Ballmer Admits Google Apps Are Biting Into MS Office 293
twitter points out coverage of a discussion between Steve Ballmer and two Gartner analysts in which the Microsoft CEO admits that Google Apps is enjoying an advantage over Office by users who want to share their documents. He points to Office Live as their response to Google, and adds, "Google has the lead, but, if we're good at advertising, we'll compete with them in the consumer business." Whether or not they're good at advertising is still in question, if their recent attempts are any indication. Ballmer also made statements indicating some sort of arrangement with Yahoo! could still be in the works, but Microsoft was quick to step on that idea. Regarding Windows Vista, he said Microsoft was prepared for people to skip it altogether, and that Microsoft would be "ready" when it was time to deploy Windows 7.
Well, here we go (Score:3, Interesting)
Regarding Windows Vista, he said Microsoft was prepared for people to skip it altogether, and that Microsoft would be "ready" when it was time to deploy Windows 7.
If you ask me, Windows 7 looks a lot like a response to Linux on the desktop. Now's the time for OSS developers to step up to plate and deliver a solution that will make Windows 7 look like child's play. I'm game.
Re:Well, here we go (Score:4, Interesting)
If you ask me, Windows 7 looks a lot like a response to Linux on the desktop. Now's the time for OSS developers to step up to plate and deliver a solution that will make Windows 7 look like child's play. I'm game.
Technologically, Linux and OS X are light years ahead of Windows, and will be by Windows 7. The problem is, some people will never use Linux unless it has a uniform UI (which, have you ever seen Windows?, Linux's UI is more uniform than even all of MS's products.) and other will not move to Linux unless *insert specialty application or game* is available on Linux. Still, the vast majority of users will use whatever is on their computer, be it Linux, Vista, XP, OS X, BSD, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux's UI is more uniform than even all of MS's products
Unless you're referring to the uniformity of a nice 80x24 text console, you're way off. Unix/Linux have oodles of different window managers.
Re:Well, here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that makes sense. The problem with Linux, is that each app has its own widgets, its own theme, its own file selector etc. And when some programs install they don't even get into the menus so you can't open them. And some apps don't have packages for your distribution. And some apps only come as s
Re:Well, here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
easier for the average user to do what?
someone who's used KDE or Gnome since 1995 would find it easier to use KDE/Gnome than !KDE or !Gnome. what does that prove? unless you're trying to argue that people should stick with the same operating system that they've used in the past because users are too stupid to deal with change, i don't really see your point. that has nothing to do with UI uniformity or the usability of a particular OS.
there's more to software user-friendliness/usability than just resistance to change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're referring to the uniformity of a nice 80x24 text console, you're way off. Unix/Linux have oodles of different window managers.
Yeah, so what? When Microsoft Windows was capturing its critical market share, there was a similar amount of variety there too.
Choice is Good. Specialization is for insects.
If it is strict interface uniformity you want, there is only one choice - Mac OS X. Amazing that it still looks similar to Macs in the 80s and also amazing that they've transitioned to a real O/S over that time.[1]
(Macs are very cool for playing World of Warcraft, but for getting real work done, give me any decent Linux distro with KD
Re:Well, here we go (Score:4, Funny)
Choice is Good. Specialization is for insects.
Microsoft Dung Beetle. Now that's a catchy product name!
Microsoft Dung Beetle? (Score:2)
Wait, wasn't that DataSoft [wikipedia.org]? It's close admittedly.
Emacs -vs- Emacs (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a big fan of (the basic GNU) Emacs, because it's so easy to edit with a nice blank screen rather than all having those superfluous menubars and whatnot cluttering up the workspace.
There is no doubt about it, the Emacs architecture has won the day. Microsoft uses a poorly reimplemented model for everything nowadays. The ability to modify behavior of an application with a full-fledged computer language was truly innovative. http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html [gnu.org]
(My perspective is of one who remembers when Emacs was a bunch of macros for TECO, so I never got into the habit of using a menubar.) And now that GNU Emacs can render fonts nicely in X11, XEmacs has become even more otiose.
I happen to like menubars, scrollbars and GUI and that's why I was attracted to XEmacs in order to fix the deficiencies in 19.14.
You can always turn off that sort of stuff in XEmacs. My first commercial use of X
Re: (Score:2)
And you're free to pick one. On KDE, I can also pick one theme, and have it automatically applied to the two major widget sets.
It ends up being quite a lot more uniform, for the apps I actually use, than Windows ever was.
Re: (Score:2)
Technologically, Linux and OS X are light years ahead of Windows...
This is just wrong. Regardless of how you feel about Windows as a whole, the NT kernel is easily among the best, if not the best on the market.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Anyone who says that Linux is technologically light years ahead of Windows is ... wrong. Stuff like OLE, the Com interface, the Jet database (which does the job of SQLite, not the other ones), data sharing API's and so on are much better in Windows that Linux. Yes, I have heard of Wine, and Mono. They are not the main point of of the open source software ecosystem, which has different goals to Microsoft; both technologically and from a business point of view..
Of course, you could say that Linux (and OSX) ha
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Wine is already a better Windows (98/2000/XP) than Vista. I wonder if Windows 7 will actually enhance compatibility. XP in a VM, like Classic in Mac OS X?
Re: (Score:2)
For example, almost every Eee PC purchased by people around me gets its GNU/Linux removed and replaced by XP first thing in the morning. And that thing won't be running games or speciality apps.
Most people will not bother to go through the 60 minutes of learning (less if one has above average intelligence) require
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People are aware of Linux. The main problem is that there is no demand created. If you surf the web and come across interesting stuff to download and try out, it almost seems to be a physical law that it's for Windows, but there are enough apps for Linux. There is an OSS alternative good enough f
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another car analogy that doesn't work on anything related to computers.
If you said "Linux desktop is like the Formula 1 compared to Windows", you could have been close to the first such analogy that actually might work.
Re:Well, here we go (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux has made really huge strides with regards to a cleaner easier to navigate UI that is consistent (as long as you stick with just one). And driver support has been getting better all the time. But there are two issues that I've seen personally that will hold this up.
1) Driver support for new hardware. This isn't eally the fault of the people working on Linux drivers, people are still getting hardware from manufacturers for which there aren't, or aren't yet Linux drivers that just work. We're talking about average users here, so buying open hardware isn't an issue. They don't care. They want the really good deal that was advertised last month, and they're going to buy that one.
2) People are still trying to downplay software support and point to Linux alternatives. Again, people don't care. They have their favorite copy of game/finance/whatever software sitting around and they want to be able to install that.
I think we can hope that people in this community are a little more open to buying hardware that is OSS friendly, and likewise figure out how to use alternative software or get things working under Wine, etc. But there really is nothing wrong with people expecting to use their computer as an appliance. Right now, aside from people who want to use it simply as a web/email machine, or even have someone set it up with several apps and then never change anything, I don't think it's there yet. And it's definitely a catch 22 of whether user adoption brings more manufacturers/developers in line or manufacturers/devs bring users in line.
Re:Well, here we go (Score:4, Insightful)
Two concepts (not mutually exclusive):
1. Enterprise space - along with whatever mission critical application you care to name that isn't available on Linux
2. Photoshop - and no, we aren't talking about GIMP. It has to be the genuine locked down Adobe product (for all of those big commercial shops).
Yes, you can run Photoshop on OS X but there are many (perhaps most) LARGE 'artistic' groups in advertising and publishing that run on Windows.
So Linux may well make inroads in the individual user space, perhaps even in the SOHO space, but until application developers embrace Linux (or OS X or anybody else), it's gonna be Windows all the way down.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Enterprise space - along with whatever mission critical application you care to name that isn't available on Linux
LOL, ever heard of Oracle, IBM or Novell? The enterprise isn't a problem for linux, but the home market has large legacy install of peecee software that will take time to replace.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why Wine is targeting those. Its perfect place is running that piece of abandonware you can't even find the developer for any more, let alone ask them to free it, but which just happens to be essential and keeps your last crusty old Pentium in service running Windows 98.
(This is exactly what we use it for at work. Anyone who says Wine isn't enterprise-ready is talking out their hat.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The enterpirse space is embracing linux. It's a major player in the server space and enterprise desktops are getting more linux friendly all the time (it's an option at our enterprise).
Re:Well, here we go (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, the point is completely missed. Using Google Apps, users can collaborate on works irrespective of the platform in use. (Windowz, OSX, Linux, phone or gaming platform)
Microsoft is going to roll an exclusively Windows solution for the Windows OS. If it bears any semblance to their previous efforts in collaborative groupware it will be irrelevant.
Re:Well, here we go (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is you can't walk into a store and get a computer with Linux on it, unless you want to go for a netbook.
You can in a free country. My next computer purchase will be a Linux preinstall from Octagon. Or a competitor a few stores down. You can buy Linux preinstalls from anywhere in Manila.
One word (Score:2, Informative)
Or whatever app it is that your industry uses that doesn't run on Linux, will keep the need for Windows for a very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily.
Some sectors, sure, but many are already running on various unix machines. Also things like Lotus Notes (which I hate but acknowledge many enterprises use extensively) are moving to more platform agnostic positions.
Re: (Score:2)
electric motors have fewer moving parts than ICEs, so electric vehicles are fundamentally more reliable. but there's a lot of unsubstantiated FUD floating out there because of the strong anti-environmentalist sentiments which exist in our society. but if people can be convinced to take a rational approach and actually look at the facts rather than resorting to knee-jerk reactions they'd see that their negative assumptions and associations about electric vehicles are incorrect.
but most consumer make purchase
Re:Well, here we go (Score:5, Informative)
Linux and OS X are light years ahead of Windows...
Like what? And why should customers care about it?
Well, OS X has drag and drop system services so users and applications can provide universal functionality, like grammar checking in all applications. Linux has more cleanly implemented network services and both have better standards compliance so you don't end up using as many redundant services in mixed OS environments (eg, UPNP and ZeroConf to discover other network services, like when you run Adobe CS on Windows). Both have better and more granular and usable ACLs for userspace applications. I could go on, but I'm not investing a lot of time, especially responding to an AC. Register an account already.
* Viruses - THis is not a OS problem, its a user problem. I could create a .sh file that deleted .config files or something equally evil and tell your grandma to run it and she will... * Malware - Again not specific to Windows.
Let's be clear. Trojans, viruses and worms are all distinct and all problems, but of the three worms are the largest problem and Windows is the most vulnerable due to a variety of design decisions, even if there were no install base disparity. Malware is a theoretical threat on Linux and OS X, but a practical, day-to-day problem on Windows and theories that if market share were to become more balanced are simply that, theories and not applicable to making practical decisions today.
* Applications - All the software in the world at a single spot. i.e. Google for applications. Who addresses commercial software? Who handles payments for this? Who will handle updates? Do users want to download Multi GB Games/Applications? Who pays for the massive bandwidth? What if you're not connected online,etc ,etc. Again. Doesnt scale, buddy.
Don't even understand what you're trying to argue here. Please be more clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't even understand what you're trying to argue here. Please be more clear.
He is arguing against the package management systems used in many if not most Linux distributions.
Re:Well, here we go (Score:4, Insightful)
* Viruses - THis is not a OS problem, its a user problem.
* Malware - Again not specific to Windows.
Oh, right. I forgot, your browser is clearly supposed to install all kinds of random crap that messes with settings and toolbars without prompts. Oh wait, other browsers don't do that? Other browsers prompt you before they do things like that? Yes, MS managed to fix a lot of that with IE7, but its still not an excuse for them doing that for the ~2-3 years of IE6.
* Applications - All the software in the world at a single spot. i.e. Google for applications. Who addresses commercial software? Who handles payments for this? Who will handle updates? Do users want to download Multi GB Games/Applications? Who pays for the massive bandwidth? What if you're not connected online,etc ,etc. Again. Doesnt scale, buddy.
Lets see... On an average Windows install, the only software that isn't usually pirated, is made by Microsoft in the form of Office/Works/etc., An anti-virus/spyware application but the rest is all freeware/shareware/OSS. Most people's software is downloaded. You make a good point about games, but it honestly wouldn't be hard for a game maker to include a binary to run for Linux, same with commercial software. The thing is, boxed commercial software is a really, really, really small part of the average user's computer even on Windows. The "massive bandwidth" would be provided in the same way it always has, via mirrors and the official site. Today, most computers that are not in specialty use are connected online. If they aren't, it isn't that hard to go to a library or a friends house, or buy a CD with some .deb files in them, double click and type in your password.
Linux also has the advantage of customization. For example, its a pain to create a customized XP/Vista install disk, its trivial for someone to create a modified Ubuntu or other distro with the applications you need.
Re:Well, here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people's software is downloaded?
Not to quote Sarah Palin, but "Joe Sixpack" and Grandma have a lot of legit software. I think it is a stretch to say most software is pirated. Do you know how many people are STILL buying WinZip? Or those little "Reg cleaners"? Games?
C'mon...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are some things that used to be architectural flaws with Windows services that caused security problems but they are supposed to be fixed in Vista now.
Crashes, I have seen a blue screen reference MS-provided code, but upon digging deeper i found conclusively that it was a third party driver responsible for the crash, and removing that driver fixed the problem.
Drivers on Linux i agree, the Linux driver model is flawed as you noted. The effects of this flawed plan are evident, some things work (months a
Re:Well, here we go (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There actually are defraggers for Linux, I'm told, but it's rare to need one. And, because they shove everything down to one end of the drive, they spoil the advantage in seek time that comes from keeping the heads halfway up. I've seen it claimed that it's better to back everything up, refo
Re:Well, here we go (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to give a long response to an AC ...
Like what? And why should customers care about it? Your responses will show if you're a troll, or if you have anything technical reasoning behind it.
Linux, like Mac OS X and really all modern Unix-derived systems do not crash. I've only run production quality Linux systems since the late 1990s and I cannot remember the last time I've had the system crash. That equates X Server crashes with system crashes by the way. The last reliable X server crash I had was in the late 1990s when XEmacs was trying to display the Mule hello page. I got patches into XEmacs to fix that side and patches into the X server to fix that side and Life Moved On.
* Viruses - THis is not a OS problem, its a user problem. I could create a .sh file that deleted .config files or something equally evil and tell your grandma to run it and she will.
True, but deceptive. Before Microsoft Windows 95 vulgarized the internet, it was long known that running arbitrary executable code coming across the wire was A Very Bad Idea. The decision by Microsoft to jump into internet support *and* provide default unprompted execute support for that poisoned enough minds to make it an industry standard.
* Malware - Again not specific to Windows.
No, but it was Microsoft Windows that popularized the idea of execute any old thing including malware by default.
* Crashes - Yeah, comeback with real proof.
It's your reputation, not ours. My best anecdotal evidence was something that crossed an internal corporate email group where I wrote something like "Microsoft Windows XP is the most stable O/S they've ever released because it only crashes 1 or 2 times a week." and among the responses I got back were "I wish it were that few ...".
In my opinion, it doesn't really matter where the blame actually lies (perhaps it does lie on enterprise crapware that the Microsoft Windows users are forced to use, but whatever). It's the fact that the platform does crash and people are conditioned to it. The last supposedly all intranet web meeting I had to attend at work, was delayed due to software issues on Microsoft Windows XP. Money was lost while a bunch of highly paid engineers were looking at a blank screen. Says a lot about True Cost of Ownership too...
In the meantime, my desktop machine (running RHEL) has only ever been rebooted on power failure or moving the equipment since it was deployed.
* Drivers - Add all the drivers to the kernel? So the manufacturers of devices have to wait till the kernel maintainer decides on his own sweet time when to integrate patches. AND THEN wait till picks them up downstream. Nice solution. Doesnt scale, buddy.
Greg KH has gotten into the latest Linux kernel a staging area where half-worked drivers can get wider code distribution and more eyes and hands to fix them up. It remains to be seen how well this work, but they are trying.
I used to think the amount of code changes that is currently going on in the Linux was unsustainable with control of the final tree in a single person's hands. Linus proved me wrong.
The amount of code that goes into the Linux kernel every day (on average) is astonishing.
* Applications - All the software in the world at a single spot. i.e. Google for applications. Who addresses commercial software? Who handles payments for this? Who will handle updates?
While I have no problem with proprietary software, like games, on something like Linux or OpenBSD/Mac OS X, I do have a problem with the Software As A Service model. It sucks and I agree with you on this point.
The one and only thing I thank Microsoft for is that at the time it was strangling the PC market, it also killed X terminals, which were cheap, but an abomination to use, in my opinion. I thank them for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I havent seen a single bsod in xp or vista since last 4 years ...
I'm very happy for you. Perhaps you should be reassuring my coworkers whose Microsoft Windows XP machines are crashing every day or so instead of me.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost missed this:
but i must add that applications crash more frequently on linux than on windows. quanta, gedit etc just crash suddenly and *boom* all my unsaved work is gone
I have no idea what quanta is, but ... use something reliable like XEmacs for editing. I haven't ever lost anything more than a keystroke or two, even working on bleeding edge XEmacsen *while* debugging problems where our autosave feature wasn't working exactly right with certain charsets.
Sheesh. Oh and please learn the use of English grammar and punctuation while you're throwing mindless flames around.
Re:Well, here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
If Windows can be infected with viruses or malware within hours of installation, with almost no user input, that is an OS problem. Lame excuses not accepted.
Crashes - Yeah, comeback with real proof.
Having just spent the last few hours rescuing a friend's computer when Microsoft had advised her to re-format and reinstall (which would have blown away her PhD thesis in the process) after a crash from which it wouldn't reboot, I think I'm in a good position to answer that. This lady was only running MS Word at the time, and last time I looked, that was MS code.
I have been using Linux on all of my desktop machines since 1995, and I have never had a kernel crash. No, NOT EVEN ONCE. Sure, I have had the occasional panic on bootup when I've done something stupid like forgetting to build in support for my root filesystem type, but I don't think that counts.
Re:Well, here we go (Score:4, Interesting)
Viruses - THis is not a OS problem, its a user problem.... Malware - Again not specific to Windows.
Granted.
But I'll take an OS any day that works with me on this problem, not against me. Yes, Windows is trying to improve with Vista -- too little, too late. Too many programs that won't scale to limited user accounts, no unified system-wide updates.
Prove conclusively, once and for all that X percentage of crashes are because of MS code, Vs. X percentage of crashes on Linux.
Doesn't matter. If the crashes were because of a driver (that is, the manufacturer's fault), and Linux has a more solid driver for that (but it's in-kernel, and therefore unofficial), then Linux wins that argument.
Drivers - Add all the drivers to the kernel? So the manufacturers of devices have to wait till the kernel maintainer decides on his own sweet time when to integrate patches. AND THEN wait till picks them up downstream.
This assumes several things:
- That all drivers must be in the kernel source. There are drivers which are separately maintained, just like on Windows.
- That all drivers are even in-kernel. The bulk of printer drivers, for example, are PPDs, used by CUPS -- entirely userspace.
- That the kernel maintainer is the one integrating. Nope, that's up to you. The kernel maintainer just decides if your patch makes it into the kernel. Nothing stopping you from maintaining it as a separate module, or letting distros merge it into their own kernel forks.
- That the kernel maintainer is a different person than the manufacturer.
- That the manufacturer is even involved in the process, beyond publishing specs.
- That any of this is remotely an issue for OS X. Apple pretty much gets to pick and choose what hardware will be supported, and how.
All the software in the world at a single spot. i.e. Google for applications.
Or search your package manager.
Who addresses commercial software? Who handles payments for this? Who will handle updates?
If you're on Ubuntu, the answer to all of the above is "Canonical". I can buy Parallels directly from Canonical, add an official repository, and install it (and get updates) through the same channels I install all my other software.
Or you could ask Dell how they handle the Fluendo codecs. I'm betting it's the same mechanism, though.
Do users want to download Multi GB Games/Applications?
I don't know that I've seen a multi-GB downloadable game or application for Linux. Sure, the whole distro is huge, but individual apps aren't, even when you factor in needed libraries.
Note: That was "downloadable". Most games for Linux come in a small-ish demo form through the repositories. If you buy the full game (for Windows, presumably), you can copy the game files off the disc, type in the CD key, and you've now got the full game -- but the patches still come through the package manager. Honestly, the binaries are small enough.
Who pays for the massive bandwidth?
Again, Canonical.
Are you not aware of how existing package managers work, for existing apps?
What if you're not connected online
Then, presumably, you get a disc which has the files on it. Granted, no one's built a disc that is specifically a compilation of all the demo versions of various games -- but it could be done.
I'll wait for some real responses now...
I actually like the UI.
And I like the fact that if I didn't like the UI, there are dozens (hundreds?) of window managers, all compatible enough that I can run any Linux app on them -- or write my own.
I like the fact that I can have both a rock-solid OS (and one which doesn't nag me all the time) and better desktop effects than Vi
Re: (Score:2)
* Viruses - THis is not a OS problem, its a user problem. I could create a .sh file that deleted .config files or something equally evil and tell your grandma to run it and she will. (You get the point... ) (SELinux? Apparmour? Who configures profiles for each app? In anycase this wont stop 'all' evil apps. You can access the phonebook,calender to either display and insert new entries or to delete it. The 'intent' is whats the issue here, not permissions per se.)
First, Virus is a Malware, (but it does not stop you to be more specific) and AppArmor can stop virus infections. Like I cant open document files from other places than one specific directory (and it's subdirectories) on network server, because AppArmor does not allow OpenOffice.org to open any other files. A application or file what has got Virus infection, can not open the calender or phonebook unless AppArmor allows that application/file to get touch to them. And AppArmor prevents in first place other ap
Re: (Score:2)
Viruses/malware - You could indeed create a .sh file and deliver it via a browser onto grandma's machine, but you would also have to socially engineer her into setting it with execute permissions and executing it, the poor design of windows is that it makes it much easier to download and execute a malicious program since it decides if a program is executable or not based on it's filename, it also encourages you to run with greater privileges so the scope of damage is greater.. it's possible and trivially ea
Re:Well, here we go (Score:5, Informative)
This is coming from a developer perspective, but I think two of these apply (maybe moreso) to your average user:
1. Packages. Specifically, aptitude. It is unbelievably easy to find software to open weird file formats, play simple games, or speak some weird protocol. This is the single #1 feature Linux (BSDs too, possibly) has going for it. Packages are awesome for experienced users and newbies. If you say otherwise, you really haven't tried a well maintained distribution yet.
Now, if a package doesn't do what you want (this is what a lot of power users complain about), compile it yourself. /usr/local exists, use it. Again, grandma isn't going to need a custom compiled version of Wine, but I do. It's therefore not an issue that she is forced to use the one in the repo.
2. $SHELL shell, and the associated core utils. I use bash, but that's probably because it's what I learned first. I know my grandmother, my mother, and my girlfriend don't want to use the CLI, so it's not a major feature for most. I don't care. The Windows shell and core utils suck, and bash, csh, ksh, *sh are better.
3. UI consistency. ZOMFG WUT? Yes; I use KDE, and it kicks ass. There is consistency between the file browser, the archive utility, the media player, etc. You'd be hard pressed to argue that explorer, Windows Media Player (or winamp, or foobar, or whatever), and winrar or winzip all have the same interface.
However, their KDE counterparts Dolphin, Ark, and Amarok all look the same. If I want to change a setting, I know where to look instead of having to try "Edit -> Preferences" then "Tools -> Options" then "Options -> Settings" then... Also, similar settings are grouped under similar headings.
Those are just three things off of the top of my head.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Packages. Specifically, aptitude. It is unbelievably easy to find software to open weird file formats, play simple games, or speak some weird protocol. This is the single #1 feature Linux (BSDs too, possibly) has going for it. Packages are awesome for experienced users and newbies. If you say otherwise, you really haven't tried a well maintained distribution yet.
In theory I acknowledge that packages and package managers are a superior technology. In practice, package managers and formats in use provide a significant advantage for installation and updates if you're only using OSS and are only using packages that are in the right format for your manager. In practice, they're a problem as implemented for install from a Web page, run from removable media or network, portability to new hardware, incompatibility among package formats, and consistency of installation usab
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh please! Executing Tar.ball.gzs is easy!"
Well it's not double clicking. If the software I want isn't in the repo it might as well be on mars. I can either go through config files to enable other repositories and hope they have what I want, or drudge through a readme about how to install simple software.
That, is where Linux is failing. Not power users, not novices, the middle ground of people who know exactly what they wa
Re: (Score:2)
I can either go through config files to enable other repositories
Not necessarily. New repos can also be added by installing a package. Download the repository package in your web browser and open it, which causes the software installer to open and install it (after you type your password or the root password). Then you can just use the package manager with the new repository.
Re:Well, here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
From my experience, you don't have to access the "command" any more, or at least a lot less then before.
Debian/Ubuntu has apt, and has loads of stuff in their repositories. Ubuntu even enables multiverse by default, as far as I know. If not, it's a click away. If it's not in the repositories, it can be packaged as a .deb by the package maintainer, and yes you can double click those, fill in your password and it installs, without any need for the "command."
Software developers for Windows now make elaborate installers, making a deb and an rpm won't cost them any more time.
I understand why people get directed to the command line a lot though. Linux is still a power user OS, and power users often use the command line, because it gets things done faster and more efficiently in a lot of cases. So, this is what they know. They know how to set up X by editing xorg.conf. They'd rather use apt-get than synaptic. So, if you have a problem with your Linux install and ask the average user, you're likely to get a power user answer and it involves opening up the command prompt.
I do feel that Ubuntu is a step in the right direction. A lot of the howtos on their wiki and forum are focused on the GUI.
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting.
To me KDE 5 looks more responsive than Windows 7.
Of course, I haven't tried either one since they are not out (or made?) yet.
Re:Well, here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ask me, Windows 7 looks a lot like a response to Linux on the desktop.
Windows 7 is a response to Linux the same way Coke Zero is a response to Tab.
Windows 7 is a response to Vista. People turned down the bloated system that is Vista, so Microsoft has made promises to fix all the issues and release a new system in two years' time. But as is always the case, the promises will be forgotten and the release date will slip again and again. But Windows 8, now that's going to really rock...
Re: (Score:2)
Serious point and not a troll, I'd hope that by the time Windows 7 arrived, KDE4 is fixed (and stop using end users as beta testers - it's not Windows). For now I'm sticking with KDE3, there's just too much missing from KDE4 to justify moving to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet another fucking moron repeating crap. Find out why kde4 was released, and go read the part where it says "don't use it, not for end users" ya?
Google Apps is pretty useful (Score:5, Interesting)
I started a company last year, and I could have chosen to either: a) set up a Windows Server and buy multiple Office licenses, or b) sign up for Google Docs.
Docs has worked out really well for us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google Apps is pretty useful (Score:5, Insightful)
Your solution is the most complicated to implement, even if it's the least expensive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your solution is the most complicated to implement, even if it's the least expensive.
Maybe so, but honestly, Google Apps are not a particularly satisfying solution. Open Office is much much more suitable. Gmail maybe, but spreadsheets, word processing, and presentations? Google Apps just don't cut it.
In my opinion...
Re:Google Apps is pretty useful (Score:5, Informative)
Google Docs is useful as a collaborative text editor. Almost everything else about it - particularly formatting - gets broken much too often. I've been trying, earnestly, to use it for academic writing, and the results have been ridiculous: as in, depending on what browser I use, wordwrap may not work; internal links don't work; fonts change from time to time, etc.
Ballmer is correct in noting (which, since noone RTFA, I should note contradicts the badly written summary) that Google Apps is not something that is worrying them: Open Office is. I would love Google Docs to step up, but it definitely has not, and seems to be trapped in the Google perpetual beta limbo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your solution is the most complicated to implement, even if it's the least expensive.
Perhaps, but how much are your company's documents worth to you?
I also would argue that Darkness404's idea would be the safest, regardless of cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Letting Google run the server means we don't have to, decreasing our overhead.
In a small shop, that's a big savings.
And we get collaborative editing, which is a huge win.
Re:Google Apps is pretty useful (Score:5, Informative)
Google Apps has the MAJOR advantage of having live document collaboration, which AFAIK isn't even close to available in MS Office or OpenOffice.org. For some people/companies this doesn't matter at all, but for others it'll make it the obvious choice. You can think of it like the collaborative features offered by Sharepoint and the like, but implemented in a way that is actually usable.
On the flip side, you're going to need a lot of love from Gears if a hosted solution scares you. While Docs is fine for what I do most of the time (and the rest of the time I really need more of a layout tool, like Apple's Pages), I envision them seeing a lot more adoption if there were a desktop app that synced up with the cloud (whether Google's, or your own internal setup which could be as simple as a network share). And of course, pretty much anything that's not MS Office tends to have compatibility issues with the MS Office-using rest of the world, whether you like it or not. You can whine all you want about the lack of truly open standards for document exchange (besides plain text) and I'd agree with you all day long, but that doesn't fix the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, but moving away from MS Office does.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google Apps is pretty useful (Score:5, Funny)
I don't want goo on my server, i keep my porn elsewhere for a reason.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you mean by saying "you own the documents you upload"? Are you talking about legal ownership or physical ownership?
There is nothing in the ToS of Google Apps that implies you don't own your own documents. And also, if you want physical local ownership, all of you have to do is enable Google Gears, and that will maintain local copies of your documents on your desktop/laptop -- so th
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, we could set up a Linux server for this. The main savings is not Windows vs Linux, it's not having to set up an internal server for document sharing. Our time and effort can instead go into our external servers.
A larger company, with more tolerance for overhead, might reasonably make a different choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Same here :) It's not just university students that do it, as the article implies.
Microsoft is evil an all . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
. . . but trusting one's data to the "cloud" is just plain foolhardy. I'll keep local applications and local control, thankyouverymuch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft is evil an all . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless of course the network goes down, then zero access. It happens all the time, a ship drops and anchor in the wrong spot, somebody somewhere in the routing path configures the hardware wrong, power brownouts anywhere in that route and of course it is only in beta and the warranties are completely and absolutely less than worthless. Cloud computing is really all about data being distributed everywhere and not being locked into a limited number of locations where you have to pay rent to access it. Let's just call a spade a spade, rented access to your own data, ain't cloud computing it is greed computing.
The future in computer software is FOSS and service and support. So yes the typical end user can not really set and up maintain a stable, secure and reliable system and that is why they pay for service and support, when they do need high reliability and uptime and for the majority of businesses in certainly is cheap enough to achieve, they just need reliable access to people who can provide it for them.
As for the end user, easy simple access to most of their stuff, whether they are connected to the net or not is the most important, computers are not their life, they are just a means by which they can share photos, send a letter, browse the net, play a few games and maybe do a bit of shopping and bill paying.
The cloud computing that ballmer et all keep waffling on about only exists because it is the only model they can envisage where they can maintain inflated profit margins, the service and support and fully distributed computing is a much more competitive, high performance and low profit margin market. The performance aspect, is all about companies providing services must be seen to perform, must continually demonstrate high skill and reliability and any failures will soon be reported through their potential and existing client base. This is where M$ is most behind the eight ball, with a reputation for poor service and support, lying to customers, ignoring and denying customer feedback and, routinely distributing unreliable and faulty products.
Re: (Score:2)
"Unless of course the network goes down, then zero access."
That's why there's such thing as Gears: http://gears.google.com/ [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just about uptime though. While I'll usually make the same arguments for the cloud, if something knocks out my internet connection I'm screwed regardless of whether it's available to everyone else or not. Yes, your data is on the whole a lot safer (at least with a company like Google that's not going away any time soon) in 99% of the cases, but the idea still scares a lot of companies.
When Google implements something where you can configure the Apps For Your Domain content to sync down to a serve
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the time the problem is not 'the cloud' itself, but reachability. The cloud can have all the 9's it wants, but (at least for some parts of the world) the sort of SLA's with enough 9's to match the uptime of the cloud cost more $$$ than hosting the solution on site.
And no matter what SLA's you have with your ISP, a backhoe operator can take you out for hours, or even days. You can back it up with wireless for email and stuff but I don't believe that wireless can cope with the sort of bandwidth requir
The cloud is way better for many companies (Score:2)
If you're a smaller organisation that has not got IT skills or dedicated IT staff, then the cloud can be very appealing. You don't need to worry about doing backups and data sharing with associates or traveling salespeople etc is a lot easier.
In theory the cloud providers could go broke, with your data getting lost but that's a lot less likely than losing data due to a local server getting screwed.
There is no single recipe that will will work well for all organisations. Some are se
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to troll, but is it more so than trusting your data to proprietary software?
Misquote. (Score:4, Funny)
I don't believe it (Score:5, Funny)
Ballmer was supposed to fucking kill Google. He's like Chuck Norris and stuff ... only with chairs. No way is this happening. I won't believe it. Slashdot is all lies.
Re:I don't believe it (Score:4, Funny)
Chuck Norris doesn't need chairs, if he needs to sit down, he just grabs the nearest person and shapes their backbone into a chair.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Thank-you. I was wondering for the life of me, regardless of how unsuccessful the attempt at humour may have been, how anyone could possibly flame me over it (thus deserving the -1 flamebait). Now I know.
This is a not true (Score:5, Interesting)
I was there at the talk. What Ballmer said (and I'm paraphrasing) is that Google Apps have no audience; user growth plateaued months ago and that in their (MS's) own studies almost all college students buy MS Office and use it. He said the only time students are using Google Apps is when they need to collaborate on projects but he talked about how MS is working to beef up their own collaboration tools in Office 2007/08.
Really guys, this is reaching.
Ballmer is a good entertaining speaker, and Gartner analysts are not going to outfox the guy.
Sorry twitter. (Score:5, Informative)
Everything you say must be considered a lie. You lost your credibility a long [slashdot.org] time ago. The only reason this story made it to the front page after your well-deserved yearlong blacklisting is because you had to misrepresent what the article said, and the /. editor happens to be relatively new, so he doesn't know about you.
Why don't you get a blog or something? You can use all those things you learned from the FUDster in Chief Roy like "SweatyB" and "Silverblight", and you won't have to put up with the collective derision and ridicule of the largest free software community in the world.
Really, think about it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Really, think about it.
quick comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
Google Office-like apps: Netbook
MS Office: bloated pig laptop that cost $3K.
I'm just fine with the Google Apps. All the extra features that the latest revision of MS Office has that Google doesn't don't ever get any usage from me anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
And now, if TFA can be believed, Ballmer is going to put lipstick on it.
Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft copycat with the Xbox?
That's why they were the first to put in a Hard Drive.
The first to offer streaming downloads for movies.
The first to offer downloadable games.
The first to include a network adapter.
The first to have a social gaming network for matchmaking and messaging built into the service.
The first to implement a system wide achievement/trophy system.
Yeah it's likea direct clone of... nothing... and that's why it's succeeding. It's not just ripping off anyone else. Everyone else is tryin
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent summary. Wish it weren't true, but it is. It's another victim of Google's horrible attention span. They get a clever idea, and then ask the rest of us to imagine it working well, because they can't be bothered to actually get it to work.
(If I were a fanboy about anything - and for me, that's like saying "if I were a necrophile about any species...") I might pass as something of a Google fan, so this is tough-love on my part. They spread themselves way too thin.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Advertising worked so well for sony and the PS2. Impeding sales of the best console of the time that had an incredible line-up (the DreamCast) by using only shallow promises of "Real time Toy Story graphics" and "connected to high speed networks" when in reality it took the PS2 two years to get any valuable game and it didn't ship with any online interface.
Microsoft are the other masters of the marketng hype. If they start pushing Windows 7 now, they will at least sell as many as Vista did, regardless of th
MS Office file formats are becoming the odd ones (Score:5, Interesting)
In my firm, which is a Fortune 50 company, we're actively abandoning MS Office for our own modification of Open Office. In fact OO3 does everything better - it handles all the problems of earlier versions like embedded OLE objects, it handles all our all 'legacy' junk AND it handles all of the various MS Office 2007 file formats which, as everyone knows were invented JUST to force people to lock in and upgrade. In fact all those Office 2007 formats are becoming the weird occasional exception for us as we move to ODF and such. Mostly we use MS Office 2007 formats as a required translation step from DOC to ODF since OO3 handles it that way by default: DOC > DOCX > ODF for instance.
So being weird and unique, Balmer, we don't care. Soon MS Office will be just another legacy format we keep around for archival purposes like Lotus Wordpro, 123, AmiPro and the like. Good luck with that, Steve.
The Windows phenomenon (Score:2)
I find the Windows phenomenon to be quite interesting, almost depressing. There are very few things that Microsoft Windows clearly does better than Mac/Linux. There are a few things it simply does differently, and there are a lot of things it plane sucks at. Yet somehow, it manages to be "the" operating system. One of it's competitors is available both commercially and for free, another is available commercially. It doesn't even seem (in my experiences) to be easier to develop for Windows any more.
The only
Stop complaining and do something (Score:2, Insightful)
Sharepoint is a decent at storing word documents and making them searchable. Many companies are using it.
So why don't we write something simliar for Open Office that does the same thing as google apps. Yah it sucks to have to setup a server, but if it's open and runs on linux then it won't be.
I think this represents a major issue with open source...it's for developers. We need developers to stop caring about themselves and think about avergage business uers...a hard boring thing to do I know.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Alternate Universe? (Score:2)
Apparently the submitter is in an alternate universe and read a completely different article than the one submitted.
In the quote where Microsoft "concedes" that Google is doing better, the quote is referring to online advertising and NOT any form of productivity software. Read the article yourself. About halfway down.
The rest of the article is Ballmer boasting, and rightfully so, that no one uses Google Apps. Not even poor college students, except for occasional collaboration, and even then it's minimal.
The time for desktop linux (Score:2)
That means microsoft hasn't released a decent operating system with updated technology since 2002. That is six years already and now they are saying they don't intend to release anything decent until 2010 (and based on Microsoft's previous timelines that really means 2012 at the earliest).
If by the release of windows 7 Linux hasn't made a real dent into the desktop market share then I will change platform. Dear god, don't make me use windows.
I can imagine the scene (Score:2)
"Your evil is weak, old man! [today.com] If you destroy me, I will ... What am I saying, you can't destroy lunch."
"DEVELOPERS! Nobody sweats the details of evil like Microsoft! Weâ(TM)ve worked hard on our evil! Our Zuneâ(TM)s as evil as an iPod any day! I wonâ(TM)t let my kids use a lesser evil!"
"Ah, but we're working on a new approach. We're not evil."
"Just creepy."
"But in a totally not evil way."
Misrepresentation (Score:2)
The summary is a pretty drastic misrepresentation of the article. Balmer was nowhere near as positive about Google Apps as the summary indicates.
Ok, I guess it is news when someone says anything positive about a competitors product. But Google Apps has a long way to go still before they have a measurable impact on any competitor, let alone Microsoft's Office Juggernaut.