new2spcr wrote:Shamgar wrote: ...constantly messing around with XP not knowing how stable it's going to be in a few months time
For me it's the opposite.
At work we use XP Pro's 32 bit and they're rock solid, never had a BSOD or freeze.
It's not that I
don't find it rock solid. I like XP and it's served me better than any OS thus far. Although I do occasionally get BSODs and freezes which painfully require a hard reset. The "not knowing how stable it's going to be in a few months time" is me referring to the fact that I like to configure a lot of "hidden" things in XP and install lots of third party and open source apps which may reduce stability in the long term. However, it doesn't actually become "less stable", from what I can gather. I do eventually reinstall or reimage Windows after several months anyway.
The other thing is Windows updates and hotfixes which are just installed out of a blind trust that it's supposed to make things better. As soon as MS's security bulletins are released each month, most people, including myself apply the patches, yet most don't have any idea what changes it's really making to the system.
new2spcr wrote:Windows XP is mature and tried and tested, why fix something that isn't broken. My impression is that Opensource developers on the other hand often are more enthusiastic about developing new features instead of making an existing feature rock solid and dependable. That's what most people want isn't it?
I guess it's due to two different schools of philosophy. Windows is made to be a proprietary, dominant, standard OS, and so it has to be a one size fits all product. The company behind such product(s) believe the best way to deliver that is to have near total control of it. This way, most (I say
most because you can usually install things that MS doesn't "approve of") or everything has to be approved by the boss, so to speak. Open Source and Linux believe in individual freedom to change and develop an OS to suit its user and in free software to anyone available who can and will use it. Both philosophies have their merits and shortcomings, and which one you support more depends on what you expect from a computer experience, your personal moral and ethical beliefs, your economic situation, your interest in software and development, and so on. Some, if not most people don't care and use what they're given, told to use or grew up with.
For most Windows users, the OS is a
means to an end. It is just a way for them to get the office work done, write up the school assignments, get on the internet, play games, listen to music etc. They generally don't care what's going on underneath the GUI, what control the OS is placing on them etc, as long as it gives them a way to do and enjoy these activities. For the [zealous] Linux user on the other hand, the
means is the end. The attraction of an OS which allows them to configure and change almost everything and develop it into something completely different because the code is available for free is what they care about. The ability to do the other "lesser things" that a Windows user take for granted (office, internet, media etc) happens to be an additional option should they choose to use it.
But, as many Linux distros try to attract more mainstream attention, the original philosophy may become further from reality for many true believers as this push will inevitably try to make a "one size fits all product", especially from one of the major distros. Why is this so? Well, if you want to compete with Windows (and now Google) in the netbook market for instance, you will have to have a fairly stable, standardised distro that will enable the "dummy" population to do what they can and expect to do in Windows. Unlike on the desktop, where Linux users and Linux tryers can install several distros and run LiveCDs whenever they want and nuke any that don't work for them, netbook and laptop users don't want to fuss with this. It's switch on, boot up and get me on Facebook, etc etc. This is one of the reasons why I don't see MS do anything but dominate the netbook/laptop market as well, as they have been doing, albeit after a slow start, where ironically, Linux had the one up on them.
new2spcr wrote:Kind of sad, but I think that's one of the reason Linux will never "make it to the desktop".
There are rock solid distros such as CentOS but then, new hardware detection will become problem and the system fonts... the fonts are very blurry. I want crisp Microsoft fonts.
* Like, kernel panics, broken fonts, broken Xorg, no 3D rendering, USB-sticks suddenly not being detected properly etc
I've never had problems with broken fonts in Windows, nor usb-drives suddenly not being detected or stuff that worked well suddenly ceased working or a Microsoft Update that went berserk on the system.
Funny you mention these things. I've always hated how XP cannot detect my screen resolution and monitor after a clean install, and I have to fight with it to get it to use the display driver and settings I want it to. The fact of having to install video card software like Catalyst to fine-tune certain settings that should be able to be done by the OS is also very annoying. (Windows 7 has addressed many of these issues, though, which is a good sign and another reason to upgrade.) Once it's working and conceded to my instructions, it works well. I've also gotten used to Windows fonts over the years and could hardly get on without them. But after trying Linux, I was very surprised how good the desktop looked at default after a clean install or boot off a LiveCD. It recognised my screen resolution straight away and ClearType (or its equivalent) was used by default. Icons and text size was also very well balanced and easily configurable. Plus, you have the option to choose from a variety of desktops like KDE, Gnome, XFCE etc. to suit your preferences.
new2spcr wrote:Little off topic, sorry.
We are forgiven. After all, this is SPCR. We are hardly ever on topic. After the first three posts anyway.