Jump to content

Running client on Linux


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

 

 

But it is not by design.

It's because of a crappy 30 years old monopoly.

 

It is also poor design choices - Apple being a hardware company does not favor third party hardware anything and thus has pretty mediocre hardware for the price point (and yet you talk monopoly - Apple made its bed).

Unix (back in the day) had horrible UI, vendor specific architectures and was generally not seriously considered as a desktop OS - again Unix vendors shot themselves in the foot.

We will not even talk about IBM and OS/2 and the mess they ended up making of that.

 

MS was handed it all pretty much on a plate and no one else has really recovered. Apple is still a monopolistic mess, Linux still doesn't have a consumer friendly offering - like Unix the focus is servers.

 

Historically it had nothing to do with monopoly - I even got to watch the train wreck as it unfolded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Cheith said:

Linux still doesn't have a consumer friendly offering

What a complete BS... 

You can install ubuntu graphically with 5 to 10 "next" clicks. 

You can manage most stuff with UI. 

You install packages with a graphical ui. 

 

No terminal is ever needed. 

If thats not user friendly, what is? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Cheith said:

Historically it had nothing to do with monopoly

This is even a bigger BS... 

 

Its like MS was never put in court for screwing compatibility. 

Like EU never passed daily fines on the millions on MS for breaking MS file standards or forcing a browser into its users. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:

This is even a bigger BS... 

 

Its like MS was never put in court for screwing compatibility. 

Like EU never passed daily fines on the millions on MS for breaking MS file standards or forcing a browser into its users. 

Never said that - I said the reason the others lost was incompetence.

Microsoft are evil, always thought so, but so are Apple, IBM and Google. The rest are inconsequential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Cheith said:

Never said that - I said the reason the others lost was incompetence.

But "incompetence" is a lot more unforgiving when facing a monopoly. 

 

To a point where "valid design choices" can become "incompetence". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

But "incompetence" is a lot more unforgiving when facing a monopoly. 

 

To a point where "valid design choices" can become "incompetence". 

I get that - and if that was the case when the die was cast I would agree - but when this all went down Microsoft were far from the juggernaut they are now. This was all long before the EU got involved or anyone started suing anyone. It could have been very different but we got what we got. Of course if this had turned out differently IBM might have stayed the monopoly they were and your desktop OS would have been something else. The one thing it would never have been was Unix or any variant thereof. You could herd cats more easily than get the Unix (aka hardware) vendors at the time to agree on anything that would remove differentiation and help them lock in their hardware.

 

I also don't think Apple were ever seriously at the races - their visionary had a vision and it never included what would have been necessary for any level of dominant adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cheith said:

I get that - and if that was the case when the die was cast I would agree - but when this all went down Microsoft were far from the juggernaut they are now. This was all long before the EU got involved or anyone started suing anyone. It could have been very different but we got what we got. Of course if this had turned out differently IBM might have stayed the monopoly they were and your desktop OS would have been something else. The one thing it would never have been was Unix or any variant thereof. You could herd cats more easily than get the Unix (aka hardware) vendors at the time to agree on anything that would remove differentiation and help them lock in their hardware.

 

I also don't think Apple were ever seriously at the races - their visionary had a vision and it never included what would have been necessary for any level of dominant adoption.

Look, i dont agree. But lets pretend I agree with this comment.

How about now?
Do you believe Linux is still far from being "user friendly"? And if yes, please say 1 measure they could take to fix it.

Do you believe MS does not abuse their current monopoly situation to retain its market share despite major privacy and security issues proven to exist in Windows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:

How about now?
Do you believe Linux is still far from being "user friendly"? And if yes, please say 1 measure they could take to fix it.

 

Yes, maybe not for reasons that are fair in your eyes, but yes. Users do not want to spend 1 single second learning some "cool" new OS, they want something that works, that is easy and preferably the same as at work. That is windows.

 

There is no fix, If linux wanted to be a desktop, they could have united 20 years ago and made a single unified system, instead now we have a new fork every week and apps dieng left and right as the private developers leave their project. Few corporations are going to put money in to something that is so unstable and unpredictable.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kurosawa said:

There is no fix

There is.

 

Make governments break this monopoly.

 

My 2 kids have IT in school. OS used: windows...

It was a pain to explain to teachers to accept their papers in PDF. They kept saying they wanted a docx....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government should not dictate what OS private persons and corporations use period .

That is just an amazingly bad idea.

 

The goverment can fund opensource if they like

Goverment run schools should be OS agnostic.

 

but you pdf example is good, that is the level most normal users are on. Acquiring a PDF read is to hard, so how do you think they will handle windows

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has absolutely nothing to do with monopoly laws and suggesting as much is outright preposterous and nonsense. 

 

Or are you now also saying Apple should enable iOS apps to be loaded and run on Android devices and vice versa?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The apple environment is even more evil then MS and Google combined, but even they are not a monopoly.

Draconian ass hat's sure, but not a monopoly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kurosawa said:

There is no monopoly on OS's. doesn't matter if we like the most used OS or not. you are free to run what ever OS you want

 

If you have extra hardships to use the alternative in consequence of MS abusing its power, then it's a monopoly issue.

There are laws against this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example: for years, MS broke HTML compatibility, making website written for Internet Explorer only work properly in Internet Explorer.
And there was no IE for Linux.

In this case, MS abused their monopoly to make sure that using an alternative, even facing the HTML standard, would come at a great cost.
Greater than any "design choice made by linux of opensource folks".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IE from 2013, do you have something newer or better?

 

You should be happy with the new edge that is using chromium

 

You are free to install any browser on windows, they do not lock that. that monopoly was broken around 2000

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kurosawa said:

IE from 2013, do you have something newer or better?

 

Dot net compatibility....

Visual studio not having a Linux compiler and code made there not compiling on other compilers.

Direct X not existing on any form in Linux.

Visual studio redistributes not existing on Linux. making near impossible to compile VS created stuff for linux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

non of that is monopolies.

 

- dot net is just an issues not matter where you find it.

 

- There are quite a lot of compiles for linux, MS does not dictate what you use

 

- Why would MS make a linux version of directx, linux have had 20 years to make a unified gfx package, not a MS problem

 

- why do you use vs redistributes if you make linux apps ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kurosawa said:

non of that is monopolies.

 

- dot net is just an issues not matter where you find it.

 

- There are quite a lot of compiles for linux, MS does not dictate what you use

 

- Why would MS make a linux version of directx, linux have had 20 years to make a unified gfx package, not a MS problem

 

- why do you use vs redistributes if you make linux apps ?

 

 

MS is a software provider.

 

 

In VS specific package. They sell/sold a program developing editor with a compiler and the respective support.

They advertise it's a C editor/compile.

That's their product in that category.  But instead of adopting standard, already existing opensource libs, they created a bunch of packages to make sure that C compiler would only compile windows stuff.

 

Let me say it again in other words. They went the extra mile to make it harder for others to compete.

 

When a company exists in markets A, B. And markets A and B are distinct but have an inter connection. The law says a company cannot use its position on market A to reduce competition on market B.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know you can change the compile settings and add libs right?

 

But for a monopoly to exist MS should have block other compilers and libs. Does MS block other compiles or libs, no they do not ?

 

It is not a monopoly that linux failed to make unified desktop frame work across all distro's

btw that is the strengh of Apple OS's as well, unified and controlled frame work

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Kurosawa said:

But for a monopoly to exist MS should have block other compilers and libs. Does MS block other compiles or libs, no they do not ?

 

Nope, for it to be illegal MS just needs to make "unreasonably hard" for competition to exist. Making a total blockade is also illegal, but not a necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an article with interesting quotes.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/judge-rules-that-microsoft-must-be-split-in-two/

Here is an interesting one: 'Chief antitrust lawyer Joel Klein hailed the ruling. "When the remedy is implemented, customers and consumers will decide for themselves what software they want to purchase. ... Neither a monopolist nor the government can dictate that choice.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...