Windows: It's Over - ZDNet Article

[killadoob]

Well i would love to see the day that developers cater for linux(anything else related), windows and mac.

It would give everyone the freedom to run one OS and have all their programs and games working 100% without a huge mission. There isn't money in linux(it's free THE OS IS FREE just incase people go further than FREE OS) so microsoft i am sure would not be pleased with pc game makers if they all started using opengl.

Can you imagine a free OS that runs all your favourite games and apps. Microsoft would take a knock of note.

 

[bekdik]

Well i would love to see the day that developers cater for linux(anything else related), windows and mac.

It would give everyone the freedom to run one OS and have all their programs and games working 100% without a huge mission. There isn't money in linux(it's free THE OS IS FREE just incase people go further than FREE OS) so microsoft i am sure would not be pleased with pc game makers if they all started using opengl.

Can you imagine a free OS that runs all your favourite games and apps. Microsoft would take a knock of note.

Surely it's up to the games publishers to use a free OS?

 

[shogun]

Well i would love to see the day that developers cater for linux(anything else related), windows and mac.

It would give everyone the freedom to run one OS and have all their programs and games working 100% without a huge mission. There isn't money in linux(it's free THE OS IS FREE just incase people go further than FREE OS) so microsoft i am sure would not be pleased with pc game makers if they all started using opengl.

Can you imagine a free OS that runs all your favourite games and apps. Microsoft would take a knock of note.

Do you mean free as in price, or freedom to change?

I don't mind paying for my OS. Just like I don't mind paying for most things that I use. Not sure what the fuss about a paid OS is, when it's a tool that you use literally every day. The cost is negligible. Count how few tanks of fuel pay for the OS... yet ppl cough up.

 

[noxibox]

I don't mind paying for my OS. Just like I don't mind paying for most things that I use. Not sure what the fuss about a paid OS is, when it's a tool that you use literally every day. The cost is negligible. Count how few tanks of fuel pay for the OS... yet ppl cough up.

I know plenty of people who would have to really save just to be able afford a basic computer. Paying an additional thousand Rand for an operating system would be out of the question. Schools are an example of an environment where they should not be squandering money on buying an OS unless they just happen to have the money lying around and it's use it as kindling or buy an OS. In fact in general government departments should not be using commercial software unless there is an extremely compelling reason.

 

[Arthur]

sfunny peepil in va fird wirld want first wirld tek at fird wirld praases?

 

[InvisibleJim]

sfunny peepil in va fird wirld want first wirld tek at fird wirld praases?

They can have it too but Free software is about freedom not about price.

Freedom to modify the software
Freedom to connect 20 or 100 or 1000 office pc's to your server without having to wonder if you've bought enough Client Access Licenses (even though you already have a server licence and a licence for each pc)
Freedom to use your software for whatever purpose
Freedom to make a living selling Free software (more likely supporting it but you have the freedom to sell it)
Freedom to give away the software that you are basing your curriculum on to every learner in your school for free

and more

 

[InvisibleJim]

On the matter of Windows 8, I've finally gotten around to taking it for a proper spin myself over the last few days and I don't think it's terrible.

I won't be rushing out to upgrade any Windows 7 PC's any time soon but if I bought a new PC or was forced to use it at work, I think I could live with Windows 8 OK. The gripes I have with it are much less painful than with Vista.

 

[CataclysmZA]

Surely it's up to the games publishers to use a free OS?

They can elect to do so, but OpenGL doesn't have as good documentation as DirectX. Its the same reason why people pay for Red Hat licensing - Red Hat gives you support for the OS, and damn good professional support at that. In the past Microsoft gave kick-backs to developers when DirectX and OpenGL was neck-and-neck and we're talking back in the 90s. Microsoft documented everything, sang a song to the publishing houses and today wields immense power with the game industry because they've bought and created a reliance on DirectX.

Schools are an example of an environment where they should not be squandering money on buying an OS unless they just happen to have the money lying around and it's use it as kindling or buy an OS.

Microsoft charges them up to ten times less than what they do for normal businesses when they negotiate for volume license key applications. I believe Office 365 is even cheaper for schools with a volume license application. Besides, if most of the world is on Windows and Office and you're teaching the kids to start out with Linux and Libre Office, somewhere along the line they become unable to switch.

In fact in general government departments should not be using commercial software unless there is an extremely compelling reason.

Indeed, government should be running on Linux and many of their systems and the back-end, particularly if you're an IT admin in the police force, are all on Linux. Municipalities like Port Elizabeth Metro run entirely on Windows because the Office integration and calendaring system works much better for them, in addition to the 24/7 support they buy.

 

[killadoob]

Surely it's up to the games publishers to use a free OS?

No i mean linux is free right, so microsoft will do almost anything to ensure it cannot be used for certain applications, games etc to ensure windows dominates.

If i could do what i do on windows more effectively on a free OS i would use it and drop windows as i am certain millions would do.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Microsoft charges them up to ten times less than what they do for normal businesses when they negotiate for volume license key applications. I believe Office 365 is even cheaper for schools with a volume license application. Besides, if most of the world is on Windows and Office and you're teaching the kids to start out with Linux and Libre Office, somewhere along the line they become unable to switch.

Even if the schools get the MS software for free (MS used to have a free software for schools program, don't know if it is still in effect) then I strongly believe that the curriculum should be based on software that can be made Freely available to children to use on their PC's at home. The cost of education is enough for parents anyway without unnecessary costs, let alone for families living in actual poverty who have managed to obtain a second hand PC. If the schools base their curriculum on proprietary software then children whose parents can't afford this are at a disadvantage.

I also disagree about being able to switch. I've long believed that what should be taught is word processing and spreadsheets rather than Word and Excel (or Writer and Calc for that matter.) When people understand the generic principles well, it is not hard to move between software tools.

 

[bekdik]

No i mean linux is free right, so microsoft will do almost anything to ensure it cannot be used for certain applications, games etc to ensure windows dominates.

If i could do what i do on windows more effectively on a free OS i would use it and drop windows as i am certain millions would do.

How would Microsoft inhibit an application from being developed for Linux?

Maybe the lack of a Linux version of an application is that it's not worth it to the developer to convert it to that application?

 

[InvisibleJim]

How would Microsoft inhibit an application from being developed for Linux?

Maybe the lack of a Linux version of an application is that it's not worth it to the developer to convert it to that application?

It has always been a bit of a chicken and egg situation. People stick with Windows because games and other applications that they want are not available for Linux and developers don't want to develop for Linux because the largest target market is Windows PC's.

 

[shogun]

I know plenty of people who would have to really save just to be able afford a basic computer. Paying an additional thousand Rand for an operating system would be out of the question. Schools are an example of an environment where they should not be squandering money on buying an OS unless they just happen to have the money lying around and it's use it as kindling or buy an OS. In fact in general government departments should not be using commercial software unless there is an extremely compelling reason.

I hear you, but I disagree somewhat. If a government department can be more productive with paid for software (ok, I know we're making a stretch assuming gov could ever be productive), then the software pays for itself. Saving time and stress saves money. It's a great idea having everyone running free open linux, but if it comes at a cost of productivity, then the choice is a no brainer. For all the MS hate going on in the world, they still do business software flippin well. I'm encouraged by all the new stuff they are releasing. Developer tools (SSDT is my recent favourite), cloud hosting (azure), office 365, surface tablets, windows phone 8 etc etc. With linux, you need to try integrate seperate services from separate vendors to try get something remotely similar (none of which are free either, except the linux OS itself).

Linux has its place (an we use it too), but I have more tools available to me (all integrated) using the MS stack.

That being said, government IT departments should be building some of these services for the rest of government, and they should be using open source software to do so, or encouraging companies to do it for them, so that Open Source software gets a bigger boost. Can you imagine our gov doing this though? Sadly, it's unlikely.

 

[CataclysmZA]

Even if the schools get the MS software for free I strongly believe that the curriculum should be based on software that can be made Freely available to children to use on their PC's at home.

And you have a very valid point. But you're forgetting that even if Linux is the basis of the software schools use, it's hard enough finding a teacher capable of teaching kids to use it effectively, in addition to a IT admin knowledgeable enough to support the system.

Then there's the fact that if a school has computers, they're generally on a legacy form of Windows (or a pirated version). My old school still runs on Server 2003 as their back-end with a combination of XP, Vista and Windows 7 machines all around the place, the latter of which belong to the teachers. Doing Linux would be great but there's still the support cost. Its just simply easier right now to find a good Windows techie.

Up in countries like Kenya and Uganda, open-source software is massively popular and I think quite a few North African governments have stipulations that the departments cannot spend any money on software licensing that can be found for free and is compatible with their work to a certain extent.

Down here, our government pays a website developer R140 million to use Wordpress for a departmental website.

 

[shogun]

They can have it too but Free software is about freedom not about price.

Freedom to modify the software
Freedom to connect 20 or 100 or 1000 office pc's to your server without having to wonder if you've bought enough Client Access Licenses (even though you already have a server licence and a licence for each pc)
Freedom to use your software for whatever purpose
Freedom to make a living selling Free software (more likely supporting it but you have the freedom to sell it)
Freedom to give away the software that you are basing your curriculum on to every learner in your school for free

and more

Freedom to modify the software

You can make open source software using MS software. It's done by hundreds of thousands every day. You can't modify their OS, but you can build OSS using it. When last did you modify your OS kernel? I know we did it recently to a linux OS for a very specialised application, so it happens, but for average joe user?

Freedom to connect 20 or 100 or 1000 office pc's to your server without having to wonder if you've bought enough Client Access Licenses (even though you already have a server licence and a licence for each pc)

Here I agree with you.

Freedom to use your software for whatever purpose

Um, you'd still be bound by a license, and if it's a GPL license, then you're actually more heavily restricted than ever before. See the point below.

Freedom to make a living selling Free software (more likely supporting it but you have the freedom to sell it)

Hey, I built that free software you're selling! Oh wait, I didn't get shafted by you because I protected my code using obfuscation and a license that prevented you from doing so. I'm more free to make money off my paid for software than I am if I just gave it out for free, hoping for some "support". I've put my time and money into it, why should I be forced to give it away?

Freedom to give away the software that you are basing your curriculum on to every learner in your school for free

Doesn't need to be open source for that... it needs to be free as in $$$ for that. It can be open source with a license attached. Or close sourced with no fee. Don't confuse the two.

 

[InvisibleJim]

The comments on support and training for open source are valid but I also see this as another chicken and egg situation and government is in a position to build jobs and expertise around Linux and other open source software.

There is some information Here on the SITA website that seems to suggest that government favours open source solutions for the right reasons. It does however date back to 2007 so what has been done and whether the SITA website is up to date I wouldn't like to guess.

 

[shogun]

The comments on support and training for open source are valid but I also see this as another chicken and egg situation and government is in a position to build jobs and expertise around Linux and other open source software.

There is some information Here on the SITA website that seems to suggest that government favours open source solutions for the right reasons. It does however date back to 2007 so what has been done and whether the SITA website is up to date I wouldn't like to guess.

Agree, you'd think with south africa's link to ubuntu, we'd be pushing linux so much further, but we aren't, which is really sad.

 

[InvisibleJim]

You can make open source software using MS software.]

Agree with you completely here

When last did you modify your OS kernel?

Never and most likely couldn't if I wanted to but GPL (for example) permits anyone the Freedom to do this.

Um, you'd still be bound by a license, and if it's a GPL license, then you're actually more heavily restricted than ever before.

Yes but the restrictions mainly become a problem if you want to mix proprietary code and GPL in certain circumstances and are to protect the Freeness of the Free software.

Hey, I built that free software you're selling! Oh wait, I didn't get shafted by you because I protected my code using obfuscation and a license that prevented you from doing so. I'm more free to make money off my paid for software than I am if I just gave it out for free, hoping for some "support". I've put my time and money into it, why should I be forced to give it away?

If you obfuscate your code then you are not releasing it under a Free software license (certainly not the GPL.) Even the GPL does not have any problem with you selling your software or profiting from your work. They would also encourage me to sell your software for as much as I could and to pass on some of that profit to you which I can't do if I give away the software at no cost or if I don't have the right to sell your software.

Doesn't need to be open source for that... it needs to be free as in $$$ for that. It can be open source with a license attached. Or close sourced with no fee. Don't confuse the two.

It does need to be Free not free$$$. A school can't legally buy one MS Office license and then give a copy to 200 pupils. By the same token, a school could charge pupils a nominal fee to burn Libre Office to disk and maybe even to to make a few rands contribution to the developers and still the software could be affordable and accessible to the majority.

 

[shogun]

Yes but the restrictions mainly become a problem if you want to mix proprietary code and GPL in certain circumstances and are to protect the Freeness of the Free software.

That's what I was hinting towards. Some software has a licence attached. If it's not GPL, you can't combine it with GPL. That's restrictive. You find a lot of licensing agreements actually play better together in the none GPL arena. In my opinion, if you want to release free software, put it in the public domain.

If you obfuscate your code then you are not releasing it under a Free software license (certainly not the GPL.) Even the GPL does not have any problem with you selling your software or profiting from your work. They would also encourage me to sell your software for as much as I could and to pass on some of that profit to you which I can't do if I give away the software at no cost or if I don't have the right to sell your software.

That was my point (apologies for the sarcasm). In some cases I would release code as OpenSource, but then I would put it in the public domain... like work on a community project like OpenStreetMap. For code that needs to make money to put food on the table? For that I'd lock it down and licence it as proprietary. Either way, something like GPL would be pointless as it would prevent other businesses from using the free code I did release. If i've made it free, why stop businesses by polluting their other code with GPL? jealousy?

It does need to be Free not free$$$. A school can't legally buy one MS Office license and then give a copy to 200 pupils. By the same token, a school could charge pupils a nominal fee to burn Libre Office to disk and maybe even to to make a few rands contribution to the developers and still the software could be affordable and accessible to the majority.

No, it needs to be free$$$. If MS licensed its software to a school at no cost (or low cost), would that be acceptable? 200 licences at R10? That be palatable no? Still closed source, but not costly.
They do have special licensing for schools, although I do not know what the cost is. Why should it be totally free? Because MS are evil? Because they can afford it? Because "poor schools"? If you put MS Office side by side with Libre Office, both free, which one would you pick up off the table? People choose Libre Office solely due to cost.

Also, let's also be realistic, if they copied LibreOffice, not a cent would go to the devs. And that's not a problem as the devs in Libre Office expect this, and would even encourage this (it's a school).

I have to admit, I'm playing a bit of devils advocate here as I'm actually in favour of Linux and LibreOffice. I just don't ever see it pulling ahead of the Microsoft stack. The world over you see that it usually takes commercial companies to finish off large products. Those companies make money. Look what google did with linux = android. Free yes, kinda, they make their money by leveraging millions of devices with their software. Companies have to charge as they are employing thousands of people. You can't do that with free software. With free software you have to rely on people's goodwill and after hours efforts.

 

[noxibox]

Besides, if most of the world is on Windows and Office and you're teaching the kids to start out with Linux and Libre Office, somewhere along the line they become unable to switch.

Then they have bigger problems than what operating system they learned at school.