Windows 7 screens look like KDE 4!!

[deanjo]

I'm talking about backporting patches for older kernels and for single applications. Btw. Linux users don't have to wait 10 years for next Windows Server, because Linux systems appear much more frequently. Who will stick with such old and slow piece of crap like XP for such a long time? I only get few patches a month for xp and they're almost always critical (someone can take control of your computer bla bla bla). Maybe they'll fix 1/3 of security holes before 2014, but I wouldn't be so sure.

Slow? Oh do please show the benchmarks. Only 90% of the world uses windows with a large majority of that still being XP. BTW Windows doesn't wait 10 years for new versions either. Going back 10 years you have seen NT 4, 2K, 2k3, 2k8. Not to mention the many Service packs that have been introduced with each product. Ya there are a lot of what are called critical updates even the most obscure flaw is considered critical. Gee it sounds like a lot of people are actively scrutinizing security in windows. Good of MS to address them.

[kraftman]

Slow? Oh do please show the benchmarks. Only 90% of the world uses windows with a large majority of that still being XP. BTW Windows doesn't wait 10 years for new versions either. Going back 10 years you have seen NT 4, 2K, 2k3, 2k8. Not to mention the many Service packs that have been introduced with each product. Ya there are a lot of what are called critical updates even the most obscure flaw is considered critical. Gee it sounds like a lot of people are actively scrutinizing security in windows. Good of MS to address them.

Yeah, I posted link in one of threads here some time ago. I will give you it tomorrow. It's really slow piece of crap (oh, but maybe you're talking about 3D acceleration?) Stop playing in posts please. MS has monopoly. 3 and 5 years is really long time. Service packs have only limited influence on some problems. That what jeffro-tull wrote makes sense. Windows reputation is MS fault :>

[deanjo]

@deanjo:

I'm with kraftman. I fail to see how that is the fault of Linux. I mean, yeah, if you had to (HAD to!) pay for your operating system, and it only provided fixes for a couple months, I'd be pissed. Especially if, to get additional fixes, I had to buy a new operating system. But:

1) you have to pay for Windows. If it cost what it did and Microsoft DIDN'T back the product for a good amount of time, there'd be an uproar.

2) Linux distributions that have been "abandoned" (as far as fixes are concerned) are free. Free as in speech, free as in beer. "Hey, you asshole, fix this thing I paid no money for and you are under no obligation to fix!" Right....

3) Linux distributions that ARE paid for (read: Suse Linux Enterprise, Red Hat Enterprise, etc) have a longer support lifeline. Typically, when support for one of their products ends, it is long after it has been super-ceded. Assuming you are still paying for your license/support contract/whatever, you're not boned. Novell, Red Hat, or whomever else won't keep supporting the system you're using, but they will help migrate you to a newer system.

And no, by "help" I don't mean "they'll send a guy over with a DVD and do it for you". I mean, I'm pretty sure your license/support contract/whatever will migrate to the new system (let's say you're running SLED 10, a few months back SLED 10.1 came out, and you still have, say, a year on your contract. Should be able to contact Novell and move your systems up to SLED 10.1 for the remainder of your contract), and people will be available from Novell should you have issues.

SLE Support is 3 years after that you are on your own for a paid subscription. RH is the longest @ 7 years after that you are on your own.

You comment about "You get it for free" sounds ALOT like "It's free so don't expect great long term support" So basically your saying "You get what you pay for"

[deanjo]

Yeah, I posted link in one of threads here some time ago. I will give you it tomorrow. It's really slow piece of crap (oh, but maybe you're talking about 3D acceleration?) Stop playing in posts please. MS has monopoly. 3 and 5 years is really long time. Service packs have only limited influence on some problems. That what jeffro-tull wrote makes sense. Windows reputation is MS fault :>

Better yet, don't give me links. Give me fully reproducible results. Exact settings and environment that the tests were done in. 3-5 years is irrelevant if the hardware and software is capable of doing the task that is needed. The only obsolescence that counts is when your setup cannot do what you want it to do. Forcing upgrades for something that is entirely unnecessary is exactly what people accuse MS of doing but the linux crowd does it as well and usually over a shorter time period.

[jeffro-tull]

why are people putting words in my mouth? I didn't say Windows' reputation is Microsoft's fault. I didn't like Windows, as soon as I was able to I stopped using. It's not for me. That's pretty much where I leave it.

And I didn't say "you get what you pay for". But when you pay for something, and there are alternatives available (regardless of the merits), one expects that someone stand behind the purchased product.

If everyone and their brother bought Windows, Microsoft didn't provide updates, and then everyone and their brother had to buy a new version of Windows to get the fixes, what do you think would happen? Would everyone and their brother get out their wallets? Would Microsoft still have overwhelming market share? Would it still cost so much for a license?

I'm trying to think of an inverse situation to put free Linux in perspective, but anything I think of I can see how you'll turn it around to drive it into the ground. You're going to do that anyway, so I'll save myself some keystrokes.

[kraftman]

Better yet, don't give me links. Give me fully reproducible results. Exact settings and environment that the tests were done in. 3-5 years is irrelevant if the hardware and software is capable of doing the task that is needed.

Oh, are you afraid or something? You can make fully reproducible tests on your own. Do DNS performance tests, video compression... That what you wrote stinks of some kind of political correctness. Going this way you can even contest some obvious things. This is why I don't have this crap (xp) even connected to internet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7832652.stm

The only obsolescence that counts is when your setup cannot do what you want it to do.

Bullshit if something else can do this better.

Forcing upgrades for something that is entirely unnecessary is exactly what people accuse MS of doing but the linux crowd does it as well and usually over a shorter time period.

But, you don't have to pay for many Linux distributions.

why are people putting words in my mouth?

Who said that you said that? It was my opinion.

[deanjo]

You can make fully reproducible tests on your own. Do DNS performance tests, video compression...

LMAO, so because linux can DNS better that makes it the superior system? Oh by the way I do a shitload of video encoding and hate to tell ya but windows XP has linux beat in spades.

If a system is doing all that is required and is doing it at a satisfactory level then no upgrade is needed.

Paying for upgrades is not the issue at all, it's having to redo a fscking system all over because of a shitload of system changes that have happened since the last installation which more times then not is more aggrevation because you have shit like pulseaudio, policykit, *insert your favorite new service that is pushed too early*, etc etc etc that requires a redo of the system that was functioning perfectly fine before hand.

BTW you should really read the articles you link too:

"Microsoft did a good job of updating people's home computers, but the virus continues to infect business who have ignored the patch update.
"A shortage of IT staff during the holiday break didn't help and rolling out a patch over a large number of computers isn't easy.
"What's more, if your users are using weak passwords - 12345, QWERTY, etc - then the virus can crack them in short order," he added.
"But as the virus can be spread with USB memory sticks, even having the Windows patch won't keep you safe. You need anti-virus software for that."

Basically, if you compute like an idiot you'll get burned. So does that mean when you use windows and don't connect it to the internet it's because your not smart enough to use proper security measures?

[kraftman]

LMAO, so because linux can DNS better that makes it the superior system? Oh by the way I do a shitload of video encoding and hate to tell ya but windows XP has linux beat in spades.

Bullshit Linux was about 60% faster when I did video compression. Read more carefully please - I wrote about compression I didn't test encoding.

If a system is doing all that is required and is doing it at a satisfactory level then no upgrade is needed.

If other system can do this better it's recommended

Paying for upgrades is not the issue at all, it's having to redo a fscking system all over because of a shitload of system changes that have happened since the last installation which more times then not is more aggrevation because you have shit like pulseaudio, policykit, *insert your favorite new service that is pushed too early*, etc etc etc that requires a redo of the system that was functioning perfectly fine before hand.

Sorry, but even newbies can upgrade Ubuntu f.e. and don't have problems with it.

BTW you should really read the articles you link too:

Basically, if you compute like an idiot you'll get burned. So does that mean when you use windows and don't connect it to the internet it's because your not smart enough to use proper security measures?

If I would compute like an idiot I would buy antivirus crap to make this slow crap even slower :> What are proper security mesures for Windows?

[deanjo]

Bullshit Linux was about 60% faster when I did video compression. Read more carefully please - I wrote about compression I didn't test encoding.

LMAO so now you can do compression on video without encoding. Congratulations you just reached the holy grail of video.

If other system can do this better it's recommended .

Completely unnecessary, added cost to no benifit to the system at all.

Sorry, but even newbies can upgrade Ubuntu f.e. and don't have problems with it.
[/quote

Uhhuh that's why ubuntu needs a import wizard between releases. LMAO

If I would compute like an idiot I would buy antivirus crap to make this slow crap even slower :> What are proper security mesures for Windows?

Your a moron if you don't run AV on any corp system including linux based ones. Many AV solutions are also completely free. Setting up proper administrator and user accounts are a start, but since you have to ask I would suggest reading up on windows security before making comments as to it's security. Of course Vista has improved that all with UAC as well.

[yotambien]

If a system is doing all that is required and is doing it at a satisfactory level then no upgrade is needed.

If other system can do this better it's recommended

Paying for upgrades is not the issue at all, it's having to redo a fscking system all over because of a shitload of system changes that have happened since the last installation which more times then not is more aggrevation because you have shit like pulseaudio, policykit, *insert your favorite new service that is pushed too early*, etc etc etc that requires a redo of the system that was functioning perfectly fine before hand.

Sorry, but even newbies can upgrade Ubuntu f.e. and don't have problems with it.

Sorry, but it sounds that you never have been in a real world working environment. I can tell you about what I know, which is the research world and some associated institutions and laboratories (both academic and business). You are totally wrong thinking that nobody would stick to an old OSs. Very often you buy an instrument which comes with a particular piece of software and drivers to control it. There's no reason to EVER upgrade the HW (and its software) within the instrument lifetime. Why would you do that? Other times, a combination of different machines and OSs are used for certain extremely specific tasks. The amount of effort to put it all together is huge, very often using quirky in-house programs to get the job done. Upgrading the operative systems would totally ruin those efforts for no gain at all.

Of course noobs can upgrade Ubuntu. So what? You think that people out there just use computers to browse the web and compress videos? The idea of upgrading every so often has become the norm among many users, but I assure you that it is not in the real world.

Deanjo's provided figures for the support periods of some linux distributions; if you don't think they're right you've got a case, otherwise it's clear that, in that respect, we've got a winner here. Arguments about how much it costs, performance in some specific (and irrelevant) scenarios and other issues that fall under the mythological category are not related to the discussion.

PS. By the way, speaking about myths; I do use Windows XP with no antivirus since I couldn't care less of what can happen to it. I only use it for playing one game and browse...and guess what...there's nothing wrong with it.