What would happen if Microsoft started thery own Linux Distro???

[craiggiles]

I'm a linux newbie and a Windows XP user.

I'm gradually getting more experienced with My Mandrake linux pc, but i still have problems>

Something popped in to my head the other day what if microsoft started a Linux distro????

Would it be really stable and really easy to use (like windows is)
Be able to recognize new software??

I reackon if microsoft were allowed to help develop Linux, but no destroy it like they want it to, it would be better for linux and microsoft alike.

Imagine it a windows and linux alliance it would be bliss, stabilty, easy to use, second to none hardware detection, lots of money to back linux.

I think thats the way forward for both linux and windows, what do you think??:confused:

[Icarus]

You'd end up with something like this :D
http://www.mslinux.org/

[bwkaz]

They won't.

It would be admitting defeat.

[retoon]

Look up xenix. I think it was microsofts attempt to make a unix os.

[ehawk]

The GPL is anethema to them. I think the BSD license would permit them to take as much as they wanted from existing BSD code, tweak it, break compatibility (eventually, after they've embraced and extended), and release proprietary binaries without the underlying source code. They could even get Linux stuff to run on it, but prohibit the converse.

But still, why bother...they're still not feeling THAT threatened. Software patents on algorithms/standards could also inhibit the growth of Linux. It seems to me that fighting with a new BSD would only come after they lost much more market share. They might be able buy whatever trademark/copyright terms they needed from the BSD folk.

[garethrussell]

They'd go round trying to copyright as much stuff as possible.

[hlrguy]

It might become useful to power users and stable for network use. It won't happen anytime soon. I would bet in about 3-4 years when Linux has 10-20% (maybe more?) of the desktop market, they will HAVE to port Office/IE/The rest to Linux, from there, the rest would follow.

When 1/2 your profit comes from your apps, you can't afford not to port them to Linux, and when 1/2 the server market insists on Linux/Unix/BSD or similar, you can't afford not to have a similar server OS.

I truly believe that it is a matter of time, but don't expect anyting like this soon. They still believe they can tell the world what software to use and charge out the wazoo for it.

hlrguy

[craiggiles]

Does any one actually think it may happen??
Because I think It will someday, Microsoft will admit defeat when Linux becomes very easy to use and hardware detection is better.

Linux already has one over on windows, stabilty.

But the things that make it hard for linux newbies migrating from windows is the software installation(what the hell is rpm!!!!) and hardware detection and command lines!!!!!

Ok the GUI's make it alittle better but for most we dont know command lines, and why linux insist on calling there hard drive hda/5 blah blah???

Saying all that if all my windows apps worked on linux like AOL and the likes, I would migrate completely, not looking back at all but that is the thing that is completely keeping me with windows.

As i myself am a linux newbie, I have bee trying to use it for 4 weeks and still havent got the ahng of command line:(

If you ask me some distro's are nearly there like Red Hat and Mandrake.
There very nearly there but not if you catch my drift:)

[Okie]

if you REALLY want to learn the commandline there is a "bash user manuel" somewhere on the internet...


that was one thing that peeved me about Redhat-8 was i could not find xterm anywhere, not on the Gnome panel or menu, i had to make a shortcut to it myself...

i would surely hate to see Linux go the way of Windoze where the commandline and runlevel 2 or 3 (depending on the distro) was hidden and/or disabled and everything could only be done by some bloated GUI tool, don't get me wrong i like Gnome-2 & metacity is better than sawfish for Gnome, but CLI has a power all it own and i want it to stay...

not just bash$
you gotta have
bash#

[El_Cu_Guy]

They won't.

Try THEY CAN'T.

Look up xenix. I think it was microsofts attempt to make a unix os.

MS never made a Unix OS, not that they couldn't have at the time. It made sense. License UNIX system source code then license it out to other parties for less and make a profit. Still don't get it. Here's some imaginary numbers. They are not actualy number but rather simply to give you an idea.

MS license UNIX code for $1 million
Very little development later --
MS license new code to 6 other companies for $500,000 each
Profit = $2 million

I think the BSD license would permit them to take as much as they wanted from existing BSD code, tweak it, break compatibility (eventually, after they've embraced and extended), and release proprietary binaries without the underlying source code.

Microsoft is prohibitted from releasing a Unix, proprietary or otherwise.

Does any one actually think it may happen??

It won't. It can't.

[Exodus2001]

~Ok the GUI's make it alittle better but for most we dont know command lines, and why linux insist on calling there hard drive hda/5 blah blah???~

The term hda was around long before the C: drive crap was invented my MS. Remenber UNIX was around a long time before Windows was. Why people always think that Windows is the normal way and *nix is the odd way is beyond me. When you learn Linux more deeply you will soon see how dumb C: is. If you had a computer with 2 hard drives with 5 partitions on each, 2 cdrom drives, 2 dvd drives, a 2 floppys you would see a difference.

Nix way:

hard drive number 1 and partitions:
hda1, hda2, hda3, hda4, hda5

hard drive number 2 and partitions:
hdb1, hdb2, hdb3, hdb4, hdb5

cdroms:
hdc and hdd

dvds:
hde and hdf

floppys:
fd0 and fd1

Windows way
A: C: D: E: F: G: H: I: J: K: L: M: N: O: P: Q: R: S: T:

which drive is which on windows? Your quess is as good as mine.

Patrick

[El_Cu_Guy]

which drive is which on windows? Your quess is as good as mine.

Make guessing a little easier. Open My Computer and right click on a drive. Select Properties. Enter a drive label.

Can't remember which of those hard drive is used to store what? Labeling might be a little easier. Now your drive can be:

System [C:]
Games [D:]
MP3 [E:]

Drive mounting can also make this a lot easier.

[Zoist]

Originally posted by mahdi
You'd end up with something like this :D
http://www.mslinux.org/


Site says: Last updated: Thursday, April 13, 2000 yet they say they are shipping in November 2003 ! :confused:

[Exodus2001]

Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
Make guessing a little easier. Open My Computer and right click on a drive. Select Properties. Enter a drive label.

Can't remember which of those hard drive is used to store what? Labeling might be a little easier. Now your drive can be:

System [C:]
Games [D:]
MP3 [E:]

Drive mounting can also make this a lot easier.

OK your right. So does this make me not retarded?:D

[craiggiles]

WWW.MSLINUX.ORG?????

That has gotta be a joke:)

Look at the news stories at the side, Microsoft invade cuba?????
LOL

It may happen in time, but not for a long time.
:D

[El_Cu_Guy]

OK your right. So does this make me not retarded?

Haven't read too much of your stuff. Get back to me later :)

That has gotta be a joke

Do the words parody or sattire mean anything to you? Yes the site IS a joke.

[sean_foulkes]

Originally posted by Exodus2001
Why people always think that Windows is the normal way and *nix is the odd way is beyond me....
Patrick

You can't be serious. Pleeeze tell me you're joking.

I think a comment like that permits me to make you feel stupid, so let's get a little math lesson here.(not real percentages, but damn close)

Microsoft =94% of desktop computers
Apple =<5% of desktop computers
Linux =<whatever is left over% of desktop computers


now, the < means "less than". That means that Linux has about as much of the world's computers as Elton John has girlfriends.

If you didn't understand my teachings, read this:

"If people see something a lot of times for a long time, than they will be more familiar with it than if they see something not very many times for a short time."

-sean foulkes

Microsoft has captured the world, and standardized desktop computing along the way. If you ask anyone what a hard-drive is, they will usually reply "what?". But if you ask them how much music they have on their C: drive (or if their computer has an A: drive) then they know the answer instantly. I've never heard someone ask a layman "Did you symlink your .ogg app from your /home/sean/B.S./music to your /usr/bin?"

Who really cares how long Unix has been around if hardly anyone's used it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's like those rock bands who suck and suck for fifteen years, and when they finally get a hit, they complain to the world that their career's work is been overlooked and understated. They forget the fact that, up until their hit; they still sucked. Put that in your CD-Rom drive and mount it:mad:

[El_Cu_Guy]

Microsoft =94% of desktop computers
Apple =<5% of desktop computers
Linux =<whatever is left over% of desktop computers

Notice he mention Linux and Unix (or as he wrote it *nix although I've never understood that logic).

Your argument is regarding DESKTOP computers. Amazingly enough Microsoft has been unable to gain significant ground in the server room. Sure it's system might server as a front end but the real workhorse is usually a unice.

The real problem is, is that most shools treat Unix as an afterthought. Many high scholl claim that people use Windows in the "real world" (HA). Even most tech schools in the days where everyone wanted their MCSE did as well. Hell some still very much do.

Who really cares how long Unix has been around if hardly anyone's used it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Check your history regarding the unix user base then get back to me. I love people like you that believe that although UNIX has been around for years it's just some sort of hobbyist OS or that it's always sucked (go find yourself a sattrical website similar to Adequacy.org).

It amazes me how you compare Unix to a rock band that's sucked for so many years and is finally worth a crap. That's funny.

[Exodus2001]

Originally posted by sean_foulkes
You can't be serious. Pleeeze tell me you're joking.

I think a comment like that permits me to make you feel stupid, so let's get a little math lesson here.(not real percentages, but damn close)

Microsoft =94% of desktop computers
Apple =<5% of desktop computers
Linux =<whatever is left over% of desktop computers


now, the < means "less than". That means that Linux has about as much of the world's computers as Elton John has girlfriends.

If you didn't understand my teachings, read this:

"If people see something a lot of times for a long time, than they will be more familiar with it than if they see something not very many times for a short time."

-sean foulkes

Microsoft has captured the world, and standardized desktop computing along the way. If you ask anyone what a hard-drive is, they will usually reply "what?". But if you ask them how much music they have on their C: drive (or if their computer has an A: drive) then they know the answer instantly. I've never heard someone ask a layman "Did you symlink your .ogg app from your /home/sean/B.S./music to your /usr/bin?"

Who really cares how long Unix has been around if hardly anyone's used it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's like those rock bands who suck and suck for fifteen years, and when they finally get a hit, they complain to the world that their career's work is been overlooked and understated. They forget the fact that, up until their hit; they still sucked. Put that in your CD-Rom drive and mount it:mad:

Your right I'm stupid.:rolleyes:

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by sean_foulkes
Who really cares how long Unix has been around if hardly anyone's used it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


On the desktop, I would agree, however, refrain from incorrect comments of your own. 60% of the worlds servers ar *nix based. Therefore, 60% of the worlds IT groups use Unix. Of the remaining 40%, 80% probably interface and have to know a little *nix. 175,000 people in my company, a 100% *nix shop. In the telecom world, probably 90% of the entire worlds telecommunitcations network runs on *nix or *nix like proprietary solutions. (Wireless, wireline, transmission, sattellite, etc) In China and India open source is now King. These are the TWO LARGEST countries in terms of population. Add in the people around the world who use open source and I think it is safe to say that your estimate that only a dribble of geeks use *nix is incorrect. The world is a whole heck of a lot deeper than the Microsoft Desktop.

hlrguy

[sean_foulkes]

Originally posted by hlrguy
On the desktop, I would agree, however, refrain from incorrect comments of your own.
hlrguy

notice how i always used the words "desktop" and "computing" together all the time. I am fully aware of Unix and Linux as a server/network operating system. My argument was simply against a statement that was foolish and incorrect. I raged a little, but It had nothing to do with server/network environments.

--p.s.: I notice that el_cu_guy is still arguing on the internet. Check out his signature.

[El_Cu_Guy]

There's a fine line between arguing and correcting a misleading point. You presented the statement that no matter the age of unix as "nobody's ever used it".

Sure on the "desktop" maybe. For years people ran unices on WORKSTATIONS long before desktops (also once referred to as mini/micro-computers). You won't find to many unices running on desktops in corporations and universities. You're more likely to find workstations. Although the lines between workstations and desktops have becomes significantly blurred over the years.

I suggest checking your history and researching how various OSes are used before making such a bold statement. Even OSes that nobody even remembers today were once widely used. I once made this same point when someone alledged that CP/M sucked as no one ever used it.

[joesbox]

as for the mslinux site: that was great! had me fulled for about 2 minutes until i started reading. the creater does good work at copying M$ sites. that is great!

as for El_Cu_Guy: correcting is showing what was wrong and restaiting. you are continuing which is arguing. ( egg egg )
can you tell i am trying to pee you off?? hope it works. later

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
someone alledged that CP/M sucked an no one ever used it. Hey! CP/M was cool!

:D

[sean_foulkes]

Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
Sure on the "desktop" maybe. For years people ran unices on WORKSTATIONS long before desktops (also once referred to as mini/micro-computers). You won't find to many unices running on desktops in corporations and universities. You're more likely to find workstations. Although the lines between workstations and desktops have becomes significantly blurred over the years.

I suggest checking your history and researching how various OSes are used before making such a bold statement. Even OSes that nobody even remembers today were once widely used. I once made this same point when someone alledged that CP/M sucked an no one ever used it.
Note: I love to intelligently argue on the internet!

That said: I see you still are missing my point. D-E-S-K-T-O-P!!
I am very aware of linux and unix as a server operating system, and I am also aware that i'm being redundant, as apparently you are not.

Workstations, sad to say, are still quite different from an average "desktop" computer. Workstations are usually designed and configured for a specific task or tasks, and sometimes are designed to prohibit the use of other programs/activities, like CleanSlate and Fortress Grand security programs. Workstations are designed and purchased by companies for one and only one purpose: to increase productivity. They don't want employess playing games or AIM-chatting their work day away. You are designated a "workstation" with your job, and from there you do the work that the company hired you for. This, as many definitions are, is quite general, but it still has many differences from the [next paragraph's] subject.

Desktop computers are what makes the computing industry what it is today. They are responsible for the internet as it is today, the pirated digital music as it is today, and many other things. The purpose of a deskop computer is to do what you want it to do, not what a company wants you to do with it. If you want to type a letter, go ahead. If you like to listen to mp3's while doing some work at home, or even playing a game: you are welcome to. It's there because it's easy to use and It's popular and it's mainstream and, very quickly, will become a necessity for everybody. Desktop computers are accessible to everyone, from your mom(whose basement you live in) to your dad(who has no clue whatsoever how the computer can say "you've got mail") to the principle of the local elementary school, who only needs a computer so he can post grades from his home.

Don't misunderstand, yelling "he's neglecting the *nix backbone of the entire communication/entertainment/computing world!!!" Being a network professional, I am well aware of the use of different operating systems for stability, features, performance, and so on. At my workplace, we use win2000 coupled with a newer version of Novell Netware. Somewhere else, well, they might have converted to nix and use a Redhat/Irix combination. Just because I specifically mention a topic gives you absolutely no grounds to criticize me on a different topic, however similiarly related.

You want to keep this up, it's fine with me. I have scores of useless OS trivia stockpiled and can argue for days, months, even changes of clothes, if need be:) .

But, I would like to get back on topic, and...what were we talking about? Oh yeah: What if M$ started their own Linux? Well, what if?

[El_Cu_Guy]

Hey! CP/M was cool!

Nobody's saying it wasn't. It's a typical statement made by those who know nothing beyond their Windows desktop. I lost count of how many people still make comments like "unix is a rip off of DOS".

sean_foulkes--

My "beef" (mmmm, beef) is with your comparison of Unix to a rock band that sucked for so many years until they had that one hit. Unix has never sucked. It's easy to make that statement when all you want to concentrate on is the user base a platform has only recently entered while it competition as existed for so many years. Don't forget that Minix was an EXTREMELY popular unix-like OS for the PC (especially at universities).

If any OS more accurately fits your description it would be DOS/Windows.

What do you think of MS-DOS?
It is better than Windows. At least it has a command line interface, albeit a pretty feeble one.
-Anrew S. Tanenbaum, creator of Minix (which by the way was released in the days when Windows was nothing more than an application suite for DOS not an OS).

But, I would like to get back on topic, and...what were we talking about? Oh yeah: What if M$ started their own Linux? Well, what if?

Why does everyone love this what if question? Sure you could think about it and come up with half a dozen jokes in five minutes, but give me a break.

Won't happen. Can't happen. Who cares?

[sean_foulkes]

Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy

My "beef" (mmmm, beef) is with your comparison of Unix to a rock band that sucked for so many years until they had that one hit. Unix has never sucked. It's easy to make that statement when all you want to concentrate on is the user base a platform has only recently entered while it competition as existed for so many years.

Think outside the box. The comparason is between basic emotions, not the raw words in the analogy, such as "rock band" and "sucked".

Unix/Linux has been almost nonexistent on the desktop until very recently, and people like you immediately say "well, umm..., *nix has always been popular, you just didn't know it." Yes, it has been around since '69. Yes it is popular at campuses and alternative-thinking communities. So are birkenstocks. When, in the days of Dos, did you see an ad in PC world for computers with *nix on them? When did you see any headlines in the newspapers' technology section for desktop computers featuring the Minix OS? None. Never. No Way. Here's another analogy, and a shorter one at that:

Unix-followers are like members of a community food Co-Op. They talk about how much better it is, how many people are joined up, and how many years they've been in business, but they forget to notice the Albertsons or the Safeway across the street; where most everybody else shops. Sure some people go into the Co-Op for an organic or pescide-free healthy food once in a while, but most of the people that live there simply go to Albertsons or Safeway.

Why? because it's faster, it's no-hassle, and everybody knows where everything is. Windows (and i'm no M$ fan) is the Safeway that keeps everybody's main business, even if they manage to sneak over to the Co-Op for a little treat.

I also agree with you on the MS/Linux thing. Although I believe that they can and probably will incorporate some Unix values into a future OS, would never
a)GPL any product
b)side with the enemy

They are the US, and *nix is China(not in any bad way at all). While they seem to keep war at bay, they are not allies.

In the long run, [hopefully] both sides will learn from eachother's strategies and strengths, turning into sophisticated, stable, user-friendly, powerful operating systems for both the end-user entertainment purposes and the backbone-server purposes.

[sean_foulkes]

Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
The real problem is, is that most shools treat Unix as an afterthought. Many high scholl claim that people use Windows in the "real world" (HA). Even most tech schools in the days where everyone wanted their MCSE did as well. Hell some still very much do.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Outside of the server room, how many homes harbor a Linux/Unix computer? Everyday life is the real world. People don't use Desktop linux in real life. I do, you do, but does the majority of Gary, Indiana use it? does my little town of Manhattan(pop. 1400) use it? does Boise, ID have even 10% of it's population using linux? I really don't think so.:confused:

[andysimmons]

lol I love watching people take attacks on their OS of choice personally;)

[sean_foulkes]

Originally posted by andysimmons
lol I love watching people take attacks on their OS of choice personally;)

at least somebody'slistening to me:rolleyes:

plus, i'm not yelling at him for his OS choice. Linux or (even better) Unix is a sophisticated piece of software to have inhabiting your hard drive, and I adore it, but [el_cu_guy] is a little delirious about some things. Oh well, It gives me practice for my advanced composition class:D .

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by sean_foulkes
You want to keep this up, it's fine with me. I have scores of useless OS trivia stockpiled and can argue for days, months, even changes of clothes, if need be:) .

Oh Yeah,

from http://www.zdnet.com.au/builder/architect/work/story/0,2000034884,20270284,00.htm

Question 1
What were Microsoft's code names for Windows 98 and 95 prior to their release?

Question 2
What does CRUD stand for in this article?

Other non OS questions ommitted.
:D

hlrguy

P.S. When someone says 14 Million people can't be wrong I laugh, cause if they are right, 286 million are wrong (US as the example country here). Not related to this, but just saw a commercial on TV. :D

[sean_foulkes]

1. Win95, code named Nashville
2. Win98, code named Scarecrow(if i only had a brain...):D
3. You don't seriously believe i wouldn't actually read the article?
Create, Read, Edit, Delete. as for the others, you're lucky I knew them(I made up #2, if you didn't notice), but it'd be hella easy to google search for them, however unfair. I don't know if you recall one of my first /dev/random's where i asked where some song lyrics came from. That was stuuuupid of me.

for you:(what they stand for and what they do)


Mac OS-X's gaphical engine
NOS
Redhat's eCOS is developed for how many platforms?

no cheating!

[craiggiles]

God I really opened a can of worms here didnt I?
:D

And how the hell can you compare Unix to a crap rock band, Unix is great and always has been, at the places ive worked mostly all of them didnt have a windows sever, mostly they are/were Unix, solaris and Risc OS 3 and even archmedes arthur:D .
remeber them?? I even worked in a plac ethat had BBC basic computer networked!!!!


But if you ask me windows and Linux can live in alliance, and as i said before the GUI's need a little more work before they can compete with windows and for me mandrake are nearly there have you seen 9.1 RC1!!!!! Its very windoze'esk!

Some day Microsoft will become like IBM, a big company and no real power, ok we wont get rid of windows but linux will and i mean will take over the world someday!!!!!!!

But Unix is does NOT suck:)

[sean_foulkes]

did you read my post explaining the rock band thing?

[andysimmons]

Originally posted by hlrguy
...What does CRUD stand for...
Originally posted by sean_foulkes
...3. You don't seriously believe i wouldn't actually read the article?
Create, Read, Edit, Delete....
Edit starts with U? :confused:

[El_Cu_Guy]

1. Chicago
2. Memphis
3. Create, Read, Update and Delete

1993 NT is finally released an gets a very cold reception. This is one of the worst marketing failures since Microsoft was first incorporated. At one of the big computer shows, Bill Gates announces "Chicago", which will be smaller, cheaper, and faster than NT. The release is scheduled for early 1994.

1995 Eventually, Chicago would be released in late 1995. Millions purchase Windows 95, only to discover that it will not run properly on most machines sold prior to 1994. The upgrades to hardware, including RAM and hard drive, exceed $1000 per machine.

Cairo = NT4
Detroit = successor to Win95 (cancelled)
Nashville = Web Integration (i.e. explorer shell)
Neptune = Win98 successor (cancelled)
Millennium = Windows ME (Millenium Edition)
WinNT 5.0/NT5 = Windows 2000
Asteroid = W2K SP1
Odyssey = W2K successor (cancelled, see Whistler)
Janus = W2K 64-bit Edition
Whistler = Windows XP/.NET
Luna = New User Interface for Windows XP
Lightning = .NET Common Language Runtime (CLR)
Longhorn = XP Second Edition
Cairo = distributed file system for NT
Blackcomb = Windows XP successor

Notice Cairo is used twice. Janus was also the codename for Windows for Workgroups 3.1. Names and projects change or are cancelled or are combined with other projects.

[sean_foulkes]

Whoops...I was sleepy then. :)

[Sixstrings]

Here is my 2 cents:

Ms is as dominate as it is ON THE DESKTOP because 95% of the computing world wants things easy and to have a consistant look. They don't want to have to think about their computer.

This group here is obviously differant

It is common knowladge that Unix came first, and "inspired" many of MS's ideas.

Unix, however, has been almost forgotten on the
DESKTOP by the 95% that don't think about their computer.

Those who know computers, put Unix, Linux, Sun, etc.... on their mission critical servers etc...

However, Linux will never take over the desktop. They will have a larger share then they do, but never unseat MS because of MS Office and Outlook.

I know about star office, open office, evolution for mail etc... I tested them for my company (I work for the worlds largest Enterprise level software manufacture) and none of them are as functual or can do as much as office. Unseating office as the #1 office suite will (in my opinion) never happen.


Just my 2 cents

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by Sixstrings
However, Linux will never take over the desktop. They will have a larger share then they do, but never unseat MS because of MS Office and Outlook.

I don't know about that. I write technical manuals all the time, and my Boss was wondering 'How on earth did you create a nested group of PDF docs with full links'. I said OpenOffice -->New Master Document. Office doesn't support PDF WITH preserved links. Actually, I think as soon as you dump their format, even HTML links don't work for export. It is now the standard for my divisions word processing.

I have also converted my wifes 2000+ strong work afilliate organization to OpenOffice. (Burnt 100 CDs, spread it around). They were having massive compatibility problems with Word 95/6.0,WordPerfect/Excel/Publisher. These are people who KNOW nothing about computers. After the install, I emailed them explicity instructuons on how to set the default doc format to MS type and they are happy as clams. Hey, everyone can open everyone else's docs. They WERE thinking of trying to get an organization liscence for WORD only, but it was still going to cost >$250 per member or 1/2 a friggin million dollars. I told them to freely distribute it to ANYONE.

I am working on getting a trial for my workplace to dump MS for OpenOffice for the same reasons. I have yet to find any problems interpretting documents, and people at MY work will ask me to convert their documents cause OpenOffice opens some early Word documents better than the latest Office Suites. Go figure.

It is just a matter of time before the world realizes that Office is just a suite, and not some golden magical must have.

Not a flame, just the power of one.

hlrguy

P.S. I have also started a landslide of people who telecommute now using Linux instead of Windows to our UNIX only shop. IT is NOW offering limited Linux support.

[Rikimaru0]

Would it be really stable and really easy to use (like windows is)

http://clanmm.recongamer.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://clanmm.recongamer.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://clanmm.recongamer.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://clanmm.recongamer.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://clanmm.recongamer.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://clanmm.recongamer.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://clanmm.recongamer.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://clanmm.recongamer.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://clanmm.recongamer.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

lol

[craiggiles]

ok ill rephase that...........

Would it be a stable as linux and as easy to use as windows,
is that better?
:D

[Okie]

pigs would fly...

icewater in hell...

[Sixstrings]

I am glad that you are showing people there is something else... after all, something else is why we are all here.
I am a win 2k MCSE (Hey, job market requires it) but am really diving into Linux (my company has aligned itself with RedHat) and recently I bought a Sun workstation because I would love to be knowladgeable in both Solaris and linux.

However, if I read your email right, you are swapping those people form office 97? Office 97 sucked in 97! However, due to certain programs that I require for work, I must use Windows for work. I have XP with Office XP. While this system is the best I have had from MS I wish I could be using Linux all the time.

Now Office XP is pretty stellar. I don't normally brag about MS stuff, but this office suite is really good. Outlook and Access especially.

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by Sixstrings
However, if I read your email right, you are swapping those people form office 97? Office 97 sucked in 97!

The 2000+ people are using all kinds of document writes from notepad through office XP. They honestly don't know anything. One sends everything in Publisher cause, 'I have publisher, so everyone must'. Before my wife took up Linux and OpenOffice, I would translate at least 6 different Office(Word) formats, different versions of excel, documents per day for her. Can't do publisher, but not even MS is compatible between versions of Publisher. RTF and WordPerfect thrown into the mix. This is just a group of people who are part of the affiliate organization with probably every OS and version of every program known to man. OpenOffice was the way to get them all working on a single free common platform. Most don't even know it isn't Office cause it is defaulted to work in native MS format. They are using it for all (not just this orgs work) their work now cause I helped them install it as the default app.

Again, most of these people know how to turn their computer on and know how to double click. :)

On the power front, honestly, I have not come up against anything I can't do with it. I have just completed the cross referencing between the latest 12 chapters of the training guide, exported into HTML from the master document and have a complete HTML web site set up with fully functional links. I will also export to .doc, .pdf, .rtf for burning to CD for the trainees to have. All of this just works. Awesome. For your own edification, and probably to the surprise of your company, push OO to it's limits, see if it does everything you ever need it to and maybe you can use OO at work, then there is NO reason not to use Linux. :D

I don't know anything about Office XP except that it is so far overpriced as to be rediculous.

hlrguy

[Sixstrings]

I wish it was just an office reason we were not running Linux all the time. We have propriatary web based programs that only run in Internet Explorer. Therefore I am stuck.

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by Sixstrings
I wish it was just an office reason we were not running Linux all the time. We have propriatary web based programs that only run in Internet Explorer. Therefore I am stuck.

That does suck. Although, you might give Opera a try. For the IE only MLS interface my wife uses, Opera works perfectly. Mozilla works, but some frames look strange.

hlrguy

[sean_foulkes]

Office xp is the first(imho) truly useful program to come out of the
-water-Gates complex. It's easy, it looks nice, and you can do a crapload of stuff w/it. I didn't pay $400 for Office XP Pro...

I tried staroffice, and their little desktop/start menu thingy is really stupid. People don't want to learn a new gui to type something. I haven't really tried OO, but i'm getting a little interested now.

[EmperorPenguin]

Originally posted by mahdi
You'd end up with something like this :D
http://www.mslinux.org/

That is hilarious ... I love the quote from Linus :D

[EmperorPenguin]

Originally posted by Sixstrings
I know about star office, open office, evolution for mail etc... I tested them for my company (I work for the worlds largest Enterprise level software manufacture) and none of them are as functual or can do as much as office. Unseating office as the #1 office suite will (in my opinion) never happen.

They aren't as functional yet. You have to remember that there is continuous development of these programs by alot more programmers than MS employs ... that's the whole point of open source software; the collective work of lots of programmers will improve the quality of the software beyond that of proprietary software.

[Sixstrings]

Originally posted by EmperorPenguin
They aren't as functional yet. You have to remember that there is continuous development of these programs by alot more programmers than MS employs ... that's the whole point of open source software; the collective work of lots of programmers will improve the quality of the software beyond that of proprietary software.

That is a good point, and not something I had thought of in context to this conversation. I hope it is as good or better than MS office. I firmly believe that competition is a good thing and with Linux and MS trying to keep up and out do each other the winners will be US.

[AussieJohn]

Wonderful stuff Hirguy.

However on the matter of how many desktops use Linux is something NO ONE KNOWS AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL KNOW FOR YEARS TO COME. It is simple. Because Linux is freely distributed no one can keep track of all the copies (all legal) ever made. Microsoft Distributes by sale and can therefore have an overall figure. I have Win2000 on my machine and it is registered so microsoft knows about it but does it know that I also have Mandrake 9.0 on my machine too and that I have installed Mandrake 9.0 on 3 different friends machines friends machines also. I don't think so.

So how is one likely to find out. Even the self appointed and microsoft sponsored surveys cannot work out a satisfactory way of finding out and always come up with vague % 's . Hirguys story is an example of the distribution of Linux but you wont find his situation counted in any figures because who is to know and why should they. I Australia even Newsagents (yes Newsagents) have been selling distribution Packs of Red Hat 7.2 and 8.0 and Australian Computer magazine have been including Mandrake 8 and now Mandrake 9 with their free CDs. So how many of will be installed ?/ I have no guesses and nor has anyone else but magazines themselves say they are responding to consumer demand and they say the feedback has been amazing

So to sum up :- Unless a national census were taken no one knows whether any percentage between 0 and 100 is correct. Pick your own figure but it won't be correct but who cares. I certainly won't nor will Hirguy. we'll both keep on helping others to make the move to Linux . The same thing being done by untold 100s of thousands of other Linux who are not necessarily Linux fanatics.

LINUX is tomorrows world,now.

Cheers.
John

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by AussieJohn
Wonderful stuff Hirguy.

I certainly won't nor will Hirguy. we'll both keep on helping others to make the move to Linux . The same thing being done by untold 100s of thousands of other Linux who are not necessarily Linux fanatics.

LINUX is tomorrows world,now.

Cheers.
John

I just want to make clear that I didn't convert 2K people to Linux, just that I converted, probably 80% plus so far, to OpenOffice. Truly selfish reasons, if I didn't, then my wife needs to fork out ~$350 for Office and that is money I want in my pocket, not MS's

Unofficially, I would think that at least 136 of us are using Linux. :D

hlrguy

[AussieJohn]

Thanks Hirguy. You reinforced my point about no one would know about your numbers until you out lined them and like you I wasn't talking about converting people to Linux. Because of my interest in Linux my friends start to get curious and ask questions and ask me to show them more and from then on they are hooked. I have the great feeling that we do NOT have to be evangelical about Linux because it creates its own converts. Once they try it there is no wish to turn back anymore.

Once you have crossed over the border and found the grass really was greener on the other side, why would you want to step back over the border to the original barren land called Microsoftdom.

Cheers. John

[3m00]

I don't really think Microsoft would call it linux. I think it would be something like "Windows 2004" and it would say somewhere on the box : "linux powered." You wouldn't ever see linux or the command prompt from windows, you would just see the standard windows interface. Thats the only possible way I see of M$ doing anything like that. Other than that, it would be mostly unprofitable (r&d costs and distribution costs don't make sense for that percentage of computer usership).

[Okie]

The Devil came to Redmond, looking for some souls to steal,
and there he met with Billy G, who was just about to make a deal.
Said the Devil, "Hey Billy, you look bored, would you care to make a bet?"
And Billy he smiled slyly, and said "Dude, there ain't a deal that I've missed yet."
So the Devil took his keyboard and showed Billy his new game,
Saying "I wrote this quick, in VB6, now see if you can do the same."
Billy G, he just smiled his smile, and took the keyboard away,
and said, "Devil, you're behind the times, and you clicked on the EULA,
"Now you've run Windows Update, and your soul belongs to me."
And the Devil knew he'd met his match, so he turned and tried to flee,
But Billy G was much to fast, and he caught the Devil's long black cape,
Saying, "Devil, stay and play a while, we have a whole wide world to rape."

chorus

Devil, loosen up your fingers and click your icons hard,
'Cause hell's broke loose in Redmond and ol' billy deals the cards.
And if you win you'll get this company made of gold,
But if you loose, Billy gets your soul....

[metz2000]

But how do we know Microsoft aren't already using Linux as the backbone of their OS? With their closed-source code we would never be able to tell....

This isn't likely, but can it be proved that they are not?

[Okie]

there is xenix...

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/X/Xenix.html

[El_Cu_Guy]

But how do we know Microsoft aren't already using Linux as the backbone of their OS? With their closed-source code we would never be able to tell....

This isn't likely, but can it be proved that they are not?

I hate conspiracy theories.

Windows 3.x - Me* used Kernel/Kernel32

WindowsNT - XP use NTkernel (NT Executive)

None of the OSes use the GNU system.

Get over it.

* = previous versions of Windows were application suites for DOS not OSes.

there is xenix...

Holy crap! That's right MS could use...

Oh but wait. Xenix is 16bit and hasn't been updated since,
MICROSOFT SOLD IT AND THEIR RIGHTS TO THE UNIX MARKET TO SCO!

[craiggiles]

Lets face it microsoft will never release a linux distro, they'll just continue to sell bugged up crap and linux will continue to make strides and take over windows in all areas.

And linux is getting better by the day ive jsu got mandrake 9.1 rc1 and i think Xp is going soon:D

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by craiggiles
and i think Xp is going soon:D You may want to change your sig then... ;)

[El_Cu_Guy]

You may want to change your sig then...

Screw RiscOS 3 land. New users will likely go to RiscOS 4 world.

[Rikimaru0]

Would it be a stable as linux and as easy to use as windows,
is that better?

:cool:

hehe, sounds better ;) :D

[metz2000]

Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
I hate conspiracy theories.

Windows 3.x - Me* used Kernel/Kernel32

WindowsNT - XP use NTkernel

None of the OSes use the GNU system.

Get over it.


Hmmm, ok.... This wasn't a conspiracy theory, as you like to say. Mentioning that Linux may be the basis of Windows was just mere musings of my own, that's all....

So sit back in your /dev/chair and think about it...

The NT kernel may have used components of the Linux kernel and no one would know...

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by AussieJohn
So to sum up :- Unless a national census were taken no one knows whether any percentage between 0 and 100 is correct.

Cheers.
John

Wow, it appears to be higher than I would have expected.

Negligible five years ago, open-source desktop software pulled even last year with Apple Computer desktop software, with an estimated 3% market share, up from 2.4% in 2001, market researcher IDC says. Microsoft dominates with a 94% share.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-02-26-desktop_x.htm

I am going to see if I can find out if that is Worldwide or just in the US. If just in the US, then I suspect that the number is a lot higher cause it's adoption as the desktop is higher outside the US.

Truly amazing, and the start of the end of the MS monopoly on the desktop.

hlrguy

[hlrguy]

I couldn't find the report, but a more complete overview of the report is at
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-979064.html

The IDC study is worldwide but DOES NOT include or estimate the number of desktops running with free downloads OR shared CDs. My gut feeling is that for every boxed set sold, at least one other person has a 'free' version running from either the download or the purchased CD shared. That would put Linux at roughly 6% of the worlds desktops.

If that figure could be verified and publicized, I think that the rush to put native applications from private enterprise (for sale) would be at least as strong, if not stronger than supporting them for Apple. In any event, critical mass is approaching and I am smiling.

hlrguy

[sean_foulkes]

anyone read the latest NEWSWEEK? Front page main article on Linux. We now have 2% of the market share(in retail sales). That means a lot more people are using linux than 2% of the market, that's for sure.

[El_Cu_Guy]

The NT kernel may have used components of the Linux kernel and no one would know...

No matter what your conspiracies can be proven to be complete silly. Now if you want to try to bring about a conspiracy try this one.

NT is more closely related to work from OS/2.

Whoops sorry that's not really a conspiracy. It's just plain true. Check your release dates first, then figure in development time and get back to me. The timeline is just another of many things which disproves you nuts.

[craiggiles]

MS Windows Longhorn looks good..........................................
Erm actually most of it is copies of linux technology, oh look microsoft are taking things from linux so i guess there defeated that there using the opossitions ideas.

Soon we will have Windows that is completely Linux,
but would M$ call it linux no......theyde call it Microsoft Windows 2004 :D

[El_Cu_Guy]

Erm actually most of it is copies of linux technology, oh look microsoft are taking things from linux so i guess there defeated that there using the opossitions ideas.

What ideas is Microsoft copying that are specific to GNU/Linux?

[craiggiles]

For one virtual desktops!:p

[El_Cu_Guy]

Originally posted by craiggiles
For one virtual desktops!:p

The concept of virtual desktops predates GNU/Linux thank you very much.

Try again.

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
The concept of virtual desktops predates GNU/Linux thank you very much.

Try again.

They are common to all UNIX/Linux style OSs. I think the point is, they are copying it because Linux is using it, it is a greate feature, not because UNIX on CDE/HU-UX forever. If Linux didn't have it, Windows would not be adopting it.

There have been 3rd party versions of this for at least 10 years. I installed a crappy one on my parents 3.1, which I promptly removed. If it was such a great feature that they will claim inventing, why now?

hlrguy

[jayd]

Originally posted by craiggiles
WWW.MSLINUX.ORG?????

That has gotta be a joke:)

Look at the news stories at the side, Microsoft invade cuba?????
LOL

It may happen in time, but not for a long time.
:D

Yeah, Cuba isn't much of a threat right now.

[craiggiles]

Well Hlr Guy, M$ have ran out of ideas so they are scraping the sides of the so called barrell, to me this shows M$ demise at last.

As they have finnally given us a desent os with XP, and this is one that they can't improve on properly so they are trying to make it look new by adding bloat and pretty new features soon longhorn (XP's sucessor) will be soon as bad as Millenium Edition remeber how bad that was???

They are stealing other peoples ideas because they do not have ideas of theyre own!!!


And I only used virtual desktops as an example, i know they have been i unix for years but they arent exactly on the same scale as Linuxes or longhorns:p

And another copied feature that analogue clock something ive seen i can do on KDE im sure??????

[El_Cu_Guy]

If Linux didn't have it, Windows would not be adopting it.

I don't buy this for one minute. Microsoft has a habit of adopting third party ideas (and calling them innovative 5-10 years after the fact). I very much believe that we would have seen virtual desktops in at least corporate versions of Windows.

I think it will likely show up in consumer versions of Windows for two reasons. Microsoft is starting to listen. In the past the included only the features in which a small margin of the minority of user actually thought were useful because they believed the majority would grow to love them. Unfortunately most of these ideas were scrapped. The second is Microsoft seeing that vitual desktops is a feature that many consumer GNU/Linux users seem to like.

As you see Microsoft isn't copying GNU/Linux or other unices out right or "stealing" concepts from a specific OS as some of you claim.

Well Hlr Guy, M$ have ran out of ideas so they are scraping the sides of the so called barrell, to me this shows M$ demise at last.

Not necessarily. Microsoft's only real novel approach has been to integrate, integrate, and integrate everything into one giant mess. Your theory that including technologies already in use is proof that the "mighty as or will fall" is quite candid. I see it as just another day at Bill and Company.

Funny thing is that many people love to claim that ideas were stolen from a specific OS or company. I would be more than happy to give examples of technology (such as the GUI that predates Apple and Xerox).

And another copied feature that analogue clock something ive seen i can do on KDE im sure??????

The analog clock has just been moved from the time/date properties to the desktop and prettied up with 3D graphics.

[sean_foulkes]

...and have I mentioned the NEWSWEEK/BUSINESSWEEK article? Everyone here should read it.

I like the part about MS at Linuxworld last year: They had a booth in the back with guys in black T-shirts with bold white letters that said "LET'S TALK".

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by sean_foulkes
...and have I mentioned the NEWSWEEK/BUSINESSWEEK article? Everyone here should read it.


http://asia.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/03_09/B382203linux.htm

hlrguy

[Sixstrings]

there is alot of good info in there, but the line that bothered me (it is somewhere on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th page that states that the distruibiters of Linux may be sued for copyright infringment



That could suck

[sean_foulkes]

...only if they don't make their software available free elsewhere.

[Sixstrings]

No, the holders of the copyrights to Unix are hiring some "super-lawer", it stated, and persuing legal action for copyright infringment

[Sixstrings]

Here is the exact quote from the artical:

What could derail Linux? The biggest risks are intellectual-property issues. SCO Group, holder of the original patents for Unix software upon which Linux is based, has announced plans to form a licensing division and hire superlawyer David Boies to press its claims against sellers of Linux. Another potential problem: There are a handful of commercial versions of Linux. If they evolve into substantially different programs, software companies that sell applications might have to create a separate version for each type of Linux.

[El_Cu_Guy]

SCO Group, holder of the original patents for Unix software upon which Linux is based, has announced plans to form a licensing division and hire superlawyer David Boies to press its claims against sellers of Linux.

Shows how ill-informed the author is. UNIX is a system.

1. UNIX is a system, GNU would be the target
2. GNU is not based on Unix code
3. This only affects distribution which do use SCO code.

I love it when someone writes about Linux being Unix-based. Duh, nope. That just killed it right there.

Linux distributors aren't too worried about SCO. The complaint deals with libraries used to run SCO Unix software on GNU/Linux. So far SCO's own distro is the only one found to include these.

If they evolve into substantially different programs, software companies that sell applications might have to create a separate version for each type of Linux.

Who wrote this dribble?

[osmocot404]

Well, two things could happen:
People would use Microsoft's distro, which probably would use Microsoft's kernel(unstable), and people most likely will not like it and say all the other distros were as bad as Microsoft's and go back to Windows

-Or-

Hopefully, if they do make one, it will be good and people will get the right idea about Linux.

[El_Cu_Guy]

It doesn't matter as it won't happen. Of course a puppet company would be a little more believable.

Get the distro out with extremely user friendliness. It becomes popular. Establish a customer base. Then break everything. The distro is now complete crap. It would kill the perception of GNU/Linux.

Although this idea is not likely to happen.

[sean_foulkes]

Originally posted by El_Cu_Guy
Who wrote this dribble?

Dribble= a small story of usually either 50 or 100 words exactly. Usually includes an ironic ending/lesson.

Why, El_Cu_Guy, do you think linux is not based on UNIX? the directory structure, kernel, name, filesystem are all very similar, if not identical.

/usr/ports/linux

[bwkaz]

It is not based on UNIX.

It is based on the GNU system -- and you know, of course, that GNU stands for "GNU's Not UNIX", don't you? Of course you do. :rolleyes:

Just because the FS, interface, behavior, etc. of two programs or systems is similar, does NOT mean that one is based on the other! There is something called "independent reimplementation" -- it's what all the GNU software is. People that have never seen UNIX code take the UNIX manuals and write a set of programs that works just like those programs do. Or, they make them better (which is what happened in a lot of cases -- stuff like hard limits on input line length was gotten rid of in a lot of cases).

[Sixstrings]

I think the suit will be based on copyright infringment.

Basically that means that since Linux acts and looks so much like Unix, that it is in violation of copyright laws.

I am not sure of Unix copyright status or exactly what is copyrighted about Unix, but if enough of Linux looks and acts like it, it may be a problem

[sean_foulkes]

Originally posted by bwkaz
It is not based on UNIX.

It is based on the GNU system -- and you know, of course, that GNU stands for "GNU's Not UNIX", don't you? Of course you do. :rolleyes:

Thanks. Uh...of course i did:D

When I say based, I mean "very similar", not "the same ingredients"

the same with the english language and latin. some english words were modified from the latin word; the latin word isn't in the english language by itself.

But if you meant based as in "same base code", then I stand corrected. I didn't know that's what GNU stood for, but I am not surprised. Someone could also be easily confused, seeing the many very close similarities between UNIX and Linux and then hearing about the GPL source code license. For the longest time I thought that Mr. Torvalds just took the source for the UNIX kernel and changed it and called it Linux.

[El_Cu_Guy]

The GNU system is designed basically to be a UNIX system work-alike. Unix-based implies that it is based on the official UNIX system source code.

BeOs is a unix-like (notice the lowercase unix)

UNIX (system, all caps)
Unix-based
unix-like or unix-work-alike

Unix-based OSes include Solaris, Tru64, AIX, HP-UX.

Think of it this way. If someone wrote an OS designed to work exactly like Windows you wouldn't refer to it as Windows based as it implies that it is based on the Windows system source code. See it works LIKE Windows.

The GNU ressembles UNIX so vividly because the GNU Project has made numerous contributions to Unix in many ways. Hell much of the Unix software is in fact open source (but not all of it is free).

[pythagras]

The GNU system is designed basically to be a UNIX system work-alike. Unix-based implies that it is based on the official UNIX system source code.

That doesnt matter, reverse engineering has been succesfully defended in the courts. Otherwise, there wouldnt have been so many "IBM compatible" computers, and MS would be going broke from stealing other people's ideas.

[El_Cu_Guy]

That doesnt matter, reverse engineering has been succesfully defended in the courts.

Since when has access to the source code been required for reverse engineering? Sorry didn't mean to make your statement completely moot. Perhaps you meant MS would reverse engineer the UNIX system. Sure they probably could (not likely as it means doing actual work). However, they couldn't market/license it.

MS would be going broke from stealing other people's ideas.

Reverse engineering isn't theft. This is a sad way to defend Microsoft's actions.

Example:
Kerberos (designed at MIT) was released to the public so that anyone could use it. Versions were then mostly available for big mainframe server machines. Microsoft's support would allow PCs in campus labs and on desktops to be included in the existing campus security framework.

Microsoft wouldn't be using Kerberos as designed by MIT. Rather, it started with the design as MIT had publicized, but then made a number of changes. The company wouldn't publicize exactly what changes it made, since it considered this a "trade secret."

The head of the MIT Kerberos team, Theodore T'so, wrote in a recent issue of the journal ;login: that the changes Microsoft made (which he had an opportunity to see under another non-disclosure agreement) had nothing to do with making Kerberos more functional or more secure; they were merely changes to make Microsoft Kerberos incompatible with the versions available from MIT and other companies.

In short, Microsoft stole work done for the public good and subverted it to make money.

So what happened? (http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,14996,00.html)

More?

USENIX Windows NT Symposium

It started when Microsoft manager Greg Sullivan gave a talk about how a new version of the company's Windows NT operating system would include a program called the Korn Shell, which would allow some programs written for the competing operating system Unix to run on NT.

After the talk, a man in the back of the room stood up. He asked why Microsoft was planning to ship a version of the Korn Shell that didn't work correctly. Sullivan, with some indignance, replied that the software worked well. The man disagreed. Sullivan maintained Microsoft's Korn Shell worked perfectly.

This back-and-forth went on for some time before someone stood up and revealed that the questioner was Bell Labs researcher David Korn, the original author of the Korn Shell. The embarrassed Sullivan beat a hasty retreat.

This story seems like a comical case of corporate marketing doubletalk and disinformation. But it underlines a standard operating practice at Microsoft of unethical business behavior.

[pythagras]

Since when has access to the source code been required for reverse engineering? Sorry didn't mean to make your statement completely moot. Perhaps you meant MS would reverse engineer the UNIX system. Sure they probably could (not likely as it means doing actual work). However, they couldn't market/license it.

What I meant was that just because a system has the same interface and might even behave similarly (ala Linux and Unix, or other people making IBM compatibles), does not constitute a violation of intellectual property laws, as people seem to be alleging. Using source code, without permission, to reverse engineer something, would be a violation of intellectual property laws.

[El_Cu_Guy]

Are you referring to the SCO drama? What reverse engineering?

[Sepero]

Hey mods, I dug up this old thread just for you guys. You can clump it into that piece of crap thread called "hating ms". :D

[Snowmayne]

I'm a linux newbie and a Windows XP user.

I'm gradually getting more experienced with My Mandrake linux pc, but i still have problems>

Something popped in to my head the other day what if microsoft started a Linux distro????

Would it be really stable and really easy to use (like windows is)
Be able to recognize new software??

I reackon if microsoft were allowed to help develop Linux, but no destroy it like they want it to, it would be better for linux and microsoft alike.

Imagine it a windows and linux alliance it would be bliss, stabilty, easy to use, second to none hardware detection, lots of money to back linux.

I think thats the way forward for both linux and windows, what do you think??:confused:

Am I the only one who noticed craiggiles' sig:
[QUOTE]_________________
Main Computer: Apple eMac 1Ghz PowerPC G4, 512Mb RAM, 80Gb HDD, Superdrive, ATi Radeon 7500, Mac OSX 10.4.5 Tiger.
Apple Power Macintosh Beige G3, 266MHz PowerPC G3 CPU, 128Mb SDRAM, 10Gb ATA HDD, 2mb ATi Rage Graphics Card, Mac OS 9.2.2 and Yellow Dog Linux 3.0.1 Sirius."[QUOTE]

Between that and [QUOTE]Would it be really stable and really easy to use (like windows is)[QUOTE] I thought for a second it might have been an April Fool post. :D sorry, but when a mac user starts talking about windows in a positive way, warning bells go off.

Seriously, I've been using M$ software since DOS 2.2 and the only thing I could never say about microsoft apps is that they were stable. I'm slowly gearing up to completely switch because I'm tired of my P4 2GHz taking 10 minutes to boot compared to my old 386 talking 3.

[bwkaz]

Am I the only one who noticed craiggiles' sig: You're the only one since, apparently... February 09, 2004 (and before that, March 5, 2003), yes.

This thread is pretty ancient, in other words. :p

[crow2icedearth]

What would happen if Microsoft started thery own Linux Distro

Has already happend , nearly 20 years ago. They created the UNI* os XENIX.

[blackbelt_jones]

What would happen if Microsoft started thery own Linux Distro

I wouldn't use it.