Will Linux ever be as popular as Windows?

[Archer75]

Funny because I use it on my server, my desktop and even my cell phone. In my world Linux already won the battle.

Your world is pretty small.

 

[eeyrjmr]

Your world is pretty small.

and the point of that statement?
for the record I have linux on my home desktop, wife's laptop, home file-server and two LiveDVD's in my bag at all time and that is even before I get to my work PC's (where the number of linux box's are growing simply because 64bit CPU + 64bit Linux kernel for simulations runs circles around windows machines)

 

[bbz_Ghost]

and the point of that statement?
for the record I have linux on my home desktop, wife's laptop, home file-server and two LiveDVD's in my bag at all time and that is even before I get to my work PC's (where the number of linux box's are growing simply because 64bit CPU + 64bit Linux kernel for simulations runs circles around windows machines)

In other words, you're just silently agreeing with something I said earlier in this thread:

To each his own.

What works for you is fine for you, what works for me is fine for me, but Joe Average won't pick Linux over Windows, period.

 

[eeyrjmr]

In other words, you're just silently agreeing with something I said earlier in this thread:

To each his own.

What works for you is fine for you, what works for me is fine for me, but Joe Average won't pick Linux over Windows, period.

? wtf how is that relevant to what you quoted?

 

[Archer75]

and the point of that statement?
for the record I have linux on my home desktop, wife's laptop, home file-server and two LiveDVD's in my bag at all time and that is even before I get to my work PC's (where the number of linux box's are growing simply because 64bit CPU + 64bit Linux kernel for simulations runs circles around windows machines)

Just because you use it it doesn't mean squat. The vast majority of people don't use it, don't care about. Many more have tried it and hated it.

 

[Catweazle]

For goodness sake, this has become quite ridiculous. The same stuff is being repeated over and over, in numerous variations of the same theme and in numerous threads. It's all basically an "It's all Microsoft's fault and everything else but Microsoft is perfect" style argument, repeated at such length and with such frequency that it appears to be an exercise in bombarding propaganda to win a battle. It's neither logical argument nor reasonable argument.

If that were true, then we would not need AV suites.

That's an unsupportable contention. It was explained that such a thing as a 'perfectly secure' OS exists nor can exist. That wasn't an opinion - it was fact. The notion of such a thing is a Utopian ideal, not a real-world situation. You can reasonably argue that if Linux enjoyed the almost ubiquitous desktop presence which Windows currently enjoys then the task of malware creators would be a more difficult one. You may or may not be correct in that contention, but it's a reasonable one to argue. Your implication that any particular desktop OS can somehow completely eliminate all malware is not a reasonable argument. We will need AV suites irrespective of which desktop OS might at some stage enjoy market dominance. Whichever desktop OS achieves that status will be targetted and will be breached. It's inevitable.

Microsoft has to at least be responsible for the secure design architecture of its operating systems. They are charging us a lot of money for those operating systems, and if they're gonna advertise that they have secure OS offerings they'd better back it up. Their history is not a good one. My satirical comment is a reflection of reality, as sad as that reality may be.

Again, this comment ignores the reality that Utopian ideals don't get achieved. Microsoft does take responsibility within their position of market dominance, and does so in reasonable fashion. The PR blurb which emanates from that corporation in reference to 'security' is, and must be, ralative rather than absolute. Their only genuine competitors are their earlier releases, and it is against those that newer products need to be gauged. Newer Windows releases ARE more secure than earlier versions. They don't claim absolute security. An absence of absolute security isn't something which they need to "back up".

And please don't be so presumptive as to delineate what "reality" comprises for my Windows system. My Windows activity hasn't been a sad reality. I've used simple, almost basic tools and precautions and haven't seen a malware intrusion on my Windows systems for years. They haven't slipped past me unnoticed either. I've run scans with the best detection tools available there aren't any there. Plenty of other people who enjoy the same situation also, if people care to be open minded and take notice.

Nowadays, with Vista and IE7, I've moved back to using IE as a web browser. Still nothing getting in.

Then why are they making it their job, and why is one of the selling points of this new OS based on security? If MS now has a secure product, why do they try to compete against the McAfees, the Symantecs, etc. thru OneCare?

bbz_ghost allowed some questionable choice of terminology to enter his contribution. The general idea of the particular comment this excerpt responds to is valid. It's simply not expressed well. Responses should be made to the obvious intent.

Microsoft can't completely insulate an end-user from a predatory and constantly evolving world. It can only do so insofar as is humanly achievable. For the Windows platform 'humanly achievable' also must make consideration of the backwards compatibility wants of consumers, and that in itself imposes restriction. The new version is more protective of its users in the hostile environment within which everyday computing and connectivity exists. Enhanced security is what we all want, and it is only to be expected that it is something consumers want to hear about.

Competition? Why is this now a criticism, when so much has been said in recent years criticising Microsoft for its monopolistic market dominance? I'd have preferred to see the extra applications integrated into the OS itself, to be honest. Were any alternative OS to be the market leader I'd want it so for that too. No OS is ever going to enjoy such a status without also being the target of the hostile environment global connectivity represents.

Such exploits would be less likely if backdoors and weaknesses were not part of the code. Unfortunately, they were. Microsoft responded to the threats by breaking our third party software (XP SP1). We as consumers deserved better than what we got as a supposed "fix".

Another rather illogical line of argument. MS has been, quite justifiably, criticised for allowing easy access to the heart of the OS. It has responded by progressively distancing application and now driver code further and further from that vulnerable heart, and has done so in a fashion designed to have as little as possible impact on the compatibility needs of end-users.

Yet, in this utterance, they are condemned for not having achieved the goal in one fell swoop, whilst also being criticised for not maintaining complete backwards compatibility. The two cannot be achieved together. Asking the impossible might be a fun thing to do, but it doesn't make much practical sense.

The attacks and hacks are reprehensible. Nobody condones them here, because they hurt and diminish everyone.

When it comes to the hate and to the bad press, MS has nobody to blame but itself. It's engaged in market tampering, monopolistic practices, and extortion of its OEM customers in order to dominate. Most other companies try to dominate through superior product engineering. MS simply kneecapped its competitors by denying them fair access to the same markets.

My point - if you're going to be king of the hill, you'd better be able to stand up on top. If you can't stand up, then you'll eventually get knocked over. If you can't stand under your own power, then you shouldn't be on top in the first place.

SNIP



Thanks in part to its unethical, illegal business practices, Microsoft is now one of the world's wealthiest companies. It should therefore have ample resources to ensure security. So why aren't we more secure?

The answer to that question has more to do with overall business philosophy of the company in question than with the nature of those launching the attacks.

But again, this thread is about what Linux has to do to attain Windows-like popularity, and we're way off target.

And we finish off with a lengthy diatribe of rather meaningless rhetoric. Microsoft does stand atop the hill. There are no indications that it is likely to do otherwise in the forseeable future. Considered in context, all the rhetoric expressed there simply comes across as 'sour grapes'.


And it's being expressed over and over repeatedly, in a manner which is basically destroying threads and any chance of reasonable debate and discussion in them. Damned shame, IMO. I don't think it's intended to be such. I suspect that outcome is accidental.

 

[odoe]

This is getting way too soapboxy for this forum.
If you want to discuss this further, use the soapbox in general mayhem.