Linux vs Microsoft XP: Optimizations Make Linux the Killer Desktop

Consulting Times ^ | 23 May 2005 | Tom Adelstein

[general_re]

Good to know - it sure as hell didn't a few months ago ;)

[FLAMING DEATH]

hmmm. Sounds like you're trying to do things the hard way.

All I do is open a program called Synaptic, check the box next to the app that I want, and hit "Apply". You can do the same on virtually any Debian based system (and there are many of them). Lots of other distros have their own version of Synaptic, too (VectorLinux, for example) that lets you do the same thing.

Not difficult in the least. Much easier than finding a program on the internet, downloading an ".exe" file to your computer, finding it on your hard drive, clicking it, and answering whatever dialogs might appear. Synaptic is as close to a single click install as you can get.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Interesting. I chose Mepis over XP because XP has really crappy ext3 support. Hmmm....

[FLAMING DEATH]

SimplyMepis.

I am by no means a "geek", and I have it on both my laptop and my desktop. It's not difficult to use. The installation is easier than any Windows version that I've seen, and hardware detection is excellent. The only recommendation is that if you're on dialup, get an external serial modem. They're almost all compatible with Linux and they don't require your processor to do the work. If you use a network adapter, don't sweat it. I haven't seen one yet that any version of Linux couldn't configure automatically.

I don't know about downloading it. I ordered my CD directly from the site (SimplyMepis 2004) for about $14, but that's with in-state sales tax. Yours should be slightly cheaper.

[Rodney King]

Thanks!

[Bush2000]

Because, with any of the leading distros its not a problem. Everything I have installed for years has been RPM via either rhn, yum, or just clicking in a window..

Here's a good example. Try installing Bugzilla/mySQL sometime. The combination requires a boatload of crap that incurs a chain of dependencies. Have a version mismatch? Dang. Add an hour or two. Some of the components require compilation. More time. See, this is the kind of crap that I'm talking about. It isn't enough to post a RPM on the Web, when your package relies upon the existence of numerous other components. You guys just haven't learned yet to produce usable end-user software. And the fact that you won't admit it just makes things worse.

Hey if anyone around here downplays problems and calls people clueless its you. I do it from time to time when someone makes a statement so false either they are lying or clueless..

My claim is easily verifiable.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Synaptic automatically resolves dependencies, downloads/upgrades the necessary files, and installs both MySQL and Bugzilla in SimplyMepis 2004.

Those "additional required changes" are programs which need to be downloaded or upgraded in order for the program to work. I just took this pic of the dialog window telling me that Synaptic is going to download these files to resolve dependencies with MySQL. When you click "mark", everything necessary for your app to operate will be installed.

Its not difficult at all.

[N3WBI3]

Here's a good example. Try installing Bugzilla/mySQL sometime.

I run that on FC2, its called yum and they were both on it... Your out of your league when you try to talk linux kiddo...

[Swordmaker]

That nonsense is simply false. Here's a clue: If Stac had proof of such chicanery, it would have sued M$ not only for patent infringement -- but also copyright violation. Stac didn't do that -- because no such code exists.

Excuse me Bush2000... I guess I should believe your hype rather than my memory of the conversation I had with the Stac programer (and part owner) who told me this "urban legend" in a conversation I had with him shortly after Microsoft bought them out. No, I think I will believe my memory...

Your clue is ludicrous. Stac Electronics didn't bring a "copyright suit" because they didn't copyright their software... the PATENTED IT!

A Patent infringement lawsuit is a much more potent lawsuit than copyright infringement, Bush. Copyright may be extablished merely by claiming it on the printed form of the newly created document. PATENTS require a much higher level of certification before being granted. A Patent has to be registered, a copyright does not although it can be.

And you are aware that Microsoft LOST that suit? $120 million dollar award, IIRC... which they then converted to a buy out to avoid paying future royalties. The fact that the programer's mother's name was IN the Microsoft version was the proof that made the case.

Stac Electronics sued Microsoft for patent infringement when Microsoft introduced a data compression scheme into MS-DOS which resembled Stac's Stacker software. Stac was awarded $120 million by a jury in 1994 and Microsoft was ordered to recall versions of MS-DOS with the infringing technology. Subsequently Microsoft and Stac settled the case; Microsoft promised not to appeal, paid Stac $43 million, and purchased $40 million of preferred Stac stock.

You don't pay out that kind of money unless your fingers were caught in the cookie jar.

[Bush2000]

I run that on FC2, its called yum and they were both on it...

Give it a try, sport-o. Should be fun to watch.

[N3WBI3]

Took 20 Minuts to set up bugzilla, cvs, apache, and some perl cvsclients to browse things over the web... The RHCE exam only give you a couple of hours to do things a whole lot more complex than that, and thats starting with a system that wont even boot....

[Bush2000]

Excuse me Bush2000... I guess I should believe your hype rather than my memory of the conversation I had with the Stac programer (and part owner) who told me this "urban legend" in a conversation I had with him shortly after Microsoft bought them out. No, I think I will believe my memory...

You can believe whatever you want. But since the rest of us have no way of corroborating your so-called conversations with your imaginary friends, you'll just have to provide proof if you want to rely upon that as "evidence". The fact of the matter is that none of that crap is reflected in the court record, so the only conclusion that one can reach is that it's either delusional or outright BS.

Your clue is ludicrous. Stac Electronics didn't bring a "copyright suit" because they didn't copyright their software... the PATENTED IT!

I always get a kick out of listening to IP-challenged newbies trying to tread water. Here's a clue:

"Copyright is a protection that covers published and unpublished literary, scientific and artistic works, whatever the form of expression, provided such works are fixed in a tangible or material form. This means that if you can see it, hear it and/or touch it - it may be protected. If it is an essay, if it is a play, if it is a song, if it is a funky original dance move, if it is a photograph, HTML coding or a computer graphic that can be set on paper, recorded on tape or saved to a hard drive, it may be protected. Copyright laws grant the creator the exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the work publicly. Exclusive means only the creator of such work, not anybody who has access to it and decides to grab it."

It is not necessary to register a copyright with the US Copyright Office in order to secure copyright protection. All that you have to do is supply a copyright notice in the source code, UI, discs, and manual. It's simply not credible for you to argue that Stac didn't copyright its work. ALL software is copyrighted.

A Patent infringement lawsuit is a much more potent lawsuit than copyright infringement, Bush. Copyright may be extablished merely by claiming it on the printed form of the newly created document. PATENTS require a much higher level of certification before being granted. A Patent has to be registered, a copyright does not although it can be.

Are you not aware that a plaintiff can bring multiple complaints against a defendant? Stac's attorneys would have filed as many complaints against M$ as they could -- the equivalent of throwing sh*t against the wall in the hope that some will stick. Sorry, no copyright infringment complaint was filed. So, obviously, any literal theft of code never happened. Which was my original point.

And you are aware that Microsoft LOST that suit? $120 million dollar award, IIRC... which they then converted to a buy out to avoid paying future royalties. The fact that the programer's mother's name was IN the Microsoft version was the proof that made the case.

You neglected to mention a few things, for obvious reasons (doesn't jibe with your bogus thesis)...

• The jury found that the injury to Stac by M$ wasn't willful. Meaning, not intentional. If there had been literal theft of code, the jury would have found the injury to be willful. They didn't. That should tell you something.
  
  
• The court ordered *Stac* to pay M$ $13.6 million for theft of its technology by Stac. Duh. You forgot to mention that. Why? Could it be because it takes the wind out of Stac's sails in portraying itself as the hapless victim?
  
  
• I can't find a single reference in the court documents to M$ leaving the name of some programmer's mother's name in source code. Why don't you just admit right now that you can't prove such a contention -- so that you can avoid appearing to be a BS artist. [Note: We both know that you'll just ignore this request because you don't have squat]

[Swordmaker]

Thank you for your irrelevant treatise on copyright law.

I stated that "Copyright may be established merely by claiming it on the printed form of the newly created document. PATENTS require a much higher level of certification before being granted. A Patent has to be registered, a copyright does not although it can be."

You then told me in a long winded cut-and-paste describing copyrights exactly what I told you in a a brief form... an irrelevant issue on a PATENTED (please note, a higher level of claim) item. Patents must be registered at the Patent Office of the U.S. Government to be valid. Copyrights do not. Infringements of Patents carry larger penalties and remedies than does the infringement of a copyright. Patents cover such things as methods, techniques, inventions, and even procedures... they do not require exact duplication to be enforceable.

Are you not aware that a plaintiff can bring multiple complaints against a defendant? Stac's attorneys would have filed as many complaints against M$ as they could -- the equivalent of throwing sh*t against the wall in the hope that some will stick. Sorry, no copyright infringement complaint was filed. So, obviously, any literal theft of code never happened. Which was my original point.

Attorneys often do not file every claim possible because they do not want the jury to consider the lesser claim that may allow the jury to award considerably lesser damages... often the court reduces the claims to the more serious, over riding claim preferring not to obfuscate the issues by clearing away "the sh*t being thrown against the wall", and that those claims may not be reflected in the court record.

Stac won their case based on the PATENT infringement... which carries higher civil penalties than does copyright infringement.

The jury found that the injury to Stac by M$ wasn't willful. Meaning, not intentional. If there had been literal theft of code, the jury would have found the injury to be willful. They didn't. That should tell you something.

I was aware of that... but it is interesting that the jury did not consider the counterclaim sufficient to make Stac's "crime" of "theft of MS technology" (apparently use of MS filing methods which almost every other disk based Database company uses to handle data stored on MS formatted disks without being accused of "theft") sufficient to negate Stac's claims. If the jury had found that MS's patent infringement "willful" the civil penalties would have been tripled... and perhaps they chose not to go that route.

I can't find a single reference in the court documents to M$ leaving the name of some programmer's mother's name in source code. Why don't you just admit right now that you can't prove such a contention -- so that you can avoid appearing to be a BS artist. [Note: We both know that you'll just ignore this request because you don't have squat]

You read the entire transcript, including motions, of a trial that extended for months merely to respond to my comments? I'm impressed. No, actually, I'm not... it just demonstrates that YOU are the BS artist... which has been demonstrated time and time again on FreeRepublic.

Do I have documented evidence of what I was told? No. It IS merely hearsay evidence. I know what I remember of several conversations I had with the programmer and part owner of Stac, a person intimately involved in the issues, at a time shortly after the private (and sealed) settlement between Stac and Microsoft which reduced the jury award and cross-licensed the patent and copyright issues that were disputed in the suits. That conversation is backed by "common knowledge", what you called "urban legend", that seems to have been spread in the computer industry contemporaneously with the events. I conclude that perhaps the "Stac" people were informing people of what had been done to them by Microsoft.

Please note that I have not called you names, denigrated your experience (except with the Mac, of which you have none), or used ad hominem attacks against you. You, on the other hand, routinely do all of that.

Looking back on your comments on this thread (and a few other recent threads) you are again insulting and attacking everyone who disagrees with you. Your ad hominem attacks such as "Silly, silly little man" and " IP-challenged newbies" (I have 27 years of work in the computer industry behind me) are just part of your effort to denigrate my and other's opinions in advance because you are spewing your opinion absent facts.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Same here, but it took a while to download over dialup. Probably because Synaptic had to download extra files to resolve those dependencies that Bush2000 seems to think are so insurmountable.

Wait. On second thought, it didn't happen, because Linux installs are impossibly hard. Everyone knows that, it's just a fact.

If you don't believe me, just ask people who dislike Linux and refuse to run it on their own machines. They know better than anyone. Don't question it!

/sarcasm

[N3WBI3]

In addition to having Broadband I dont usually count download time towards the install. I tried to tell him yum, RHN, apt and other package repositories can resolve, download, and install dep's but the guy is not very sharp when it comes to Linux..

If you don't believe me, just ask people who dislike Linux and refuse to run it on their own machines. They know better than anyone. Don't question it!

lol

[FLAMING DEATH]

All he knows is, he don't like it!

[N3WBI3]

Yea I love the post where he talks about how much he avoids Linux and then assumes because someone who does not use it in his environment cant use it right it must be hard..

[Little Ray]

Just finished a Linux class using Fedora Core 3. I am a Windows user and I have to say I was really impressed. I'd use it in a heart beat. I'm scheduled for more Linux classes.

[N3WBI3]

If you dont mind me asking, where are you taking these classes? Fedora has done some nice things for desktop users, I am giong to give novels desktop Linux a shot when I can just to get more experience with apt..

[ShadowAce]

Just finished a Linux class using Fedora Core 3.

That's very cool. I'm still on FC1 due to some kernel issues with my hardware, but I have been assured by the development team that it has been corrected. So now I am waiting for FC4 to be released next week (06/06/05). Once that happens, I'm upgrading.