Windows, Linux, The Debate: which is best?
brymelvin at melvinart.com
Tue Jan 17 13:31:32 UTC 2006
> very true. Ultimately it will be marketing that plays a big part in the
> "OS wars," but not only marketing. Also important is usability. That is
> crucial because somebody might have decent knowledge of computers,
> migrate to linux, and then decide to leave it alone (happened to me
> about one and half years ago, the first time I tried linux). The third
> thing that linux needs is the support of major companies such as IBM,
> Many people buy their pc's with an operating system already installed,
> and linxu needs the major vendors to do that not only with windows. IBM
> will apparently start packaging computers with linux. Then there will
> probably be no issues with drivers and software. That is crucial to
> linux's continued progress on the desktop.
I think changes in business models are actually going to play a more
important part than marketing in the long run.
Since Novell IBM and Sun are moving toward a business model of service
to business , their success concerning Linux would be a "drift down".
Should they bring more Linux into the workplace...people will
potentially be interested in using it at home.
IBM BTW Did sell the Thinkpad brand to Lenovo. Lenovo can use the IBM
name for 5 years.
The Majority of Linux development is actually being done by companies
like IBM and Novell.(or more correctly their employees---while on the
clock) Novell's Ximian for example. If you look at comments in
programming you see who's actually doing most of the work. It's not as
"socialized" as many think.
At the moment the biggest driving forces behind Linux are IBM Red Hat
Novell etc...even Red Hat although a "Linux " company is somewhat
supported by companies like IBM. example: take a look at IBM's Redbook
published for companies migrating for OS/2 to Linux.
IBM actually turned it's back on the "consumer" market quite some time
ago during the "OS/2" years. Actually the consumer division (PC) most of
which is now owned by Lenovo pushed Windows instead of IBMs own OS/2
..partially due to contract agreements to Microsoft.
There are any number of differences in "consumer" vs "business"
use...even small business. the KDE vs Gnome thing is an example.
Having used OS/2's object oriented environment for years I find Gnome
much more intuitive than KDE.
Apparently so do others in "business" Yet Consumer type users inevitably
seem to prefer KDE. This is probably due to the similarities with windows.
This creates a bit of humor for me as inevitably those doing the most
vehement bashing of windows ALSO seem to be those that favor things like
KDE and ICEWM...which seem more windows like to me :-)
Someone mentioned OS/2 in Windows versions:
Up through Win2k command line OS/2 programs would run...but not WPS (GUI).
NTFS is built on some of the same code as HPFS and HPFS 386 (OS/2 file
system) in fact Linux can't tell the difference between them on the
Older OS/2 partitions vs windows. ( newer OS/2 AKA MCP/eCS uses a jfs
and/or an LVM that confuses Linux)
One more comment on the "great Debate" bear in mind people that there
are a vast number of "non consumer" computer users out there migrating
to Linux that Are Not Windows users, but OS/2 and proprietary Unix
users. This may have a very direct bearing on things like GUI choice in
dstros. ( Like Novell announcing the shift to Gnome as a primary
desktop). The powers Pushing Linux toward the desktop are not
necessarily looking at "consumer" customers when they make their decisions.
More information about the ubuntu-users