Debate? Win vs Linux? Maybe...
Posted 06 October 2007 - 07:52 AM
There are big threats though apart from most users desire to have something simple and boring proprietary codex's and so on will kill Linux if these isn't government level support for example, in the US it is illegal to make your commercial DVDs play in Linux, as your circumventing copy protection software, in the EU its perfectly legal. But what about HD and WMA etc? Windows has the support of big capitalism as they can hard wire DRM and other obnoxious things into the OS, the hardware and the media.
On another note, I am starting to get the hang of the filing system, and console commands, I'm so happy with Linux and the freedom it affords, i might step it up a level and when this computer starts getting old and creaky, get a console for games and run Linux full time on my main PC.
Don't post here ever again.
Posted 07 October 2007 - 11:50 AM
Posted 09 October 2007 - 02:25 PM
This is actually kind-of sad and something I'm suprised at seeing come from you. Get off your soap-box and open you're own eyes. Stop talking about Linux as if it is the "universe." It's just an OS, a piece of software as is Windows. You're taking a logical argument, finding offense to it and making it personal. Ex: You take talk of "gangsters" in schools and throw it into a conversation to which it does not belong. If you have a general dislike for society and/or most of the people in it, well then I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but it's not Microsoft's fault and Linux is not going to save it.
First off, Linux serves very well as 'utility' because it's ultimately robust. Air traffic control. Cell phones. Servers. These all rely on healthy software. Linux is healthy software suited to all of these things and everything else because of its insane ability to learn and adapt. It just happens to also be an incredible operating system that is overlooked because people, on the whole, fear learning.
Now. Addressing the virus argument.
Windows - main stream. Source? Highly protected, not released to public. Viruses? Too many to count.
Linux - not main stream, yet still incredibly widely used. Source? Freely given. Viruses? Next to none.
Yes, they exist, but they're totally obscure and I've never met, in real life or on the internet, a single person who's contracted one.
According to those of you behind this argument, an operating system with its source spread wiiide open to any tom, dick or harry should be completely insecure.
Also mentioned was the fact that Microsoft likes to keep people stupid.Now, first, the type of person who uses Linux is the type of person who learns programming and likes being able to freely tweak his or her OS.
But who?s to say for the common people, and especially the common kid that?s a bad thing? Most kids use computers for typing, gaming, and occasionally art work. Some learn programming, and very few of those people who learn it specialize in creating OS. Having people dumber computer wise on the whole might not be a bad thing, as shocking as that might sound.
That's a blatant contradiction.
Windows users are kept in the dark, yet Windows has all the viruses.
Linux users are given everything, all freedom, all knowledge, and told to learn how it works, ask questions, explore this programmed universe, and yet Linux is the one with no viruses.
There are two types of people.
First, the most common (fitting, as Windows users are the most common). These people teach themselves to betray knowledge. They tell themselves that they know everything they need to know. They don't ask questions. When they come across something they don't understand, they ignore it. They've already learned all they ever will. They will continue to get on with their lives, and if anyone suggests otherwise, these people get not only defensive but extremely offensive. "You're being condescending." "Don't talk to me like I'm stupid." "I don't need to know this stuff." "I just want to get on with my life, none of this affects me."
They acknowledge nothing outside of their tiny range of perception. They fear the unknown. Change terrifies them.
Microsoft is encouraging this type of person. And you know what? This is the type of person to use any knowledge they are given as a destructive force. Those stupid 'gangsters' in high school. They don't want to learn, so they spray paint idiotic offal on the school walls. Microsoft is promoting stupidity and closedmindedness!
The second type of person. This person never stops asking why. These people want to know how things work, or the bigger picture, or how specific things are connected. These people admit that they don't know everything, but they're always learning. Sure, these people aren't heard from as often, that's because they aren't obnoxious idiots who fear change. These people quietly ask the questions that truly matter. When these people come across something unknown, they don't close their eyes, cover their ears and hum, no. They keep their eyes wide open to learn the things unknown. They always experiment, they always want to look at things from different perspectives. They are never afraid of learning.
I can only aspire to be like this.
Linux, as an operating system, cultivates this type of person. By telling the community openly that this is how the universe works, this is how everything is connected, everyone can comitt to creating. Every single user has the ability to promote Linux just as it promotes them. This is a healthy cycle of learning.
Stupidity is never an option, and it is a crime against humanity to promote it.
Now. Regarding the tank metaphor. That's a very narrow way of approaching the analogy.
The world is that specialist. Every single Linux user has the opportunity to address any issue, because every single Linux user is going through the same thing. This is an incredible worldwide community dedicated to the growth of all its individuals.
Also, these "two types of people" is a gross, gross generalization filled with personal convictions. It isn't even worth commenting on other than to say that it's just sad.
Can we not just try to keep this argument objective? It's not supposed to offend you, just to discuss the topics. If you want to talk about society or gangsters feel free to start another thread otherwise, lets try to keep the scope the same as the topic.
P.S. @ Jac: That's not something you should be telling everyone.
Posted 09 October 2007 - 02:39 PM
?noun, plural -gies.
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
I never said Windows was the problem
I never said Linux was the solution.
Closed-source promotes ignorance. This is the entire statement.
sum day ill eat ur cat ricko...
Posted 21 October 2007 - 05:25 PM
Don't post here ever again.
Posted 24 October 2007 - 07:59 PM
sum day ill eat ur cat ricko...
Posted 29 November 2007 - 08:03 AM
And also, open source doesn't nessicairily mean good either. Your being biased because you don't like large companies.
Posted 29 November 2007 - 08:51 AM
Look Ben. It is now obvious that Microsoft is evil. Repent, and be clean!
But anyways Megell, the fact is, open source is good. Microsoft doesn't care about what you need, they just want your money, and don't want you making a profit off of it.
However, the whole idea of open source is freedom, the ability to create and use programs freely, and to modify, for ones needs. If we apply the idea of Microsoft to everyday life, it would be like me selling you a car, and it really needed new tires. But you aren't allowed to change the tires on the car. No, you would have to buy the tires especially from me, and no one else. The whole idea of restricting the ability to modify software creates a monopoly, which is unhealthy in the realm of computers.
Microsoft cares not for whats best for you, but what is best for the company.
Posted 29 November 2007 - 10:22 AM
Yah, thats kind of true if you look at it from that single perspective. But now accknowlege another, remember microsoft is a corperation and no matter how we joke it employies alot of people. The company has it's own intrests in mind, just like anyother company, but saying it's evil just because it makes alot of money is itself completly insain. (and don't you even start the whole money = evil thing. We all know that only idiots and the dirt poor say that.)
The thing is, when we boil the stuff into the soup, and claim that microsoft is an evil conglomerate for trying to keep our business we can't two take everything else. We therefor have to conclude that farmers are evil for taking advantage of our need to eat, the canadian goverment is twisted because they force us to use their free health care system, and that hitler was right in removing the rich jews from society.
Of course, this is scarcasm. But it just takes the reasoning to the end of the chain. Microsoft isn't evil, though even I enjoy making jokes at their expense. People are petty and we like kicking the big guy in the shins to make ourselves laugh. This is because, when we compair ourselves to the rich, we feel inferior, and we have to tear em down in someway to our level... heck even below our level.
Don't believe me, think of standup comedians, they always make fun of those prosperous in society.
Posted 30 November 2007 - 03:22 PM
Farmers do not take advantage. They do not have a monopoly. However, Microsoft is tryign to keep their grubby hands on theirs.
Also, I am not sure abotu other stores, but Staples will not sell you a computer with Windows on it. IS this some sort of contract?
Posted 30 November 2007 - 05:22 PM
And for the thing, Famers don't have a monoploy. I was being sarcastic.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users