The true conspiracy about Microsoft, PC Manufacturers and Linux

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Linux = Poor man's Mac. Or people too cheap to buy Windows 8 OEM for $100.




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by opethPA

Until their is an OS that brings the best of both platforms under one umbrella use both and get the maximum experience.


Linux is heading that way with Open Office, and Open Libre as well as other office tools for office productivity. You can even run Microsoft office tools under Wine with no problem. Many business have made the switch to save money. For gaming, Wine runs tons of game including direct x 9 and now Steam is making sure all steam games work with Linux. It may not be where people would like it to be now, but it will continue to grow.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


You do know don't you that many Linux distros have Enterprise versions for business and they do give support 24/7 just like Microsoft and that support is just as reliable as Microsoft.. in some cases even more so. Most business already use Linux or a version of Unix for their servers so it just makes since to some of them to keep it all in the family.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by opethPA

Until their is an OS that brings the best of both platforms under one umbrella use both and get the maximum experience.


Linux is heading that way with Open Office, and Open Libre as well as other office tools for office productivity. You can even run Microsoft office tools under Wine with no problem. Many business have made the switch to save money. For gaming, Wine runs tons of game including direct x 9 and now Steam is making sure all steam games work with Linux. It may not be where people would like it to be now, but it will continue to grow.


And just as many business have not swapped..
Neither one is going anywhere for many years...



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I believe you are stretching things a bit. The one example you found of an OEM shipping with a virus ( the Ipods don't count) does not mean this is such a large problem such a draconian measure as Secure Boot is warranted. Oh and that was 5 years ago.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I believe you are stretching things a bit. The one example you found of an OEM shipping with a virus ( the Ipods don't count) does not mean this is such a large problem such a draconian measure as Secure Boot is warranted.

One is enough to show that it happens.



Oh and that was 5 years ago.

Funny, it was then that they started talking about using it in PCs.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I never said it didn't happen once. I said it wasn't a problem that would require draconian measures and I still stick to that.

So, you think one occurrence of something is enough to warrant draconian measures for the masses?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by opethPA
 


That's exactly my point. That's why Microsoft is trying to squash all competition before the have a change to be a serious threat market share wise.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I never said it didn't happen once. I said it wasn't a problem that would require draconian measures and I still stick to that.

No, you said (in the opening post)

"This has never been done before in the PC market and for good reason - PC Manufacturers don't have problems with systems getting malware before they ship. It's all lies by Microsoft to control the users choices."


So, you think one occurrence of something is enough to warrant draconian measures for the masses?

I don't know if it happened only once, and those "draconian measures" don't make a difference for the real masses. The masses just buy a computer and, when they have a problem, send it to some shop for repairs, they don't care about BIOS or UEFI, they don't even know what that is.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberneticProphet
Linux = Poor man's Mac. Or people too cheap to buy Windows 8 OEM for $100.


Not really Mac is basically all of the drawbacks of Linux, none of the benefits and a price tag that is too big for what it is. On the plus side I hear apple computers come with a free boyfriend now. But the hardest part about using a Mac is coming out of the closet to your friends and family.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


If secure boot / UEFI is to limit user choices then how do a number of linux distro's have their key signed by Microsoft?
www.wired.com...
www.h-online.com...
fedoraproject.org...
www.linux-magazine.com...
www.suse.com...
www.redhat.com...

Microsoft has even certified a couple special bootloaders that allows generic linux versions to boot
www.pcworld.com...
news.softpedia.com...

If MS really wanted to, they could just refuse to co-operate.
This is all still new software, so bugs are bound to pop up here and there
edit on 19/2/13 by Kr0nZ because: (no reason given)
edit on 19/2/13 by Kr0nZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I am now completely free of windows both at work and at home and it is such a pleasant relief.
I am quite shocked at the whole UEFI thing and what it means for linux, but I think there will always be workarounds.
I wonder if there will be any hardware manufacturers brave enough to bypass the whole UEFI/ microsoft scam and just develop hardware dedicated to linux, this could give huge benefits for them.
The Dell bribe is of note because universities and companies that require huge computer power often buy clusters from Dell in large volume and install linux on it. Will Dell now lose all that business? Is that what the bribe is for?

Linux use is on the rise, android is fantastic and with valve's steam box coming I think the future is definitely getting brighter.
Good post OP.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0nZ
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


If secure boot / UEFI is to limit user choices then how do a number of linux distro's have their key signed by Microsoft?
www.wired.com...
www.h-online.com...
fedoraproject.org...
www.linux-magazine.com...
www.suse.com...
www.redhat.com...

Microsoft has even certified a couple special bootloaders that allows generic linux versions to boot
www.pcworld.com...
news.softpedia.com...

If MS really wanted to, they could just refuse to co-operate.
This is all still new software, so bugs are bound to pop up here and there
edit on 19/2/13 by Kr0nZ because: (no reason given)
edit on 19/2/13 by Kr0nZ because: (no reason given)


Because this is new and was not in the works originally. It was born out of Linux having to have the fastest solution possible for it's users. So, Linux caved. There are only two major distros doing that at the moment Fedora, and Ubuntu. All others like Suse and Mint are distros based on Fedora and Unbuntu's core distros. Every other distro, hundreds of them have no Secure Boot compatibility. The easiest way for a distro to get a working key is to have Microsoft sign the key - But this is not ideal because it forces Linux to depend on Microsoft which should Not be. The Windows Hardware Certification Requirements for Client and Server Systems even makes it clear that the user, must have the ability to add their own keys ( not a Microsoft signed key) But while this sounds good on paper, no OEM is setting up the UEFI settings with this ability. They are forcing you to go to Microsoft because their Partner Microsoft wants to maintain control.
edit on 20-2-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


A couple months ago I purchased a new laptop from Best Buy, spent 2 days trying to get acclimated to Windows 8 and gave up, took it back and purchased a refurb from them online with Windows 7, they can take their Win 8 and shove it.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


in these links
news.softpedia.com...
www.zdnet.com...
mjg59.dreamwidth.org...

It talks about Matthew Garret(well known linux dev) who has created a "shim", as he calls it, which is basically a mini bootloader that, as I understand it, allows you to add your own keys to it, then hands off the boot process to the bootloader that is signed with that key. It says that any linux distro can use this "shim". So you can even use it with a linux distro you create yourself. The shim is signed by MS.

Though I do agree that giving MS this amount of control isn't good, but they dont seem to be abusing their position yet. I think it would be much better to have one of the various certification authority's managing the signing of keys.
edit on 20/2/13 by Kr0nZ because: (no reason given)
edit on 20/2/13 by Kr0nZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
You want a conspiracy, here is a conspiracy...
Back in the late 1980's I was posted to a high-tech country in Asia. At the time I was concerned with high tech coordination between countries.
One particular country was manufacturing and testing 'light chips'. The way they tested them was a very popular video game was equiped with the 'light chips' and put into 24/7 video arcades that were the rage with kids back then.
The kids unknowingly used and abused these chips for days, weeks and months on end.
When after a while we asked the 'inventor' why they were not in public use, he said there was a prigression to ensure the R&D funds were recouped. So, that is why we went through the list of 386, 486, Pentium models, etc...recouping R&D funds.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Oh Microsoft. You just keep dropping the ball, don't you?

I love Mac OS.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
HP pays Microsoft a licensing fee for each computer sold - if ms offered to reduce the licensing cost even a dollar per unit that would be substantial which Ms recoups by then adding more payable services like live etc.

it's just business, not conspiracy


Originally posted by Alekto
Oh Microsoft. You just keep dropping the ball, don't you?

I love Mac OS.


the irony is thick with this one....and how do you think that apple is so profitable per unit vs every other company?

Because they perfected integrated services offerings that Microsoft is now trying to capitalize on with this initiative...
edit on 20-2-2013 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alekto
Oh Microsoft. You just keep dropping the ball, don't you?

I love Mac OS.


Well that adds a lot..

Take all the MACs out of the world and the artists wont be happy.
Take all the MSFT and\or Linux\Unix boxes out of the world and modern society would come to a stop.

On a side note I am using a MAC as we speak! So their is a time and place for everything.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Both Windows and Linux has been out for 20+ years or so...and up to now, there is no winner in the market. The battle still rages. If I was forced to declare one....it would have to be Windows.

Linux is a nice system, but for me, it has a couple Big problems....

OpenSource is a nice concept when you're on the receiving end, getting free programs. But when you use GCC, MinGW and Eclipse for Windows... all OpenSource.. and are forced to give your programs away.... It kind of burns. Also, when I loaded the three together, there was a little program that periodically... maybe once every 4 days, asked if it can scan my development folder to see what I'm developing, and then report it back to whoever... The little window had text on it saying that I agreed to this in my EUL. I was a little taken aback by that. Because I don't know if it was just reporting my Eclipse-related projects, or all my C++ language programs.

And don't think that you can compile C++ programs in GCC and think that you can sell them without them knowing about it. I bet you somewhere in the compiled .exe - that there is some encoded word spelling 'GCC' in there somewhere.

Needless to say, once I purchased a new PC, it did not reinstall those.

Speaking of development in Linux... One thing that irks me is that all the distros have a different development distribution package path. That is not called for, my friends, as it's all the same OS. A developer should be able to develop a program on Linux, and then distribute to any distro they deem that would be good to do so. It shouldn't be a major hassle to repackage the same program again and again. Some people would say that ... well Linux is customizable, so this is the result. But to me, it's more akin to divide-and-conquer.

Another problem w/Linux distributions is the need for Codexes. Codexes are little pieces of software that are like drivers (or may be drivers in actuality) that are used to produce sound on your PC. I know that for a lot of people, it's no problem to download them from a separate, probably pirate site. But I have a problem with that. If it's not included with the Linux distro, there must be a good reason, probably a good legal reason that they did not add it to the package. And don't worry that when you download those codexes... no-one will record your pc I.P. address on that site.... Right.


ETA: Back to the topic of the thread.... I have a Win8 PC with UEFI. I want to do a dual-boot with Win7 Ultimate, which has XP Virtualization. From what I'm reading, UEFI is not a big obstacle for this setup. I'll let you know in this forum if it proves otherwise.... probably about a month from now when I get my Win7 DVD.
edit on 20/2/2013 by MarkJS because: (no reason given)
edit on 20/2/2013 by MarkJS because: clarification... not 'C', 'C++'





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join