Windows Vista

[maxqnz]

Re: Windows Vista

Perhaps there are users who actually DO want windows (i'm certainly not one of them!). And for them, i'm all for it -- I believe proprietary software is unethical, but who am I to judge if someone uses it? There's a HUGE difference between making and using software

I'd love to know why the idea of proprietary software is unethical. Software is a product of someone's labour, and if the producer sees fit to charge for it, so be it. I very much PREFER to use FLOSS, but I don't see it as an ethical issue at all. If I make something, I should be entitled to profit it from it on whatever terms can be agreed with my prospective customers. I wouldn't tell a chef that he or she has no right to charge for their meals, or tell an author that he or she is ethically obliged to give me their work for no charge. If they want to great, but I would not call them unethical for not choosing to.

There's also the fact that there may be many users out there who don't WANT to use Windows, but have no choice. The majority of those who post at length about the moral and ethical superiority of Linux and other FLOSS conveniently overlook the fact that, to paraphrase a Clinto slogan, "it's about the software, stupid". In addition to my voice recognition software, which now works with just about every Windows app on my PC, I have 3 different app.s for learning Hindi and Italian, and a few other Windows only niche applications as well. I'm sure this is very common, even among those like me who are not gamers. So for a great many people, it's not about choice of OS, it's about choice of application. If the software one needs is only available on a proprietary platform, then one is left without much choice but to use said proprietary OS, regardless of how "unrthical" that decision is in the eyes of others.

[jakykong]

Re: Windows Vista

Perhaps there are users who actually DO want windows (i'm certainly not one of them!). And for them, i'm all for it -- I believe proprietary software is unethical, but who am I to judge if someone uses it? There's a HUGE difference between making and using software

I'd love to know why the idea of proprietary software is unethical. Software is a product of someone's labour, and if the producer sees fit to charge for it, so be it. I very much PREFER to use FLOSS, but I don't see it as an ethical issue at all. If I make something, I should be entitled to profit it from it on whatever terms can be agreed with my prospective customers. I wouldn't tell a chef that he or she has no right to charge for their meals, or tell an author that he or she is ethically obliged to give me their work for no charge. If they want to great, but I would not call them unethical for not choosing to.

There's also the fact that there may be many users out there who don't WANT to use Windows, but have no choice. The majority of those who post at length about the moral and ethical superiority of Linux and other FLOSS conveniently overlook the fact that, to paraphrase a Clinto slogan, "it's about the software, stupid". In addition to my voice recognition software, which now works with just about every Windows app on my PC, I have 3 different app.s for learning Hindi and Italian, and a few other Windows only niche applications as well. I'm sure this is very common, even among those like me who are not gamers. So for a great many people, it's not about choice of OS, it's about choice of application. If the software one needs is only available on a proprietary platform, then one is left without much choice but to use said proprietary OS, regardless of how "unrthical" that decision is in the eyes of others.

Software IS a product of someone's labour. But, the software company holds the copyright and the software company payed the programmer already, long before they sell the software. But, you have to understand, I don't care about money. I care about free software because I value my freedom, not my money. In fact, I can prove this because I buy my copies of linux whenever possible, to support the developers that are developing parts of the system that I'd rather not, or don't have time to. Also, probably 9 times as much software is written as custom software -- not software companies selling software; programmers aren't out of a job if software companies can't specifically sell software any more (even though Free software doesn't automatically terminate this industry).

I can go on for a couple hours explaining my specific reasons for this, but I suggest you read some of Richard Stallman's essays (go to gnu.org, and then click philosophy).
And, I can tell that you have NOT read ANY of Stallman's essays because you used the term FOSS. Free Software and Open Source are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. One is a movement based on freedom and ideology (Free Software), the other, though they may use the same license and work with Free Software folks, is based entirely on practical concerns -- which free software people generally couldn't care less about (although it does have practical benefits, it's a side issue).
Furthermore, Richard Stallman specifically promotes the sale of Free software. If it were just about money, i'd have no problem, but it isn't.

To give a personal example: My father.
My father is disabled by M.S. He cannot use a keyboard. He still uses his computer -- thanks to a voice recognition software call Dragon Naturally Speaking. But, this particular software is heavily integrated into the Windows subsystems -- so, a new version of windows (or an older version) simply won't work with it. If he upgrades windows, he has to upgrade dragon. If he upgrades dragon, he has to upgrade windows.
Any time he has to upgrade dragon (the switch from 2k to XP showed this, and the switch to vista will even moreso when the time comes), he has to spend about 2 days training it -- so it can understand his voice. And, he takes more than the couple hours most people take because of his disability -- he can't speak clearly, so the software takes a long time to figure him out. He has a lot of custom words and commands he needs to re-enter and train as well. He also needs to re-learn the new keywords and command sequences that he can speak into it. They change from version to version.
Aside from monetary costs for a new version of dragon, he has days of downtime due to retraining. He doesn't have any freedom to choose what version he would like to run.

It also just so happens that he would like to use some of the large base of softwares in the Free Software community. He can't. He's stuck using windows -- it's the only thing his VR software will run on, and they have no intention of changing that any time soon. And, since he can't physically use a computer without the VR, he is stuck.


Now, you tell me. Forcing someone to be out of commission for days, able to do basically nothing (what can he do? he isn't physically able to turn pages in a book, handle a TV remote, or even use the bathroom on his own -- he's all but paralized.), as well as re-learning a new system -- possibly a system he doesn't like as well as the other one. How is that NOT unethical?




Oh, and just to set the records strait: i am NOT an advocate of not charging for software; that genre is freeware -- and, i'm against a lot of freeware. Your said chef should charge for his food and his services -- he only gets one "copy" (so-to-speak). He can't copy it 100 times without getting 100 times the ingredients -- and even then, none are identical. Your author should gladly charge for his services -- fine, i'll send my favorite author a check, and i'll pay a printing company to sell me a hard-copy of a book. But, the authors as it is get very little profit from their books. Publishers get the money AND the copyright -- so this isn't a valid excuse, since the author isn't the one at risk, and publishers are here to compete -- they're on their own.

Yes, there are some users who are in a state of "have-to" use Windows or other proprietary software. But this is an EXTREME situation. If you do photo editing, it may not be photoshop, but you have Gimp. Video editing has Kino. Audio editing has Audacity (just to name some). Office programs have OpenOffice. Quicken users have KmyMoney. I'm not saying these softwares are as good, as fast, or as featurefull as their proprietary counterparts -- frankly, i don't know -- for the most part, i don't use them OR their proprietary conterparts. But the fact that there are Free replacements for the proprietary softwares invalidates the "have-to" claim for almost everyone.

Of those who are left, only those with disabilities are truly stuck -- the can't do anything else because of physical problems. So, basically, unless you are disabled and require certain software to use the computer, and there are no Free replacements (whether better or worse), you do not HAVE-TO use Windows.

I never overlooked the "forced to use it" argument -- such an argument is a result of the unethical nature of proprietary software, not cause to support it. It is not an argument to say that proprietary software is ethical -- it is an argument to say why it is UNethical.

I don't care very much about the O.S. -- i do care about the applications; but I care more about my freedom than both of the above, and so I choose to use a Free (as in speech and/or freedom, not price) operating system and the applications it has to offer.

I won't go on; this post is long enough, and I feel it gets my point across wonderfully. Read Stallman's essays, THEN ask questions. If you still don't agree with me, fine. You're entitled to your own opinions. I believe proprietary software is unethical, but WHO AM I TO JUDGE IF SOMEONE USES IT?

[maxqnz]

Re: Windows Vista

I can go on for a couple hours explaining my specific reasons for this, but I suggest you read some of Richard Stallman's essays (go to gnu.org, and then click philosophy).
And, I can tell that you have NOT read ANY of Stallman's essays because you used the term FOSS. Free Software and Open Source are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. One is a movement based on freedom and ideology (Free Software), the other, though they may use the same license and work with Free Software folks, is based entirely on practical concerns -- which free software people generally couldn't care less about (although it does have practical benefits, it's a side issue).
Furthermore, Richard Stallman specifically promotes the sale of Free software. If it were just about money, i'd have no problem, but it isn't.

To give a personal example: My father.
My father is disabled by M.S. He cannot use a keyboard. He still uses his computer -- thanks to a voice recognition software call Dragon Naturally Speaking. But, this particular software is heavily integrated into the Windows subsystems -- so, a new version of windows (or an older version) simply won't work with it. If he upgrades windows, he has to upgrade dragon. If he upgrades dragon, he has to upgrade windows.

As a matter of fact, I've read far too many of his boring quasi-religious rants to be bothered wasting anymore of my precious time on anything he or Stallman has to say. I'd rather do something fun, like DIY dental surgery.

As for Dragon Naturally Speaking, I've been using it since v5, and have run the same version of Dragon first on Win98SE then on W2K. Then when my new PC came with XP, the Dragon I had been using on W2K installed and ran without any problems at all on XP. In my lengthy experience the statement "If he upgrades windows, he has to upgrade dragon. If he upgrades dragon, he has to upgrade windows." is complete and utter balderdash, to be polite. I say this from a position of absolute certainty, having upgraded Windows without upgrading Dragon, AND having upgraded Dragon without upgrading Windows. In every case, all went well.

[jakykong]

Re: Windows Vista

I can go on for a couple hours explaining my specific reasons for this, but I suggest you read some of Richard Stallman's essays (go to gnu.org, and then click philosophy).
And, I can tell that you have NOT read ANY of Stallman's essays because you used the term FOSS. Free Software and Open Source are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. One is a movement based on freedom and ideology (Free Software), the other, though they may use the same license and work with Free Software folks, is based entirely on practical concerns -- which free software people generally couldn't care less about (although it does have practical benefits, it's a side issue).
Furthermore, Richard Stallman specifically promotes the sale of Free software. If it were just about money, i'd have no problem, but it isn't.

To give a personal example: My father.
My father is disabled by M.S. He cannot use a keyboard. He still uses his computer -- thanks to a voice recognition software call Dragon Naturally Speaking. But, this particular software is heavily integrated into the Windows subsystems -- so, a new version of windows (or an older version) simply won't work with it. If he upgrades windows, he has to upgrade dragon. If he upgrades dragon, he has to upgrade windows.

As a matter of fact, I've read far too many of his boring quasi-religious rants to be bothered wasting anymore of my precious time on anything he or Stallman has to say. I'd rather do something fun, like DIY dental surgery.

As for Dragon Naturally Speaking, I've been using it since v5, and have run the same version of Dragon first on Win98SE then on W2K. Then when my new PC came with XP, the Dragon I had been using on W2K installed and ran without any problems at all on XP. In my lengthy experience the statement "If he upgrades windows, he has to upgrade dragon. If he upgrades dragon, he has to upgrade windows." is complete and utter balderdash, to be polite. I say this from a position of absolute certainty, having upgraded Windows without upgrading Dragon, AND having upgraded Dragon without upgrading Windows. In every case, all went well.

Sorry, but I went through hell getting the damn thing running on windows XP, until dragon's support stated that we needed an upgrade -- and the upgraded version worked just fine.

I say my view with absolute certainty as well; I've dealt with it.

And, once again, you're entitled to your views -- I am not out to insult them (as you seem to be out to do to me). You seemed pretty interested in why I believe proprietary software to be unethical, I told you. That's that. Agree or not, you have a right to your opinion.

However, whether you agree or disagree with Stallman (i don't completely agree with everything -- i don't think it's a big deal to call it 'Linux', for example, or that there is any problem whatsoever with non-free documentation), use the right term for the purpose:
-free software refers to freedom
-open source refers to practical issues
-no charge refers to price

That has nothing to do with subscribing to a philosophy. Using the proper terminology just ensures we can effectively communicate. If I speak of the Muslim religion for any reason, I will refer to their god as Allah, whether I believe in Allah or not.

And, Stallman's ideas are not religious whatsoever. They're not even quazi-religious: Stallman is an athiest. It's philosophy and ideology; theology (religion) is a different area of study.


I think i've stated all my views about vista; i've nothing more to provide to this thread except opinions which will probably produce flames, so I digress.

[Fintan]

Re: Windows Vista

This gives a good idea:

http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastruc...62400126RVDTMS

Enjoy

[bootdoc]

Re: Windows Vista

a friend of mine just got a job with MS and she said she hates what MS is doing and that vista sucks. I told her to check out canonical.

[fleamailman]

Re: Windows Vista

going way back to the original question: in vista going to be more secure. Well, what is one going to compare vista to, and if it is XP then yes but for only so long, why/because the malware makers are onto the case and it is in their interest to find loopholes in any system MS brings out, they will get into vista just as they have the others to date. Ah but if one compares the security to linux then the malware makers have a much larger problem because whereas there is one various windows opperation systems, albeit they always seem to be only one or two at any one period, I have lost count of the number of linux distros out there meaning that the malware makers are only going to hit a small numbers of users by cracking any one distro where linux only has 2% of the computer market, simply who would be mad enough to waste time trying to crack linux when the reward is so little.

Another point is the linux user, cannot promise but a linux user for me is someone who is probably slightly more into computers than Mr. Average on windows.

[Loxx]

Re: Windows Vista

apologies for re-opening topic, i use vista as my base os on my test machine at work and it runs ok (2.8ghz, 1.5ghz ram), my dad also uses it as his main os - its nice if you want to install office etc, the new networking stack is a bit troublesome it makes samba easy.

graphically it makes very large nods to macOS
with regards to security, like any microsoft operating system it will over time be a large target to undesirable types trying to circumvent the operating system and browser.

if you're going to go do the route of vista i would strongly recommend checking pc spec (2gb of ram to run comfortably, 16GB for installation), installing service pack 1 release candidate (resolves slowness issues).


User Access Control is the microsoft version of sudo.

Windows Firewall is now inbound and outbound (would recommend dedicated firewall software tho rather than using the default - something like comodo pro firewall - which is free).


Frankly from what i've seen of KDE 4 you're going to get the linux interpretion of microsoft gadgets, but the ability of adding mac widgets

[MepisReign]

Re: Windows Vista

This is what I think.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVbf9tOGwno


Best Regards,

MepisReign

[Fintan]

Re: Windows Vista

Yeah mepis I sa that one too

I have lost count of the number of linux distros out there meaning that the malware makers are only going to hit a small numbers of users by cracking any one distro where linux only has 2% of the computer market, simply who would be mad enough to waste time trying to crack linux when the reward is so little.

I believe this is a misconception. First off all Linux distros use well....Linux. so unrelated to the distro, malware makers are going to hack/crack linux, which is very difficult to do given the way linux secures itself with its "onion shell" construction.

Second Linux has a far larger market penetration than 2%. That may be the desktop number but in the server area the number varies from 25% to 40% depending on which study you prefer.

Given that servers are, by definition, much more fun and rewarding to "hack/crack", the question arises, why are windows servers afflicted so often and linux severs so rarely. This will apply to vista (2008) servers as well if and when they actually are implemented.

[nuken]

Re: Windows Vista

My thoughts on Vista and XP are simple... I am glad they are out there. Competition is the greatest motivator for improvement. There will always be a large group of people who will always want and buy Windows OS... From what I see, most should use Linux due to all the virus and spywares they have on their machines... I prefer Linux for 2 main reasons... You can customize the OS to meet your needs, and security...

In the last 2 years Linux has seemed to have jumped quite a few hurdles in the user friendly areas and hardware support. Most people who are computer illiterates enjoy the familiarity of windows and only want a web browser, email and a media storage device... Windows is more than adequate for that...

[yanom]

Re: Windows Vista

Ive use vista, they realy messed up the start menu. But the filesystem tree was messed up from the beginning.

[Joshi]

Re: Windows Vista

Ive use vista, they realy messed up the start menu. But the filesystem tree was messed up from the beginning.

quoted.
vista is my first reason why i left micro$oft products: they really do the wrong step this time.

[Fintan]

Re: Windows Vista

Either way this is funny:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/16771/53/