Jeff Hoogland goes to great lengths to promote the idea that somehow Android/Linux is not a distro of Linux…
| JH | RP |
|---|---|
| Android’s kernel is a Fork | So? Google took a snapshot of Linux and added drivers and stuff that changed Linux in ways that don’t work for other devices. That’s being worked on and the Android/Linux kernel will be remerged sooner or later. It would be more correct to say Android uses a patched Linux kernel. Android is using newer versions of the kernel all the time and 2.6.37 now includes features that may well accomplish what Android’s WakeLocks do. |
| Where is the brand name? | Idiocy has no bounds as he argues that “Linux” in the brand name is lethal… Tell that to Red Hat (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) or Suse (Suse Linux Enterprise), which did make money and grew for Novell, or IBM which certifies Linux on all their systems, or ZaReason that sells only noOS or GNU/Linux PCs. Can these successful and growing businesses be wrong about the value of “Linux” in advertising? |
| Companies that don’t support Linux support Android | Irrelevant. I don’t support M$ but I support personal computing. So what? That’s irrelevant. That’s probably wrong in the case of Android/Linux as well. Motorola which is big in Android in the market, has supported Linux phones for ages (A790 – 2003, i886 currently), and you can find FLOSS downloads of Linux-based products like Atrix WebTop. |
| “Android applications however are all java based, meaning you need an emulator like Alien Dalvik to get them to run on other platforms” | Huh? Java is write once run everywhere. Dalvik has ports to other Distros as well. One can write native ARM applications that run in native mode on Android. The language in which an application is written has no bearing on what the operating system may be or may be called. Dalvik is a completely different virtual machine from JVM but it still runs on Linux. |
| Microsoft doesn’t make money off of Linux pre-installed Machines | They won’t make money off of Android/Linux much longer either, because Google and Barnes and Noble and others will fight rather than pay the thug. |
| Where is the source code? | see http://android.git.kernel.org/ |
Hoogland writes, “Yes Android is Linux based it is not however Linux any longer”
This confuses the idea that the kernel is the OS, something the rest of the world has known about for ages. The kernel is Linux. The distro/operating system is Android/Linux!
There is a video from an Android developer describing the operation of Android. In it he explicitly states that an Android process is a Linux process (4:00).
Well, that is something I don’t do, knowing only enough French to be dangerous… but I do write some large documents in English for systems that I have created. LyX just frees me from all the fiddly formatting stuff so I can write many pages at a time and only worry about the message. A few years ago, LyX had some serious bugs where one would have to edit the file separately to fix nesting. That seems to be corrected now and if I just use LyX as intended it can do a whole project with no fiddling. It helps to have a proper template for what you are doing but that is not that difficult. For me, the standard template and a Memo template are mostly what I need. It would by helpful to have a means of importing spreadsheets but it’s not a killer as I can convert most spreadsheets to images and import them that way.
LyX is slowly developing because only a few developers are working on it but I have been using it for several years and it is good enough for what I do and superior to OpenOffice.org or M$’s office suite when it comes to creating the content.
Robert Pogson know the feeling about those LyX bugs most of them don’t bother me. Since I have always liked the toolbar on a different virtual screen so I have more space to see what I am doing.
LyX is in fact WYSIWYG mostly and WYSIMYM full. Its a little hard to remain fully WYSIWYG when you can insert your own custom LaTeX functions without speed killing.
Writing manuals are big projects pain in but projects needing the most tool assistance you can get.
LaTeX might be old but it has a lot of things right in the document storage format. To be correct early LaTeX the first version in fact has many thing wrong. Second version is where it becomes more sane.
This lack of means to include basic text string macros across multi documents is where LibreOffice fails me as well as in quality of formatting is not quite there yet.
Basically I have 5 primary file groups. To make a manual.
1 files of macros containing all the tex(not a typo) segments for each language text.
2 files contain layout how those tex segments are places in final documents out. This can have a master for joining chapters.
3 Master documents that binds layout to correct language.
4 Master documents that bind Language master documents into groups.
5 style formats documents for output
Yes this is way different to a normal WYSIWYG work-flow. But it is one of the WYSIMYM work flow shapes. Multi documents to one done many times.
\includefrom or \subincludefrom defined in master document setting language directory for text segments use to make each language documents.
Lot of that can be recycled from manual to manual. The master documents are in fact small.
Stacking of master documents is another area where libreoffice kinda gets lost. LaTeX has no issue doing it once you know the trick.
Don’t say use the global library. Not a valid selection since I might be working on unrelated documents. I need macros shared between only related documents. In a way I can control.
oldman is very right I have a well developed production system that I was taught. Its not that hard to learn. Result is less time to produce for multi language. Since its not reformat each time. Also its consistent between languages. If instructions in the english manual are on page 5 section 1 they will be on page 5 section 1 in all page based manuals. Same can apply to web and online manuals as well. This does make life simpler when having to support someone who does not speak english well for me but also have a copy of the manual in their language. You can refer them to sections of it.
oldman it also does not take that much time to start the system fresh with no prior documents. Its just a highly effective path. I was trained how do it in under 1 day. Training you are not allowed to use any pre existing.
This is the level of sync that makes Manuals really really good for support people. So keeping customers happy and support people happy.
MS Office and Libreoffice does not help you that much when you need 100 percent the same layout in many languages. Libreoffice helps you more due to having master documents.
The critical issue is SYNC between many versions of the same document in different languages. This is why MS Office is junk what I am required todo. It cannot meet a requirement. I guess oldman never once has had to produce multi copies of the same document in different languages to wake up where MS Office completely SUXs.
There is the issue the simplest to use is LaTeX to meet the requirement.
I use LyX which is a GUI on top a lot of the established layout stuff. Once all the bugs are out, real soon, it will be great. It’s the system I use for big projects because it scales. There is no noticeable slowdown with larger projects because the formatting is separate from the text. You only format when producing the printable output, say a PDF. It scales nicely. Other office suites are copying that behaviour by using XML but they still fiddle around with formatting during the production phase, a total waste of time.
LyX works fine for me except there are a few annoying bugs which must be worked around. They are being fixed.
oldman
“You dismiss out of hand windows based tools as inferior for all cases, when all you have demonstrated is that they do not fit your usage or your ideological framework.”
This is where you are wrong. I do use active directory for client management of windows machines since currently its the best for that job.
Powershell I have found highly poor quality for what it has offered me. Spitting out java code does not take me long. Most of my work is designed on the model that re-usage is to be expected and that I cannot expect to be given a particular OS machine. I have to be able to take what ever I am give and get my job done. What would you do if the boss gave you an OS X laptop without Windows and now said do your job oldman how productive would you me. Me that is only a minor annoyance. Windows will cost me performance but I still will be able todo my job.
“text processors aren’t WYSIWYG and WYSIWYG has been part of desktop computing for over 25 years.”
What??? What rock have you been under oldman.
http://www.bakoma-tex.com/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeXmacs or others. Yes if I wish I can go WYSIWYG with Latex but this is tieing hands behind back. When I should be using more modern WYSIWYM.
“Nobody outside your niche use is going to tolerate using tools like LaTex, no matter how “powerful†they are. I will bet good money that you use LaTex because you have been using it for a very long time, you can produce reproducible results in it, and most importantly, your management has no problems or is oblivious to the fact that a portion of their business assets are based on such an archaic tool that requires specialized expertise to maintain.”
Now oldman really most text processors GUI not just WYSIWYG true where have been been under a rock missed the advancement 15 years ago due to the weaknesses found in WYSIMYG. WYSIWYM is what you need as well when producing good quality web sites and complex documents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYM Yes the tools I use are both WYSIMYG and WYSIMYM. Yes WYSIMYM is the newer model for doing highly complex documents. Also due to Tex broad formatting support I can import document segments from ODT or DOC already formatted.
I am the layout/project manager. I don’t need good english for this job just be able to produce the results. I just need to be able to take documents from many different sources and merge them into a unified final documents.
Archaic tool Latex not so. Latex has been updated many times. In its history. One of the key things my management likes is that even after all these years you can still pick up the first Latex documents and rework them even print them exactly like they were printed. Even that they are so far technically out of date by latex standard. Just because Latex does not ruin your day when they change versions does not mean there is anything wrong with it.
My managers to have issue with me using Archaic WYSIMYG only systems when I should be using WYSIMYM and WYSIMYG systems so final layouts are simpler to generate and change to editors wishes.
This is the problem oldman. WYSIMYG only systems are Archaic to my line of work. This is where you are stuffed you are out of date.
Major advantage of WYSIMYM is that you have a text blocks that you can apply multi templates onto without much work producing the different documents you need. Good WYSIMYM systems allow you todo like include files on documents. The include files containing blocks of text. This reduces translation costs also reduces errors.
Now if libreoffice or MS Office picked up the means to run in a good WYSIMYM mode instead of wimpy non productive WYSIMYG then there might be a reason to move off LaTex for good. Yes WYSIMYG has it place but its not in multi documents that data has to be synced between them. Anything that should be synced has to be in a WYSIMYM model.
Hard fact to accept is that MS Office tech is out date for particular usages. Due to thinking Latex is Archaic allows you to miss the fact MS Office is Archaic lacking a complete editing mode. Libreoffice Master Documents are partly based on the ideas of WYSIMYM not WYSIMYG.
Ideal document production system has to contain both WYSIMYM ideas and WYSIMYG ideas. Other wise it is flawed.
oldman wrote, “Competition has always existed in IT Pog, you just don’t like the players.”
Nope. There has been no real competition on the desktop since Lose 3.1. By that time M$ had achieved a monopoly on DOS, thanks to IBM and M$ began to have enough market power to make exclusive deals with all the major PC OEMs. That’s 20 years of no competition. Apple was out of it until recently and then only in the USA. GNU/Linux has been ready for the desktop since about 1995 but had no space to speak of on retail shelves. That’s not competition. That’s monopoly.
M$ has deliberately seduced ISV/developers with complex APIs that made programming easier on that other OS and that has caused severe lock-in for many apps. That is the result of short-sighted people taking the easy route, not making the best choices of IT. There are millions of developers using and producing FLOSS. They are gaining share all the time, even if oldman does not see it.
The proof of the lock-in M$ has caused is the $millions it costs some organizations to free themselves from M$. That would not be the case if people had programmed in an OS-independent way from the beginning. Not only is M$ a financial burden all along but also after it dies. Fortunately the future is practically infinite and the advantages of leaving M$ far outweigh the cost of staying or migraing away. The economic inefficiency of that other OS will soon be evident to all those who give Android/Linux a try this year, more than 100 million people. The crack in Wintel is becoming a fracture.
“The crime was committed and M$ has still not done the time. I don’t accept the “final agreement†between M$ and US DOJ as binding on the world. M$ is a global problem and the world will deal with it as the world sees fit.”
Pog,the fact that you continue to attempt to propagate your opinion as fact may play well with other true believers, but amongst those who take commercial software from microsoft as it is it only serves to undermine any credibility you may have, and I believe that you do have valid points to make in the utility of Linux for those who cant afford commercial software and who do not have the luxury of the hardware replacement cycle that goes with it.
As far as how the world deals with commercial software, with all due respect it already is. Those who can afford it as the cost of doing business are using closed source.
“Competition is coming back to IT and M$ will have to compete on price/performance rather than secret dealing with “partnersâ€.”
Competition has always existed in IT Pog, you just don’t like the players. Here’s a news flash Pog, within the desktop market Microsoft already competes function and feature. In the server market it has captured whole swatches of vertical market applications because ISV’s can develop sophisticated presentation interfaces quicker than they can using open source tools. This is what REALLY counts, not how fast the OS boots, not how many times the OS reboots, not on the fact that it can execute on 10 year old equipment.
The crime was committed and M$ has still not done the time. I don’t accept the “final agreement” between M$ and US DOJ as binding on the world. M$ is a global problem and the world will deal with it as the world sees fit. At the moment it seems to me that hundreds of millions are accepting Linux in the form of Android/Linux and retailers see the benefit of putting non-M$ operating systems on their shelves in spite of oldman’s or pogson’s opinions. Competition is coming back to IT and M$ will have to compete on price/performance rather than secret dealing with “partners”.
“So, oldman, you claim that one should not fire an employee that works unsatisfactorily for more than a decade on the basis that that employee might improve in the future. ”
Nope. What you are doing is akin to continuing to malign that so called under-perfoming employee long after the simply has not improved their performace, but is now in the contention for employee of the year.
” Even if what you say were true about M$, I want none of their other baggage, like authentication/WGdisA, malware, re-re-reboots, wait-wait-waiting and the damned EULA.
It isn’t a matter of what you want pog. Its a matter of that fact that you continue to try convict microsoft based on obsolete information and experiences.
Gee, I forgot DOS…
So, oldman, you claim that one should not fire an employee that works unsatisfactorily for more than a decade on the basis that that employee might improve in the future. Your patience exceeds mine. Even if what you say were true about M$, I want none of their other baggage, like authentication/WGdisA, malware, re-re-reboots, wait-wait-waiting and the damned EULA.
“I have used Lose 3.1, ’95, ’98, ‘ME, NT, 2K, 2003, XP Home+Pro”
With all due respect, you are now two generations behind in experience on the desktop (vista, 7) and 3 generations behind on the server (2003 R2, 2008, 2008 R2). Your estimation of its reputation is obsolete.
I am sure that you will say that you “know enough” about windows. The fact is that you don’t and, I’m sorry Pog, but a brief exposure with Windows vista on an underpowered system doesn’t count as experience.
I run Vista SP1 on what was at the time 4a 4 year old system (Pentium M with 2Gb ram) it ran like a champ until the battery died on the system. I ran 674 Vit Vista for over a year without problems and then did an in place upgrade to 64 bit windows 7. The only thing that I had to do was uninstall 21 or 2 programs that the windows 7 installer flagged as problematic. Everything worked.
My system updates in the wee hours without event. My system is still running as well as it did when I first received it.
IN short Pog, the newest version of windows is IMHO demonstrably orders of magnitude better in terms of function and feature than even XP was for many. to try and act otherwise is to me not only foolish, but only serves to invalidate any good points in you argument as people who know the reality will just dismiss everyt thing you say out of hand.
oldman wrote, “I have actually been using microsoft tools and products for OVER 30 years”
I, too, used BASIC on my Ohio Superboard II since 1980, but it was my last satisfactory experience with any of their products. I still have that Superboard and it still works. I think that’s the only product I still have in my house from M$, and it’s just a ROM chip or two.
From ~1990 until 2000, I used other products from M$ regularly and was always fearful they would crash at inopportune moments. I used to cross my fingers when about to save or print, for instance. I have never seen a factory-installed version of that other OS run trouble-free for more than a few weeks. I have used Lose 3.1, ’95, ’98, ‘ME, NT, 2K, 2003, XP Home+Pro. I don’t consider rebooting a fix for software problems. A business earns its reputation.
“No, oldman, we can dismiss Windows as inferior based on nearly 30 years of watching it fail. You forget that most of us here have been Windows users too.
Mr. twitter I have actually been using microsoft tools and products for OVER 30 years. There were to be sure many products that when they were first released, were more promise than delivery, and there were failures, but to characterize all of what microsoft produced in the last 30 years as failing smacks of ideologically driven revisionism.
Besides, you ability to judge microsoft is suspect. When did you last actively use windows and windows based applications, Mr. twitter? Are you using windows 7 on late model hardware? Have you worked with windows server 2008 R2? IF you have and can demonstrate with real examples HOW they are still “inferior” then we might have a conversation. Because unless you are talking in those terms as far as I am concerned, you are talking out your backside through your ideological free software blinders.
“Microsoft will never fix the security problems that their software has.”
And you know this HOW sir? Do you know something about microsofts internal teams that make you feel that you are justified in making such a statement, or are you just voicing a idealogically driven opinion? IF that is the case, why can’t the lnux community get security right? No matter how much THEY fix holes, more are found. This is because as long as there are people out there who make it their business to ferret out holes in the software running on internet attached computers, security holse will be found and unfortunately Security breaches will. THis is why I and others are always taking the position that no system is truly secure and engage in the ongoing game of one step ahead that is the reality of maintaining security on internet connected computers.
“Even if you don’t believe the company blatantly exploits insecurity to break old versions of their software and sell new versions of the same old junk, it is just as impossible to ignore the massive waste the upgrade treadmill has inflicted on everyone as it is to ignore the practical implications of Windows insecurity. We’ve all seen big company networks shut down by run away infections. ”
I have also seen companies brought to their knees by denial of service attacks. Such events are a fact of live not specific to microsoft. We recover from them and go on.
“It is highly insulting to compare that kind of mess to free software or any other software, no matter how comfortable you might personally be in that world.”
And it is equally insulting when you dismiss my requirements for specific function and feature and attempt to pawn off some often ersatz piece of FOSS as an appropriate for substitution for a piece of commercial software that happens to run on windows. It is insulting when you presume Mr. twitter that you know what my computing needs are.
“Your dismissal of “ideology†ignores a few critical facts as well. Microsoft has been caught key logging ordinary users for their own purposes. No company that values it’s competitive edge will use Windows after learning that because it puts them at Microsoft’s mercy. ”
URL’s for this please and we will go from there.
“This is always the case of non free software but what was formerly theoretical is now a documented fact. ”
We shall see Mr. twitter. URL’s please.
Again, oldman, you might be comfortable under Microsoft’s thumb and that, I suppose is your choice, but you should not pretend that an objection to such things is an impractical matter.”
IN the end Mr. twitter there is nothing illegal about using microsoft products. That being the case my software use comes down to my requirements Mr. twitter. FOSS desktop applications did not and still do not meet my requirements – to me they remain not worth using for my desktop needs regardless of their price. The windows based desktop commercial products that I use, not all of which were produced directly by microsoft, do meet my needs.
If you wish to continue to dismiss microsoft products, that is fine. But you have made it more than very clear in your postings that blather on about “free software†that any assessment that you made., is hopeless compromised by your idealogy.
“It is highly insulting to compare that kind of mess to free software or any other software, no matter how comfortable you might personally be in that world.”
UNlike you Mr. twitter, I’m comfortable in both world worlds. The difference is I donw have idealogical blinders determining my
Your dismissal of “ideology†ignores a few critical facts as well. Microsoft has been caught key logging ordinary users for their own purposes. No company that values it’s competitive edge will use Windows after learning that because it puts them at Microsoft’s mercy. This is always the case of non free software but what was formerly theoretical is now a documented fact. Again, oldman, you might be comfortable under Microsoft’s thumb and that, I suppose is your choice, but you should not pretend that an objection to such things is an impractical matter.
@ oldman:
Nor should you pretend that just because you think FOSS is not the best tool for the job for you, that means by default FOSS cannot be the best tool for the job for anyone else.
No, oldman, we can dismiss Windows as inferior based on nearly 30 years of watching it fail. You forget that most of us here have been Windows users too. Microsoft will never fix the security problems that their software has. Even if you don’t believe the company blatantly exploits insecurity to break old versions of their software and sell new versions of the same old junk, it is just as impossible to ignore the massive waste the upgrade treadmill has inflicted on everyone as it is to ignore the practical implications of Windows insecurity. We’ve all seen big company networks shut down by run away infections. It is highly insulting to compare that kind of mess to free software or any other software, no matter how comfortable you might personally be in that world.
Your dismissal of “ideology” ignores a few critical facts as well. Microsoft has been caught key logging ordinary users for their own purposes. No company that values it’s competitive edge will use Windows after learning that because it puts them at Microsoft’s mercy. This is always the case of non free software but what was formerly theoretical is now a documented fact. Again, oldman, you might be comfortable under Microsoft’s thumb and that, I suppose is your choice, but you should not pretend that an objection to such things is an impractical matter.
“Simple fact here oldman you method is tieing you hands”
Mr. oiaohm:
WHen all is said and done, this all comes back to a matter of personal productivity – mine. I made a statement of why in my experience the Linux desktop and its tools are not my first choice for desktop productivity. As far as I am concerned all you have succeeded in doing is demonstrating that you have developed a working methodology after 30+ years of experience in your area of expertise. What you have neither done nor demonstrated is that that what you observe has any relevance beyond your particular use case.
Most ironically You have also demonstrated that you are in your way just as closed minded as you claim that I am . You dismiss out of hand windows based tools as inferior for all cases, when all you have demonstrated is that they do not fit your usage or your ideological framework.
Your endless blathering about the so called power of text processors over office suites misses one thing – text processors aren’t WYSIWYG and WYSIWYG has been part of desktop computing for over 25 years. Nobody outside your niche use is going to tolerate using tools like LaTex, no matter how “powerful” they are. I will bet good money that you use LaTex because you have been using it for a very long time, you can produce reproducible results in it, and most importantly, your management has no problems or is oblivious to the fact that a portion of their business assets are based on such an archaic tool that requires specialized expertise to maintain.
The simple fact is Mr. oiaohm is that I have neither the time nor the desire to turn every ad hoc report I need to prepare into a programming project let alone one in java. I do not need cross platform support, because most if not all of my reporting is done from windows desktops. Nor do I wish to have to do coding to fill in the gaps of that I know for a fact exist in so called LibreOffice and for that matter in most FOSS tools.
I have work to do.
And I certainly dont have to justify the tools that I use to you.
What you are missing.
“Yes I’ve seen the front ends to LaTex. No doubt I would be using them if I had to maintain a pile of pre existing technical manuals and conform to a pre existing standard. But I would not be kidding myself about what tools like LatEx are – time wasters.”
I am not maintaining prexisting. I am creating more. “Document templates” Really are not in the same league. From the one source I need online search able documentation for helpdesk. Printable documentation for customers. Sections in training books. Application pop up Tooltips. man and info files for posix systems. Microsoft help files for windows systems. Different formats for different ebook readers. Basically LaTeX saves me time. The one block of text ends up in at times 8 different documents without having to cut and paste and those blocks of text ending up perfectly synced. Now when I have todo company branding on top. Without LaTex this would turn into a nightmare from hell. Yes I can be look at times 10 to 20 copies for those 8 different documents for different companies. 160 documents to manually edit or automated system that can regenerate the lot. I think I will stick to the automated system thank you.
Of course most people are not aware LaTex can pull in internationalization from program source code and be setup to generate Locale, gettext and .rc files. So when a manual has to be translated this also reduces translation costs as well. Since you don’t have to re-translate all the interface stuff twice.
Basically you are not doing my job. LaTex is the best tool for the job of creating manuals and the related user support information and keeping it all synced. So that the training saying X tool tip will appear is exactly what tool tip appears in the application. The phone support notes about errors in manual end up in the next revision to manual and online help in application.
All the internationalization text in the applications is the system I work in is coming from the latex.
Second best is Libreoffice. Master document feature is kinda key so each chapter can go threw independent reviews and glued into final document. It really is weak compared to what latex is doing for me.
Basically if you are writing a manual in MS Office you are doing it the hard way and error prone because you have todo some much work to make sure you have everything synced.
Only think that could make manual writing simple is a automated way to remake the screen shots in the manual when internationalization texts change. In fact I have that as well.
Very tight very effective workflow. MS Office is not even in the same ball park.
Now serous-ally if you are going to call MS Office best of breed. Can you give me how in MS Office to get the integration I am getting using LaTex. So that the min amount of text has to be translated and what is in the manual is exactly what the application displays. No sync errors. Sync errors in instructions cause confusion.
Yes there are usage cases where a Text processor is the best option. Reason Text processor rules for manuals is that in fact you are dealing with one to many. One source many locations it need to be printed. Document templates really are design to do 1 to 1. Not 1 to many.
No office suite in existence perfectly suites making software manuals. Latex is the closest to an ideal fit. The closest is LibreOffice in an Office suite.
I don’t give a stuff how old Latex is. If it was no longer able todo the job I would not be using it. Now in time some of the xml processing engines might get good enough to replace Latex. Maybe at some point I might start writing extensions for LibreOffice so it can pick up some of the good things like international support from applications source pull in.
“NetApp appliances, VMWare virtual infrastructure and a Cirix Server farm”
Those I don’t manage from Windows. In fact the software I use to manage them is web based. Reason one of the CEO’s loves using a Mac and wants the same kind of reports you make at a click of a button. Powershell not flexible enough. All of them provide java interfaces. So I have not built my tools for them dependent on a single platform. Even nicer the program I use is a joint project. Simple fact is the stuff you are doing in powershell exists in a pre existing management software.
Zenoss comes to mind but their are plenty of others for an open source one but I am not using that.
The is the problem. You say its fine for the desktop machine it has tones of processing power. True it does. Does not help you one bit when CEO wants to be able to see that information straight up 24/7. No way I am going to be getting out of bed to be doing it all the time. Yes CEO has got use to the fact any report I generate I can provide 24/7 look up interface for no matter the computer used. Ie Mac Linux Windows yes I have CEO’s using Mac.
Simple fact here oldman you method is tieing you hands. So the CEO and people in charge cannot be given as much information about what is going on as possible. Powershell is forbin here for very good reasons. Little more time doing the same stuff in java that can be integrated into a site that CEO can visit to see what is going on makes life simpler.
Yes I have a site just for the CEO’s to get reports that are generated when the CEO demarded without having to bother me.
“Master documents” was a feature that worked in OpenOffice.org back in the early days but was buggy in M$’s office suite. That was about 2003/4, if I recall correctly.
Here’s a review written in 2011:
“The need for this feature is obvious for book writers. So obvious, in fact, that Word used to have it. The problem is, Word’s master document feature was notorious for corrupting files. For years, Word users were warned not to use master documents. Some used it with success, but the risk was high and many more learned the hard way that the warnings should have been heeded. Beginning with Office 2007, Microsoft hid the master document feature, claiming that an outline was essentially the same thing. I wasn’t even able to find reference to master documents in the Word 2010 help. If it’s there, it’s buried, and for good reason.
In OOo, however, master documents work beautifully. They even work in an expected way with templates. If you assign a template to a master document, the master document template takes precedence over the templates in the individual files. That means you can create a collection of all those short stories you wrote over the years, and have them look the same across the whole collection, without breaking the styles in the original file. If you want to print the story by itself, it keeps the styles assigned to the file. If you want to include it in a collection of other stories, it takes the styles from the master document to give the collection a consistent look.”
see “Microsoft Word vs OpenOffice.org Writer: It’s Not Just About Price“
see also, from 2003/4:“Breaking the Word Processor Curve“
“The only trouble in MS Word is the master document feature has been broken since at least version 6.0–for over eight years. Far from helping the serious writer, it actually tends to crash and corrupt the component files. Expert users have learned through bitter experience (theirs or someone else’s) to avoid master documents in MS Word, except for very limited usage, which defeats most of the purpose of having the feature in the first place. Again, the feature works in Ooo Writer, plain and simple.”
Looks like M$ went a feature too far…
“Powershell is forbin for most uses here due to the fact is resource heavy.”
Don’t you mean its not used because of your bias toward linux. All else is bushwah IMHO.
“No case of use of Powershell I have not seen a more effective way using Windows Script Host.”
Well if you wanted to extract information from NetApp appliances, VMWare virtual infrastructure and a Cirix Server farm, You would be a fool not to look at powershell, because there are extensions for all of these that allow me to pull information from components together quickly.
“So you are not using best solution here. Don’t try to bluff past me. I do manage windows machines. I do know the most optimize paths of doing things.”
There you go again with your bullying , Mr. oiaohm. You are not in any position to get in my way. As for as “bluffing” is concerned, I’m not bluffing about anything Mr. oiaohm just stating my views backed up by MY experience. That experience is different from yours, and it serves me well and I have been rewarded quite well financially for it.
You may know a way of optimizing things for your environment, but thats all you know. Your anti microsoft bigotry has blinded you to the fact that tools like powershell that can more efficient for creating code that doesnt have to last forever, doesnt have to execute on every platform, and doesnt have to be “efficient” because you can than having to write a program from scratch does.
Get over yourself sir, and consider that your experience , while it may be extensive, is probably not comprehensive, and may just be as susceptible to “closed mindedness” as you claim I am.
You just dont notice it.
“As far as you useage is concerned, I dont give a crap what use. The fact is you interjected yourself into my discussion with Pog, to “correct†me with what as far as I am concerned is a narrow and imperfect a point of view as you seem mine as being. When you did this, you opened yourself up to be “corrected” as well.
We will just have to deal with each others idiosyncrasies, I think.
“Also oldman you most likely have written Libreoffice off too soon as well. Since Master Documents in libreoffice work. Where in Microsoft Office don’t even dare us that feature since document will be unstable.”
Nope. the limitation of Libreoffice and its lack of features that I use render it useless to me at this point in time. If it improves down the road to the point where it meets my needs at that time, then I will reconsider. But like yourself I have neither the time nor the patience for hat I consider inefficiency.
“Basically their are area that LibreOffice and LaTex runs rings around MS Office. Features are are really good for manual production.”
Yes, I been told as much over the years, but the reality is I dont write manuals, and the Word style Sheets and document templates have gotten the job done without the overhead of living in the stoneages of text formatting when I am document processing.
Yes I’ve seen the front ends to LaTex. No doubt I would be using them if I had to maintain a pile of pre existing technical manuals and conform to a pre existing standard. But I would not be kidding myself about what tools like LatEx are – time wasters.
And I dont like getting my time wasted any more than you do.
“This is your problem oldman I have been in the game just as long as you. So don’t bother claiming more than 30 years experience. I have that as well. But I am more polite and not going to try to use years to time to try to justify my point of view.”
Polite? Bushwah.
You are just as nasty as I am Mr. oiaohm, and just as opinionated.
“Something a person like you has to drop is your biases.”
Bias is in the eye of the beholder Mr. oiaohm. Your experiences and expectations encompass your biases and my experiences encompass mine. Spare me the baloney about what I must do. I am well aware of many if all of the tools you have mentioned. (personally I prefer puppet to cfengine, but whatever). The difference is I have a set of tools that work for me, and thats it. If new ones come by, I be looking at them, but only if they suit MY needs, not because someone else thinks they are leet.
“Yes its older but who cares if it does not cause as much lose of productive and gets the task done sooner”
WSH was also a heavy tool of mine, but its not a clean and as elegant as powershell. Also my uses are such that I am not worried about speed. I execute powershell on a desktop with power to spare and most of the code that I write these days is throw away. No need to set in cement something that is only going to have a single use.
“And the fact remains I don’t need Windows. I don’t need to change to Windows. I don’t require it.”
Yet you are obviously using it, so you DO require it if only because you rare required to. It is the same for me and Linux. I only keep current on linux skills because it pays the bills, otherwise it is of zero utility to me.
As far as you useage is concerned, I dont give a crap what use. The fact is you interjected yourself into my discussion with Pog, to “correct” me with what as far as I am concerned is a narrow and imperfect a point of view as you seem mine as being..
“Why do I provide feedback even if I have applications that do exactly what I require. Simple fact oldman I want competition. I don’t want a single tool as best of bread. I want 3 for 4 fighting for best of bread. Driving each one forwards.”
This one I will give you to a point. I am reaping the benefits of thecutthroat competition between the maker of Finale, Sibelius, and Notion. The difference is I didnt have to pitch in and guide them along. They are fighting to earn my business.
Also oldman you most likely have written Libreoffice off too soon as well. Since Master Documents in libreoffice work. Where in Microsoft Office don’t even dare us that feature since document will be unstable.
Basically their are area that LibreOffice and LaTex runs rings around MS Office. Features are are really good for manual production.
“LaTex? This is 2011 not 1986. There is no excuse wasting time and effort running a text formatter in this day and age!”
Funny enough LaTex allows me to do formatting that MS Office does not. Even MS publisher cannot do. Of course I am using a GUI to LaTex. Master templates with LaTex work. So I can can update a look of a all the documents by adjusting 1 file. So if someone wants a company logo or so on inserted on every front page no issues.
Format the manual for online usage just by applying a master template or format it for hand held device just as simply.
Basically for manuals and journals LaTex runs rings around Microsoft Office if you are using a good GUI since producing all the require output forms is simpler.
“My time is worth money and I have deliverables to meet.”
So is mine problem I have a different set of deliverables. Manuals with possible customer alterations in look to their internal document look is on of them.
I also need to be sure that the files will open in 10 years time. Microsoft office still does not give me this. Latex and (ODF)Libreoffice give me this. So to me MS Office is junk not best of bread due to my Requirements. Its file-formats are too unstable to be usable. Note PDF is not suitable the files must be editable. PDF good final form not something that might need to be revised.
This is the problem oldman what is best of bread and what is junk completely changes on the requirements of what you are doing. Also you have shown bias against LaTex. So I can directly presume you have written it off and when you need advanced formatted documents never looked at it particularly some of its more modern front ends.
Making me use a Windows desktop will cost my performance because the tools that give me the best performance require Linux to work right. Running a VM inside windows is slower so this would be costing me time and performance. Not suitable.
Basically stop shoving your ideas of best of bread based on your Requirements on me. Wake up their are people like me with a different set of Requirements that makes most of what you call best of bread junk.
Result people like me don’t need windows and if we use windows it will cost us performance. Yes their are people out their writing manuals in MS Office the poor saps. When they get asked to produce a broad section of different formatted documents of the same manual they take many times longer than me to get it done.
“But the fact remains that I don’t NEED to change operating systems. Most of the FOSS that I do use runs on windows – I can even get most CPAN modules to install!”
And the fact remains I don’t need Windows. I don’t need to change to Windows. I don’t require it.
Why do I provide feedback even if I have applications that do exactly what I require. Simple fact oldman I want competition. I don’t want a single tool as best of bread. I want 3 for 4 fighting for best of bread. Driving each one forwards.
From what you have said oldman you don’t care about having competition in the market. So are very short sighted.
“Lets see you program embedded systems in assembler jack!” Still do at times oldman. Yes some micro controllers out there has ram measured in bytes. You have to be creative with them.
This is your problem oldman I have been in the game just as long as you. So don’t bother claiming more than 30 years experience. I have that as well. But I am more polite and not going to try to use years to time to try to justify my point of view.
We have both taken a different path. Note I have not said that a person like you oldman has to change. Something a person like you has to drop is your biases. Like against LaTex for particular things it is best of bread. Microsoft Office is not best of bread in every cat. Effect off people like you oldman on companies. Is that the wrong applications get used for job because you are closed minded.
“I am easily twice as productive doing the desktop based analytical tasks that I perform these days.”
Have you truly tested this. Lot of cases with I have done head to heads with people claiming this. Rare people are really getting the performance. I don’t mean to be mean.
Powershell is forbin for most uses here due to the fact is resource heavy. No case of use of Powershell I have not seen a more effective way using Windows Script Host. Yes its older but who cares if it does not cause as much lose of productive and gets the task done sooner. So you are not using best solution here. Don’t try to bluff past me. I do manage windows machines. I do know the most optimize paths of doing things.
From an management point of view here its also forbin to be using command-line directly for system management on Windows, Linux or OS X. If you want todo that stuff you are using http://cfengine.com/. With nice records of what you have done.
When MS finally released powershell was the exact time most of us Linux people managing Linux systems were leaving the command line behind.
Contrarian wrote, “there is no reason to change”, neglecting some facts:
It’s not business as usual. OEMs are putting new lines of business on Linux because there’s no reason not to do that and they do supply PCs with GNU/Linux and Android/Linux because it pays to do that. The market is not large enough yet that they can drop M$ but that could happen within a few years. No one likes doing business with M$ because they take $billions out of the economy and add no value. There are about 130 million PCs using GNU/Linux today. There are about 150 million smart thingies running Android/Linux. How long do you think it will be before those numbers double and there is sufficient interest that OEMs will compete with each other to supply Linux on all forms of personal computers? I think that could happen by 2012 if the early products presented in 2H 2011 succeed as they seem to be doing.
M$ has used the “applications barrier to entry” for many years to keep out Linux. That’s still around in “business” but it’s gone in personal computing where all kinds of people spend hours on FaceBook each day. They don’t need anything but a browser and COTS multimedia software to get all the use they want from a PC. The smart thingies are rolling in apps these days, apps that don’t run on that other OS. The applications barrier to entry works both ways and M$ is far behind the curve and will stay there long enough that Linux in all its forms has a considerable share.
I have met many customers of M$ and I was one myself. I don’t know any who enjoys wasting time hunting down drivers, having malware, BSODing, re-re-rebooting and wait-wait-waiting while their rocket-like PC moves at a snail’s pace under the burden M$ imposes. Everyone I have shown GNU/Linux appreciates that it’s faster and they do value their time waiting for things to happen.
The real issue here, I think, is that it really does not matter if Linux can do something or not. If the task is already being done by Windows and people have become used to doing the task with Windows, there is no reason to change. Linux fans crow about blue screens and malware and such, but it falls on deaf ears of those who really do not have any problem today.
When someone buys a new computer, it comes with the latest version of Windows. If you look all around and spend hours investigating, you can sometimes buy a new computer without any OS or even with Linux, usually Ubuntu, installed, but you are working at minimum wages for the time that waste and the savings that you obtain.
Very few existing Windows customers are so dismissive of the value of their time and experience to throw it away for the $15 to $25 savings that you get with a Linux machine and then only in a few cases. Linux advocates do not have the wherewithall to promote Linux effectively and the OEMs do not care to do so.
The OEMs know all about Linux and they choose to do nothing to promote it. Nothing is any different today than it was 5 or 10 years ago. And it won’t be any different 10 years from now. There will be no change because there is no reason to change.
“Of course some of your problem is fear of change.”
Buddy, I may have gone through more change in the past 30+ years of my career and obsoleted more expertise than you currently master, and that includes such things as writing device drivers for IBM system 370 mainframe devices, and in the mid 1980’s attaching an outboard A/D/A converter to an IBM PC and writing in assembler on PC/DOS the routines to play and record in stereo at 30Khz. It may not compare to what you do with embedded systems, but since when is Frankenstein-ing together pieces of other peoples code all that great!
Lets see you program embedded systems in assembler jack!
On tghe other hand, I am not hobbled as you are by geek bigotry against commercial software in general and microsoft in particular.
Office IS best of breed oiaohm. It has function and features that to me make Libreoffice look like crap in comparison. But what counts in the end it meets MY requirements.
“Embed work building binaries using gcc take longer on windows. Latex formatting for complex formatted documents also slower in windows.”
I’m not doing embedded system design, and even if I had to develop with gcc, I would probably be running it on Linux under a VM.
LaTex? This is 2011 not 1986. There is no excuse wasting time and effort running a text formatter in this day and age!
“It would be unlikely that every one of the applications you are using are best of breed for doing the job.”
Perhaps not, but the desktop applications that I use professionally are head and shoulders above anything in the FOSS domain. Between Powershell and Perl running on windows, I am easily twice as productive doing the desktop based analytical tasks that I perform these days.
“Really did you provide feedback. Have you watched them change. ”
Why? I have work to do and I already have solutions that meet my need. This is something that YOU do not seem to get Mr. oiaohm. My time is worth money and I have deliverables to meet. I don’t have time to wait for some developer to decide if he wants to act on my feedback, and i will not expend one iota of energy fixing or patching someone elses piece of crap code that doesn’t work or needs improving, especially if I cant benefit from my work financially.
It either meets my needs or it doesnt. End of Story.
“If you change operating systems and expect to keep on using the applications you were before it will fail. I have paid for commercial software for Linux to cover particular problems.”
But the fact remains that I don’t NEED to change operating systems. Most of the FOSS that I do use runs on windows – I can even get most CPAN modules to install! Virtual Machine technology gives me access to all of the Linux I need, in fact better – I can run the two instances of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and 6 side by side. I can bring up dhcp, dns, samba/nfs servers and tftp servers along side windows based services – all side by side without compromising all of my desktop tools.
As I have said before, I have the best of both worlds for what I need to do. End of Story.
oldman “applications that enhance my productivity for a set of FOSS applications”
Now this is the problem. For me the applications I require to enhance my productivity run on crap on Windows. Embed work building binaries using gcc take longer on windows. Latex formatting for complex formatted documents also slower in windows.
Of course some of your problem is fear of change. It would be unlikely that every one of the applications you are using are best of breed for doing the job.
Also some cases are interesting. Applications that cost money on Windows are sometimes perfectly free on Linux. Yes the same application like isomaster.
“I know from experience will not work as well for me.”
Really did you provide feedback. Have you watched them change. Its like blender today. In the development branches at the moment it picking up tech that it can go head to heat with adobe after effects.
Yet neither program will have anywhere near the same interface. So for a while having both will be worth while. But in time people I work with might not need adobe after effects.
Its also like libreoffice next to MS Office. Reason Libreoffice will open damaged .doc and .docx files MS Office refuses to open. FOSS is not always either or option. Sometimes the best option is both.
Of course its a case by case base. Person like me I don’t need MS Office. Libreoffice is good enough with a few parts from Koffice.
If you change operating systems and expect to keep on using the applications you were before it will fail. I have paid for commercial software for Linux to cover particular problems.
Do we really need to call “non-techie” people “stupid”? I can just imagine if some chemists were talking about me, and one of them said “That guy over there, he’s real smart about computers, but his brain shuts down whenever chemistry is involved.”
It’s simple logic. If you compare “Linux” to Windows, people will get the idea that “Linux” is something that is comparable to Windows. When they later find out that it is not, they become confused at the apparent “fragmentation.”
Seems like it would be harder to take it the other way, though. Most if not all Linux users have prior experience with Windows, so they know quite well what they can expect from both Windows and Linux. They could go back to Windows in a heartbeat if they wanted, yet they continue to use Linux. Same for most OSX users. (s/Linux/OSX)
On the contrary, most Windows users have no experience with Linux, so they have no basis for comparing the two, not to mention no way to know that computers aren’t supposed to slow down to a crawl within 1-2 years of use.
We already know your case, oldman. That there are apparently some Windows-only software packages that you need. So be it. I’m not going to tell you to change, but your situation isn’t everyone’s situation.
“The secret to happiness is: low expectations
Explains quite a bit about most Windows users.”
And yet I am regularly told that I would be better off giving up the applications that enhance my productivity for a set of FOSS applications that I know from experience will not work as well for me. All because they run on the “Magical” linux platform.
It seems to me that the argument could be made the other way…
And that’s why I only introduce people to one Linux distro. Ubuntu. Done. No confusion there either. And now with Unity, the interface is (well, can be) fixed, too, and married to Ubuntu and its development in a way that gnome and kde are not. If they are among the rare breed that can handle choice, they can dig deeper on their own if they are interested and want to.
By the way, think Barry hit on something else, too:
“The secret to happiness is: low expectations”
Explains quite a bit about most Windows users.
Also, notice that he did say “some choice is better than none”
M$’s business plan for clients is to have one copy per machine. They are failing at that goal. If the installed base is about 86% and the attach rate on new machines is 76%, they are looking at continuing a slide for years to come. At some point the market will reach a tipping point where the world will realize M$ is optional. The monopoly was created by compulsion but it cannot be maintained by any means. It is an unstable equilibrium or a viscous slide. Either way the world is becoming a better place.
“No choices, so no confusion”
Someone, perhaps yourself, posted this link some weeks ago.
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
I found it very perceptive.
“M$ worries about it even if you don’t …”
My belief is that Microsoft remains quite interested in their markets and the growth potential of those markets and spends a lot of time considering what product development and promotion activities will be sufficient to best meet their future opportunities. I would not term that as a “worry”, however. To call them worried about it is to say that Derek Jeter was “worried” about David Price’s fast ball when facing his 3000th hit. Jeter, like Microsoft, was simply concerned and aware of the challenges that they both face daily and they both simply take necessary actions to prevail.
Microsoft has a higher level of business than they have ever had in the past. Do you think that they should be “worried” that that business is not larger yet? I don’t think so. They are not facing anything that they cannot handle with ease.
Pog, I agree with your shirt analogy, and at one time I used to say the same kind of thing. But along the way I learned that most people that don’t self-identify as “techies” have some kind of “stupid gene” that triggers whenever computing is involved.
They might be excellent in many other aspects, maybe even world-class in their chosen fields, but their brains inexplicably shut off when computers are involved.
And so you have these people who have no trouble at all shopping for things like toothpaste, detergent, or bread at the supermarket, but become helplessly confused at the sight of two or more brands of Linux distributions. (Even though, let’s face it, there’s only maybe 3-4 Linux distros at most that a first-time user really needs to consider, and for most people, going straight to either Ubuntu or Mint works just fine)
I’ve learned just to meet them where they are. Usually that means only showing them one distro, often Ubuntu, and calling it that rather than “Linux”.
I really, really wish it wasn’t so. But it is. I’ve seen too many examples to believe otherwise anymore. It’s even part of what gives Apple its appeal: no choices (or very few, at least). No choices, so no confusion.
3% of a huge market is a lot of money. M$ worries about it even if you don’t and their share is down to 76% by some accounts.
But you have it positioned so that there is a single shirt brand, say Microsoft Polo, in opposition to hundreds of “shirts” from other sources. Then you compare Microsoft share of that market, 95%, to the aggregate shirts, 1%, and try to say that Microsoft Polo is declining because it used to be 98% vs 0.1% a decade ago.
People are not concerned that there are many brands of clothing, but they all may be shirts.
Mr. Pogson, all valid points, although I must disagree on the value of the Linux brand to those who Android and some GNU/Linux distros are marketed to – that is, the “domestic user”, the “ordinary user” or “regular user” or “average user” or “end user” or whatever demeaning term they prefer nowadays. “Linux” has a particular meaning in the enterprise as being robust for servers and infrastructure (a good thing, hence why Red Hat markets RHEL as such), but Android et al. aren’t trying to be enterprise infrastructure.
There are many theories about “why the Linux desktop is dead” or “what can be done to make the Linux desktop better” but all of these try to focus on “the Linux desktop” as a single unified product like a certain proprietary OS. The truth is that there is no one product called “Linux” that is a counterpart to any proprietary OS, but when people bring up “the Linux desktop” it reinforces that perception.
The misconception further leads people to think, why can’t all these “Linux” people work on a single distro? Why is there so much choice? Why can’t everyone just work together? It sounds like a good question at first, but this makes the assumption that everyone who distributes a “Linux distro” has the same goals in mind. Everyone has different needs, including users and distro developers. This is a Good Thing, because it encourages diversity and competition.
But if you talk about “Linux” as if it’s a counterpart to a proprietary operating system, people who haven’t heard of it would be bewildered at the amount of “versions” this “Linux OS” has. It’s best for distros focused on these kinds of users to promote themselves as themselves.
“So you are saying openness causes infection?”
oldman No distribution repo system is fully open. There are reasons why you need signing keys and to be approved to sign.
Yes oldman shocking as it sounds too much openness in the from of lack of validation is a bad thing. Not all humans are trust worthy to make software packages for everyone to use.
Patch sending to a open source projects with maturity go through a validation process as well.
No validation process leads to Infections and Backdoors.
Validation processes don’t have to be as big of ass as Apple was. Apple no open source applications at all. Not require for secuirty.
Validation that the code is not major-ally flawed is required as well as part of remaining validated an requirement to providing of updates to fix secuirty faults in a timely pattern.
Yes no validation on who can package is why Windows is such a Trojan nightmare as well. This is a basic idea written up in the rainbow secuirty books by the USA military to be correct orange book published in August 15, 1983. This is not my idea its also not new. When I started I had to know the rainbow books inside and out if I wanted to code anything.
“Nobody out of the community cares.”
Yet Android has expanded the number of programmers working on Mainline Linux.
Great and Successful open source exists because business finds it useful.
Who says MR general public is important. The community of companies producing hardware is far more important to the future of Linux.
Android has is a success in itself. Hardware Companies that had a zero GPL policy before Android. Now have 1 fragment GPL. Also lot of those companies are now looking at Meego and ChromeOS more openly. Please note ChromeOS uses pretty much a standard Linux distribution core with pretty much most of the same legal requirements.
Hard bit to get is Android is only first step of many steps to get hardware companies more use to the idea that GPL and other open source code is not the big bad wolf that will steal all their IP. As Microsoft pushed for years. Its being proved false by real world events.
Nothing MS can do can turn back time of the change of point of view of a lot of hardware companies now have to GPL projects. The damage is done it will spreed.
“Because apple was a ass on what applications they would let in their app store.”
So you are saying openness causes infection?
At any rate, Android is linux derived commercialized mobile OS platform. That is taking off because bu$ine$$es find it useful and bacause ISV’s cab build and distribute binary applications on it that will make money.
Declare it Android/Linux if you wish. Nobody out of the community cares.
JairJy please hang out in the lkml mailing list some time.
Beaware redhat and ubuntu also has patches that are not mainline yet either.
Google did put all the patches that make up android alterations to the main Linux kernel process. Issue is quite a few have been rejected on first pass. Many passes latter equal functionality is now entering mainline. Of course newer versions of android are picking this up. Interesting thing is that newer android kernels have not added any more alterations.
Google researched and did all the alterations a mobile phone needs to operate in one hit. So at some point Android kernel and Mainline kernel that everyone else uses will be one.
The issue once mainline and android kernel is one. Android will be able to operate along side a normal distribution.
This is why android being called a distribution might be badly wrong long term. Android is more an application environment.
“Linux has more than 120’000 users with malware… â€
Yawn. Ramen worm was a worse issue and infected more machines.
Android Market Place funny enough can infect you also contains a feature to disinfect you. So no anti-virus required. None of the malware disabled the Android Market Place application removal feature.
Worst infections of Android devices come from third party markets. Same is true of most good Linux distributions as well.
Most Linux distributions have lower infection rates due to better run repos systems. Android Market shows what happens when a provider takes a lax point of view to what is required.
Android market place proved one thing. Its not the size of the market alone. Some of the early android infections ipad and iphone had larger market shares yet lower infection numbers. Because apple was a ass on what applications they would let in their app store.
Yes Android infections disprove the market size alone theory.
Someone is being precise about what they call gnu/linux. That’s a good thing for everyone.
The Debian community has also done a lot of thinking about the issue too. They have always called it gnu/linux but now also offer gnu/hurd and gnu/kbsd, which make the first choice of name more obvious.
This is a much better response than non free software companies have given to the free software community. Apple, Sun and others use the GNU toolset as well as borrowing heavily from BSD but their marketing was all about their brand rather than the community that made their software in the first place. Microsoft has ripped and flipped everyone off. All of them depreciate free software distributions as inadequate, unusable, and so on.
If someone wants to know what software I’m using, I’ll tell them Debian. If they want details, I’ll tell them what branch. Someone can argue that anyone competent will understand who’s responsible for what, but it is those who don’t know who need to be told. If you want to make things easy for yourself remember that gnu can be pronounced “new” and that gnu/linux is less of a mouth full than “Microsoft Windows 7”, “Microsoft Windows Phone 7” and other Trademarked names that should not be mentioned in polite company.
My mistake. Dalvik/Linux, then.
Someone wrote, “now that we have Android, which is more like Java/Linux”
There’s no Java in Android/Linux except for testing Java applications during development. They use a translator from Java to Dalvik to create Android apps from Java but Dalvik is quite independent from Java. It is a different virtual machine entirely.
“Building and Running
In this document
A Detailed Look at the Build Process
During the build process, your Android projects are compiled and packaged into an .apk file, the container for your application binary. It contains all of the information necessary to run your application on a device or emulator, such as compiled .dex files (.class files converted to Dalvik byte code), a binary version of the AndroidManifest.xml file, compiled resources (resources.arsc) and uncompiled resource files for your application.”
see http://developer.android.com/guide/developing/building/index.html
“But okay, if you believe that Android is Linux…”
Like or not, but it’s indeed Linux.
“Linux has more than 120’000 users with malware… ”
Nobody has denied the possibility of malware when using Android.Question is how serious this problem is comparing it to Windows-pc reality. Anyway i’ve always supported the diversity of Linux. Call it defragtion if you like but it’s quite a good weapon to keep malwares and especially viruses and trojans out from Linux-computer. I’ve used now only Linux since 2008 and felt fine. It’s a great platform. Much better than any Windows.
I think tha Android is different from Linux just because the updates and modifications that Google makes on Android aren’t ported to the Linux Kernel.
But okay, if you believe that Android is Linux, then Linux has more than 120’000 users with malware, and has 500’000 potential users than can be infected by malware from an oficial repository (Android Market Place).
To be honest, it was the emergence of Android that taught me to be a little more precise when talking about “Linux”. I used to use the word to define any Linux distribution. At one time, that was probably good enough, since GNU/Linux was the only kind of Linux. (And no, Stallman, I’m not going to say “GNU” all the time just for you. Get over it. Anyone able to speak intelligently on the subject already knows that Linux owes as much to you as it does to Linus.)
But now that we have Android, which is more like Java/Linux, I can’t just lump Android in with every other distro by referring them all as “Linux” when talking about the OS itself. Android is a Linux distro by virtue of being built on top of the Linux kernel, but the differences between it and the other distros are more than the differences among GNU/Linux distros.
So now I tend to use the word “Linux” only when referring to the kernel itself. I say “Linux distribution” when referring to an OS, and usually I just refer to the OS directly.
When fixing a friend’s “broken” Windows PC, I introduce them not to “Linux”, but to Ubuntu. If they are curious, I can tell them it is built on the Linux kernel, the same thing Android is built on. That usually heightens their interest.
And despite the opinions of some commenters here, I’ve never once seen anyone that I’ve introduced Ubuntu to go back to using Windows.