| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Out the Window | |
|
||
| Time: 09:51 EST/14:51 GMT | News Source: Wall Street Journal | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
Can the ordinary computer user ditch Windows for Linux? The question came up when I decided that my six-year-old version of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system had to be replaced. My Sony Vaio computer was still too young for the trash heap. And I was hesitant to spend $200 on the Windows XP operating system, especially with Microsoft planning to launch XP's replacement, Vista, in January. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 221 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:45:54 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/16/2006 10:35:00 AM |
|
"In the end, I decided to buy an upgrade copy of Windows XP for $100."
|
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/16/2006 12:17:35 PM |
| No surprises here. The WSJ has been anti-Linux for years. They're probably still backing SCO in the IBM court case. |
| #3 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/16/2006 12:41:43 PM |
| "While solutions may exist to almost every problem I encountered, I was willing to invest only a limited amount of time as a system administrator. Claims by some Linux publishers that anybody can easily switch to Linux from Windows seem totally oversold." |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/16/2006 1:12:38 PM |
| He tries Linux with a known incompatible system, doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't want to spend any time learning - and he has problems. I'm shocked. He does have some valid points, such as lack of drivers for new devices, licensing issues with proprietary A/V codecs and interoperability with proprietary formats. Linux is hardly to blame if some vendors won't write device drivers for anything but Windows. You can't include codecs with strings attached in a free product. And lastly, hopefully people are starting to see the problem with undocumented, obfuscated, proprietary file formats like those used in MS Office. |
| #5 By 3746 (71.19.43.237) at 5/16/2006 2:01:05 PM |
|
I think the point Parker is trying to make is that this guy represents 95 percent of the people who use computers. If Linux doesn't make the system simple to setup, manage and use then they will never make any headway on the desktop. This post was edited by kaikara on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 14:02. |
| #6 By 8556 (12.217.111.92) at 5/16/2006 2:23:47 PM |
| #6: I think the writer, unfortunately, represents AT LEAST 95% of PC users, based on my limited experience in a rural area. I've sold hundreds of custom built machines. Not one person to date wanted Linux. Many of the customers were new users that claimed to only want to surf the web and get e-mail. For a few hundred bucks they would be set with Linux. Yet, when I demonstrate Linux with its dozens of excellent free programs and mention lack of virus and spyware infections, they ALWAYS want to pay the extra $90 for Windows. It's almost as if they believe that they aren't getting a PC unless Windows is installed on it. Dual boot? Forget about it, too scary. |
| #7 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/16/2006 2:38:15 PM |
|
"proprietary file formats"
Do you mean ODF - encumbered by Sun patents? Or PDF - encumbered by Adobe patents? |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/16/2006 3:57:01 PM |
|
#7: I know I've personally told you this at least twice now. Three times if you consider my response to your post in a later thread today. ODF is not "encumbered" by anything other than your FUD. The patent Sun has on some of ODF is a defensive patent and they have declared that they will not enforce any terms on anyone who wants to use it. Same with PDF, AFAIK. That's why F/OSS can use both of those formats - they're not emcumbered by anything. The MS Open (haha) XML standard has the usual anti-F/OSS strings attached to prevent any open source project from using the format. That means it's encumbered. Learn the difference. Of course you won't, and you'll continue to spew your FUD. Good thing I'll always be here to clear up your misconceptions and misrepresentations eh?
|
| #9 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 5/16/2006 4:13:37 PM |
|
Tally so far . . .
$30 for the book with outdated software on it $40 for something called "CrossOver" that doesnt' work $40 for something that makes encrypted DVDs work maybe Priceless . . .$110 for crap! |
| #10 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/16/2006 6:29:16 PM |
|
"they're not emcumbered by anything"
PDF is encumbered by the obligation to enforce their DRM. "The patent Sun has on some of ODF is a defensive patent and they have declared that they will not enforce any terms on anyone who wants to use it." Not true. "Sun's covenant shall not apply and Sun makes no assurance, covenant or commitment not to assert or enforce any or all of its patent rights against any individual, corporation or other entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce its own or another party's U.S. or foreign patents or patent rights against any OpenDocument Implementation." Translation: Sun will enforces its patents when it wants to. |
| #11 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 5/16/2006 6:33:23 PM |
|
ya know, after some fiddle and frustration, i kinda sorta got suse to work. had to download special thingies to burn a cd (what a joke) but i think it worked ok for most of what i was doing.
no games though to speak of, and oh my biggest beef…the type fonts are UGLY! no matter what i tried including ms fonts it looked ugly to the eye and was fatiguing to read. here’s my take away from the linux experience (after getting rid of the stupid partition), linux is great for doing not so legal stuff. nobody is going to bother with linux, its too small a player. oh, and for the linux lovers out there. its all about getting the details right. that’s why i drive a benz and not a ford. |
| #12 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2006 8:56:07 AM |
|
NotParker:
#10 has the quote, "Sun's covenant shall not apply and Sun makes no assurance, covenant or commitment not to assert or enforce any or all of its patent rights against any individual, corporation or other entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce its own or another party's U.S. or foreign patents or patent rights against any OpenDocument Implementation." If you read this again, you will see that this is exactly what Latch was referring to when he said it was a defensive patent. Sun will enforce its patent rights against anyone who tried to leverage their own or someone else's patents against an OpenDocument implimentation. The message is clear. If you don't sue the OpenDocument implementer with a patent violation, we won't sue you. This is very clearly being used in a defensive manner. Congratulations on proving Latch's point for him in such a conclusive manner. |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2006 8:59:03 AM |
|
#10: You're so desperate that you'll twist anything out of context, eh Parkkker?
""Sun's covenant shall not apply and Sun makes no assurance, covenant or commitment not to assert or enforce any or all of its patent rights against any individual, corporation or other entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce its own or another party's U.S. or foreign patents or patent rights against any OpenDocument Implementation." Translation: Sun will enforces its patents when it wants to." Um, no. As usual, you miss the point entirely. Sun will only sue you if you try to sue someone else for implementing ODF. That's hardly as arbitrary as you attempt to make it look. #12: I generally agree that I don't give a rat's ass about what you or anyone else runs. I do get piqued when someone with a large soapbox gets up and spouts crap. The WSJ has never liked Linux, and here's another story from some hack who couldn't figure everything out in 20 minutes so he pans Linux as "too hard." You know what? Windows is too hard for my mother-in-law. Any standard remote control is too hard for my grandmother. The WSJ has a large readership, and a slam against Linux like that isn't good. |
| #14 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 5/17/2006 12:32:14 PM |
|
What part of "assert or enforce any or all of its patent rights" don't you understand?
If Sun has "patent rights", then ODF is not open. And tell me folks ... if Microsoft buys Sun, breaks it up and decides to use or sell any or all patents pertaining to ODF, does the covenant still apply? I think not. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2006 1:11:20 PM |
| #15: I understand that sentence fragment just fine. What YOU don't seem to understand is the part that comes immediately after it. You know, the part that lays out the only condition under which they will assert their rights. As for your claim that patents mean something is not open, you're spinning so fast you're going in circles. Why can't something be open and patented? Does MS not have patents on MSXML? I believe they do, yet you claim MSXML is open. But you also claim patented works cannot be open. Which is it, Parkkker? |
| #16 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2006 2:12:20 PM |
|
#15: Simply put, Microsoft has patents on MSXML / Open XML, and Sun has patents on OpenDocument. Both have a license stating that they will not enforce the patents unless someone tries to sue them or an implimenter of the technology, in which case the patent portfolio will be used against the suer to protect the suee. So, if OpenDoc is not open, because of the patents, then neither is MSXML for the same reason.
However, I do not believe that one precludes the other. There are many open standards that have patents attached to them. And there is even efforts afoot to patent many of the patentable ideas found in F/OSS software, in order to protect the F/OSS software. There are those who would love to patent ideas that others invent, and then sue them for patent infringement. That happens far too often these days. Imagine if Sun had not patented the key parts of OpenDocument. Microsoft could then patent those ideas as their own, and sue Sun for patent infringement, or charge hefty licensing fees, at the very least. A very real issue, and the reason why companies get patents in the first place. Even when the product is meant to be free. That is the new reality. Patents being obtained strictly for defensive purposes, against those that obtain and use patents as weapons of financial destruction. I know this will be a difficult concept for you to grok, so go read some US patent law and some books on the topic. That might help you gain some insights on how the patent wars are shaping up. And yes, it is becoming a state of war where patents are concerned. Just ask Research in Motion, who had to deal with a company (NTP) whose sole purpose in business is to acquire patents and sue for patent infringement or charge hefty licensing fees for technology they did not even invent. |
| #17 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/18/2006 4:09:35 PM |
|
"And tell me folks ... if Microsoft buys Sun, breaks it up and decides to use or sell any or all patents pertaining to ODF, does the covenant still apply?"
No takers? |
| #18 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 5/19/2006 9:34:29 AM |
| If Google buys Microsoft, breaks it up, and decides to use or sell any or all of the patents pertaining to MSXML, does the covenent still apply? |
| #19 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 5/19/2006 12:41:39 PM |
| Of course, that was a nonsensical answer, Parker, as Microsoft would never sell off the Sun patents if it actually managed to purchase Sun. They would keep all the Sun-held patents for themselves, and add them to their own patent portfolio. Microsoft might sell off some of the physical assets of a company they absorb, but never the IP, which would be what they would be interested in purchasing in the first place. |
| #20 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/19/2006 2:47:29 PM |
| #18: "No takers?" Sure, I'll take, just as soon as you address the points made by me and MS. But you won't do that as you NEVER answer when your ass has been handed to you. All you do is wiggle, squirm and throw out as many distractions and totally irrelevant points as you can think of. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 221 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:45:54 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
