Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OS X Is No Longer On My Main System, But I Already Have Regrets

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Michael_S View Post

    Users dislike change. As I think I said earlier, the people angriest about the changes in Microsoft Windows 8 were the Microsoft fans. So you want to help adoption of Linux? Give yourself the biggest possible target audience and make your default desktop look like a prettier version of Windows 7. That's exactly what Cinnamon and RazorQt do, and I wouldn't be surprised if they become the two most popular Linux desktop environments in the next five years.
    I work at a Microsoft certified company that mostly does repairs for other businesses. Lots of the time when they start having trouble they think, if they just switch to Mac they won't be having these issues. I generally have to remind them that their computer was really old, and be paid like half the price for it too.

    But the point I'm getting at is how common it is to hear this, like there's a public consensus that switching to something other than Windows fixes the problem. They are right in a way, and it shows once again why Ubuntu is so popular. It's very similar to a mac in UI.

    The problem Windows has right now is they need to ditch legacy stuff entirely. But then they'd have almost no programs. Windows programs are it's own poison.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
      IYou don't get this kind of special treatment with Linux; everything goes to the bugzilla where you have to wait for the developers to successfully recreate the issue so that it can be pushed with a general update package for all users. Which is not acceptable for an enterprise environment.
      If you are using a properly licensed RHEL you would get the same treatment.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
        The dept wrote to OEM for help since it only affected their machines, but the OEM claimed that it was a Windows issue and they were unable to assist. So we had no choice but to ask Microsoft. In 4 days Microsoft sent down a specially written patch that solved the problem.

        You don't get this kind of special treatment with Linux; everything goes to the bugzilla where you have to wait for the developers to successfully recreate the issue so that it can be pushed with a general update package for all users. Which is not acceptable for an enterprise environment.
        If you are paying as much for an Enterprise distro as they were paying Microsoft (Microsoft does not send patches to just about any consumer), I'm pretty sure you'll get this kind of special treatment.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
          I work at a Microsoft certified company that mostly does repairs for other businesses. Lots of the time when they start having trouble they think, if they just switch to Mac they won't be having these issues. I generally have to remind them that their computer was really old, and be paid like half the price for it too.

          But the point I'm getting at is how common it is to hear this, like there's a public consensus that switching to something other than Windows fixes the problem. They are right in a way, and it shows once again why Ubuntu is so popular. It's very similar to a mac in UI.

          The problem Windows has right now is they need to ditch legacy stuff entirely. But then they'd have almost no programs. Windows programs are it's own poison.
          I know it's an unpopular position to hold, but I think that the latest Microsoft stuff is largely pretty good, technologically speaking. I prefer to use alternatives for political reasons, not technical ones.

          And the legacy support that Microsoft does is their goose that laid the golden egg. Big enterprise customers want to run their apps written in Visual Basic and their ASP intranet websites targeted at IE6 until hell freezes over, and to retrain users as little as possible. Microsoft might take a revolutionary technological step forward by dumping all of their legacy support, but they really believe it would probably alienate more customers than it would gain. I suspect they're right - even as Slashdot and a dozen other open source sites have celebrated each Microsoft press release as a sign that the company is about to implode, their revenue from Office and related services just keeps going up.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by liam View Post
            This is why fedora is making reliable and easy rollbacks a priority for the desktop. It's something that all distros should be working on. in addition there is the problem of in place updates (I'm not sure how dist-upgrade works but I'd assume it downloads everything and reboots you to a safe initrd to provide a safe upgrade environment but given your problems with X I suspect it used some shortcuts).
            This is the single reason of why btrfs can't become the default filesystem soon enough. I use it with OpenSUSE, and it's awesome to know that if I fuck up something, the old working system is just a "snapper -v" ahead.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by erendorn View Post
              If you are paying as much for an Enterprise distro as they were paying Microsoft (Microsoft does not send patches to just about any consumer), I'm pretty sure you'll get this kind of special treatment.
              He said he worked at a school. Microsoft works extra hard to help schools and keep their products cheap for schools because their marketers are smart - make someone comfortable with Microsoft products from age 14-22, and they're much more likely to use those products from age 23-97.

              In any non-educational endeavor, I think you're point would be valid.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Spittie View Post
                This is the single reason of why btrfs can't become the default filesystem soon enough. I use it with OpenSUSE, and it's awesome to know that if I fuck up something, the old working system is just a "snapper -v" ahead.
                I had to look that up. That's awesome. Ideally, it would be automatically integrated in Yast/yum/dnf/apt, so that every time you made a change it would snapshot for you and you could revert automatically. If you have to manually take snapshots yourself, it's harder.

                The Conary package manager supported rollbacks, but after the company that backed it was bought by SAS I think the project went defunct.

                The Nix package manager supposedly supports it. I've never tried it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael_S View Post
                  I had to look that up. That's awesome. Ideally, it would be automatically integrated in Yast/yum/dnf/apt, so that every time you made a change it would snapshot for you and you could revert automatically. If you have to manually take snapshots yourself, it's harder.
                  Indeed, Zypper create a new snapshot before and after installing any packages, and ootb OpenSUSE takes an hourly snapshot of your root too.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael_S View Post
                    I know it's an unpopular position to hold, but I think that the latest Microsoft stuff is largely pretty good, technologically speaking. I prefer to use alternatives for political reasons, not technical ones.

                    And the legacy support that Microsoft does is their goose that laid the golden egg. Big enterprise customers want to run their apps written in Visual Basic and their ASP intranet websites targeted at IE6 until hell freezes over, and to retrain users as little as possible. Microsoft might take a revolutionary technological step forward by dumping all of their legacy support, but they really believe it would probably alienate more customers than it would gain. I suspect they're right - even as Slashdot and a dozen other open source sites have celebrated each Microsoft press release as a sign that the company is about to implode, their revenue from Office and related services just keeps going up.
                    Sorry I should have clarified what I meant at the end: People are running into so many viruses and other issues because of continuing that legacy support, but they need that legacy support for their corporate clients, but they also have to move ahead with technology. It's this nasty tug of war thing going on.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                      the department had a problem with a Windows update that, for some reason, affected only staff and students using notebooks from a certain OEM (which shall remain anonymous) that had the school's software installed; other notebook makes and brands were not affected.
                      Why anonymous? What is your vested interest in protecting this OEM?

                      Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                      The dept wrote to OEM for help since it only affected their machines, but the OEM claimed that it was a Windows issue and they were unable to assist. So we had no choice but to ask Microsoft. In 4 days Microsoft sent down a specially written patch that solved the problem.
                      You don't really think that an average consumer could make such a request, do you? Microsoft will laugh in their face and send them back to the OEM in an infinite loop of misery. The nature of Academia is such that moving to Linux or OSX isn't nearly as foreign or difficult as in the business world, and Microsoft knows this. Of course they're going to give top-tier support to a large volume licensee of their product, especially in the academic world. If you were an organization with 20,000 RHEL licenses, I bet you'd get the same 'special treatment' from Red Hat.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                        It's not just about having easier rollbacks; higher-level support is important.

                        Back in my schooling days (during the Vista period) I was working as a temp in my campus's IT support dept to earn a little extra pocket money and the department had a problem with a Windows update that, for some reason, affected only staff and students using notebooks from a certain OEM (which shall remain anonymous) that had the school's software installed; other notebook makes and brands were not affected.

                        The dept wrote to OEM for help since it only affected their machines, but the OEM claimed that it was a Windows issue and they were unable to assist. So we had no choice but to ask Microsoft. In 4 days Microsoft sent down a specially written patch that solved the problem.

                        There was also another incident where an OEM loaded a bad Windows image into its notebooks for sale at the campus which results in the school's software failing to install correctly, and in the rare instances where it did successfully install, crashes frequently; this was not observed on other OEMs' notebooks. As usual, this OEM claimed that it was not its fault, so the school had to ask Microsoft for help. Within a week Microsoft sent the IT dept a specially written patch to fix the faulty image so that the school's software can be loaded into the OEM's notebooks.

                        You don't get this kind of special treatment with Linux; everything goes to the bugzilla where you have to wait for the developers to successfully recreate the issue so that it can be pushed with a general update package for all users. Which is not acceptable for an enterprise environment.
                        I find it hard to believe anything you say since it's WELL known that windows updates ALWAYS WORK
                        To your point, that's why enterprises pay for support... but it is really expensive. Hence why rh is doing so well.
                        So, it's not something inherent to Linux but simply an issue of adoption. If more people used the desktop it would be more solid. That would mean less bugs reported and it would be cheaper to provide support to everyone. I've no idea at what level of adoption this would occur, though, but, IMHO, the Linux desktops (that is, the complete environments not just people running wms) are pretty far from the stability of windows/Mac.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Spittie View Post
                          This is the single reason of why btrfs can't become the default filesystem soon enough. I use it with OpenSUSE, and it's awesome to know that if I fuck up something, the old working system is just a "snapper -v" ahead.
                          They're not taking about btrfs, though since josef chimed in saying btrfs shouldn't be considered for default yet. There's a few options we have to allow rollback that don't require a fs level solution. For example, there's the new thinp through lvm which brings copy on write support. Colin has his ostree (I think it's called rpmtree now), but I think he's only just started looking at adapting it for system rollbacks.
                          Here's the thread if you're interested:
                          https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipe...ch/196405.html

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael_S View Post
                            He said he worked at a school. Microsoft works extra hard to help schools and keep their products cheap for schools because their marketers are smart - make someone comfortable with Microsoft products from age 14-22, and they're much more likely to use those products from age 23-97.

                            In any non-educational endeavor, I think you're point would be valid.
                            If I may offer a contradictory anecdote: my uni is one of them getting free MS services, using office365 cloud for mail etc. So when MS broke the webmail last fall (in two ways), and I reported it to the local support, the response was that they're getting it for free, their tickets take days to get answers, and depend on MS people's goodwill on if they actually get fixed.

                            One of the breakages got fixed in three weeks, the other is still there.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                              You don't get this kind of special treatment with Linux; everything goes to the bugzilla where you have to wait for the developers to successfully recreate the issue so that it can be pushed with a general update package for all users. Which is not acceptable for an enterprise environment.
                              As others have already pointed out, you do get this kind of treatment if you buy a support contract. But I'll tell you a different story about what Microsoft support is like for ordinary developers..

                              Years ago I was part of a group that had a project which involved some embedded Windows work on MIPS platform (some of my coworkers did this part). They found a bug: when debugging was disabled, one of the Windows libs was about 1000 times slower. It was unusable. But with debugging on it was ok. Microsoft said they wouldn't even look at the issue unless the equivalent of about $10k was paid upfront. The money was paid and the bug escalated to Microsoft's developers. They responded that it was an already known issue that they would not fix, even though this was still a commercially available and supported platform. The only workaround was to ship with debugging enabled, which had a performance hit, but was at least usable.

                              Complain as you may about the open source bug trackers, at least you don't have to pay money upfront before a developer even looks at your bug. And if you do want to do that, then the option is there.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by curaga View Post
                                If I may offer a contradictory anecdote: my uni is one of them getting free MS services, using office365 cloud for mail etc. So when MS broke the webmail last fall (in two ways), and I reported it to the local support, the response was that they're getting it for free, their tickets take days to get answers, and depend on MS people's goodwill on if they actually get fixed.

                                One of the breakages got fixed in three weeks, the other is still there.
                                Huh. Funny that Microsoft would be so inconsistent. Maybe the other school was paying them a big support contract and yours was not.

                                Originally posted by chrisb View Post
                                As others have already pointed out, you do get this kind of treatment if you buy a support contract. But I'll tell you a different story about what Microsoft support is like for ordinary developers..

                                Years ago I was part of a group that had a project which involved some embedded Windows work on MIPS platform (some of my coworkers did this part). They found a bug: when debugging was disabled, one of the Windows libs was about 1000 times slower. It was unusable. But with debugging on it was ok. Microsoft said they wouldn't even look at the issue unless the equivalent of about $10k was paid upfront. The money was paid and the bug escalated to Microsoft's developers. They responded that it was an already known issue that they would not fix, even though this was still a commercially available and supported platform. The only workaround was to ship with debugging enabled, which had a performance hit, but was at least usable.

                                Complain as you may about the open source bug trackers, at least you don't have to pay money upfront before a developer even looks at your bug. And if you do want to do that, then the option is there.
                                I developed software for Windows CE from 2001 to 2005 for an OEM partner of Microsoft, though I think they were using low end Via x86 processors and not MIPS.

                                Plus with open source, if the problem is big enough you can always fork the project and fix the problem yourself or hire someone to fix it for you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X