> site), and even Mozilla is slightly infected in that realm,
>> though only if Mozilla's been updated previously.
>
> Linux may be slightly more reliable
The two are now equally reliable, given the commentary below.
> but to most people there is no
> difference between linux being 99.999% reliable and Windows being 99.99%
> reliable. If you were comparing linux to Win98 there'd be an advantage.
Linux has no performance advantages; they've eroded away.
Regrettably, the viruses have not -- so one wonders how
reliable Windows really is, in the malware defense area.
However, I suspect Linux's advantage here will eventually
erode away as well, as vulnerable dialup lines get replaced
with sophisticated NAT routers (they're *given* away!),
hardware spam blockers, and traffic analyzers that can
sniff out most common DDoS attacks and squish them before
the IT staff even has to get involved.
Is your system infected? Doesn't matter. It can't attack.
Windows wins again.
(How one overthrows such a corrupt system is far from
clear. Linux is the cleaner solution, but not the
preferable one from a marketing standpoint, especially
if one is selling hardware designed to bullet-proof a
Windows web/SOAfarm. If we're not careful the webfarms
will also start to specialize in IE-specific code again,
with Silverlight being the joker in the deck.)
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/dev/signature/pedantry: Resource temporarily unavailable
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
