[Précédent (date)] [Suivant (date)] [Précédent (sujet)] [Suivant (sujet)] [Index par date] [Index par sujet]

Is Linux' economic model viable?

>Next time, try Xvidtune. 

>Got me. Have you tried sane?

>Gphoto works fine for me. 

Try this! Try that! This works fine with this, and that works fine
with that. Configure using DrakSomething, then Linuxconf, then this,
then that.

That's the problem! Everybody has it's own little project and
everything almost works... but you just can't still get a decent
stable browser with a fair amount of plug-ins.

>Linux is more stable than windows - yet to be proved one way or the
>other for win2k, but undelyable in the case of win98.

The basic architecture of Win98 is a 20 years old phoney thing for a
silly thing called a "personal computer" that IBM cared so little
about that they gave all the specs away in the most open minded
endeavor ever... that they soon bitterly regreted.

So what's to be expected of such a system built from scratch with
obsolutely no networking and security issue in mind? Aren't Linux
geeks completely ridiculous comparing to this freak OS? 

With Windows 2000, MSFT is only getting into gear.

>You don't seem to understand free software. Sure it is annoying when it
>isn't finished, but you could always undertake to write it yourself
>instead of complaining to the newsgroups.

Oh! THE typical answer. If you're not a programmer, don't complain.
The programmers do their thingy and if you're not satisfied, don't
complain, MSFT will take care of you. And, of course, Linux will live
forever.

Well... Some people say Linux is not a viable economic model. If you
want somebody to program for free for the space station, you'll get
thousands of geeks at your door. If you want somebody to write a
plug-in for Netscape, don't hold your breath.

>And how about all the programs that windows doesn't install that you
>have to find and install later?

What about them? You'll find them at Tucows or ZDnet and they install
in a cinch.

>You, like many newbies before you, are encountering hardware support
>problems and blaming all your frustrations on "linux". Linux is "easy to
>use", once you get it set up. 

Absolutely. Not cryptic at all! Instead of having your program files
in «Program Files», you have them in /bin, /user/bin, /user/local.
That's all, all the way! Microsoft is just getting it right for
security, but it seems that Linux will never get it right for user
friendlyness.

>And don't pretend that setting up hardware
>on windows is easy. Even when it "works" there can be difficulties, and
>when it doesn't work, the problems can be impossible to figure out. Case
>in point - lan party to play Starcraft. Everyone has the same computers
>as previously, but one guy has to install a new network card. Windows
>has no drivers for it and even after getting them off the internet,
>nothing can get the computers to see each other. All the settings are
>correct. Previous drivers are deleted computer is rebooted countless
>times. Hardware wizard installs the hardware over and over, but no luck.
>The computers can never see the one with the new hardware - which
>windows claims is working fine.

I won't say this doesn't happen. It does. For one such instance, you
encounter a thousand with Linux.

IBM won't change this: the viability of any OS is built from the
desktop up, not from the server down. Linux is going astray just like
OS2 did. (I believe I said that : )

GP
--
La Masse Critique
Les «non-lethal weapons»: de la science-fiction?
http://pages.infinit.net/mcrit/meilleur.html
Rencontrez Néfertiti, Einstein, Tocqueville, etc.