Venezuelan Government Blasted for Buying That Other OS

The government of Venezuela which supplies computers, was caught agreeing to buy 205K licences for “7” despite its own policies to prefer FLOSS. The blast in a blog by COLIBRIS is quite thorough and debunks all the usual myths trotted out to prop up the monopoly. They demand a reversal and other action.

  • MYTH 1: “People prefer Windows”
  • MYTH 2: “Windows is better”
  • MYTH 3: “Give people opportunity to choose what they want”
  • MYTH 4: “Canaima is difficult to use”
  • MYTH 5: “Windows is for everyone”
  • MYTH 6: “In Canaima, support is more complicated”
  • Myth 7: “We must make the transition for people to adapt”

Besides debunking the myths, they list their own facts:

  • FACT 1: The acquisition of 205 000 licenses harms national development
  • FACT 2: It discourages those who work to develop our own technologies
  • FACT 3: It strengthens the monopoly status of Microsoft at the expense of our own technologies
  • FACT 4: He spends an important amount of currency that could be used on higher priority projects
  • FACT 5: The 3390 Presidential Decree violates the Free Software
  • FACT 6: violating Presidential Decree 6649 against luxury spending
  • FACT 7: Microsoft has repeatedly tried to intervene in internal affairs of our country
  • FACT 8: Microsoft supports legislation harmful to human rights and development of our people

Amen. They left out that M$ is evil but I guess one could sum it up that way. The sad thing is that after decades of monopoly people still have to prod others to fight for freedom. It should be obvious that promoting that other OS is weird/unnatural. The world can and does make its own software cooperatively.

I recommend Debian GNU/Linux for many reasons including having more control over IT. Allowing a remote corporation to run our IT is unnecessary, dangerous and wasteful.

see Lubrio – Cantv y VIT gastarán Bs. 53,7 millones para comprar licencias Windows: Por qué no estamos de acuerdo (Spanish)

Lubrio –
VIT Cantv and Bs 53.7 million spent to buy Windows licenses: Why we disagree
(Google Translation)

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Venezuelan Government Blasted for Buying That Other OS

  1. Ted says:

    “And you’ve come to this “epiphany” how? Where exactly is the distortion, omission and lies?”

    Two quick examples, as I can’t be bothered to trawl through and dissect the whole thing.

    From the translation of the articles;

    “Office Suite – [] Is required to purchase Microsoft Office or another office suite additionally.” [emphasis mine]

    Required to purchase an office suite? Since when were users charged to download and install LibreOffice or OpenOffice? Why no mention of that fact?

    Distortion (They claim you have to make an additional purchase, singling out MS Office) – CHECK
    Omission (No mention of free (and Free) office suites for Windows)- CHECK
    Lie (What they claim is not true) – CHECK

    “For people with low vision (who can see something more or less difficulty), require a magnifying glass and a screen reader. With free software includes two applications at no cost. To work with Windows is required to purchase two licenses: one for each software.”

    A screen reader and magnifier are built into Windows. No purchase is required, no additional licenses.

    Distortion – CHECK
    Omission – CHECK
    Outright lie – CHECK

  2. oldman says:

    “oldman knows a Hell of a lot about IT. He works for a large organization with thousands of units widely distributed. He is a pro.”

    Thank you Pog for the boost. It is wasted on “experts” like oiaohm, who being in legends in their own minds dismiss anyone who does not immediately mirror their bigotries.

  3. oldman says:

    “oldman go back over the basics work out exactly why SSD with windows just not sane”

    I believe that we have already established in previous conversations that as far as I am concerned there is NOTHING that you can teach me about basics Mr. Microsoft VAR. Even if you did, your world view of computing is IMHO so skewed as to make any facts or advice that you offer so suspect as to render them useless to me.

    This having been said, I think it will be instructional for you if we go back to my original statement…

    “Cheap solid state drives will allow everybody to have 20 second or less boot times regardless of what they load.”

    Now sir,

    1) please indicate to me where I said that
    Cheap SSD’s are available now?

    2) Please show me where I set up a competition with linux?

    3) Please show me where I gave any indication of how I would implement SSD’s any place outside the use case at hand?

    All I did was to note that solid state drives reduce boot times.

    You were the one that supplied the conflict.
    You were the one who made all the assumptions about how I would implement SSD’s.

    For my money, this makes YOU the idiot here sir, not me.

    Whether you like it or not it is a FACT that solid state disks are entering the mainstream and becoming reliable enough to make their way into portable pc’s, and I think even you will concede that they are getting cheaper, especially if you are willing to go with a smaller disk that the 256Gb one that is in my current portable.

    It is also a fact that I have seen more blown spinning disk drives lately than I have blown SSD disks. The portables of two of my road warrior users that previously blown 6 hard drives in 2 years between have been humming along like clams for the past year and half retrofitted with a 128Gb SSD drive without a hitch.

    Of course these users have been instructed to keep his data backed up (he was already doing that based on his less than stellar experiences with spinning disk). But he couldn’t be happier with the solid state solution.

  4. Search? We GNU/Linux users have had nice indexed-search options since:

    So, one has to wonder, why was M$ more intent on raking in licensing fees instead of allowing hundreds of millions of PCs to search an index rather than polishing the bits off the hard drive? Could it be that they viewed search as a “MIPS-eating” application designed to encourage people to buy newer and faster PCs (along with new licences)?
    “BG: MS Research is THE ONE creating MIPS-sucking apps” (1995)
    see http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/282.pdf

  5. Phenom says:

    And another post lost in the spam filter…

  6. Phenom says:

    Pogson wrote: Old and out-of-date can still be better.

    Only in certain, very limited cases. The rest of the world simply moves on.

    Following your example with Vista, I will trade XP for the new search feature in the Start menu anytime. Not to mention the improved driver model, where faulty video drivers restart themselves automatically and transparently without shutting down the whole desktop manager. Add the automatic driver discovery and update.

    Vista was rather good, if you want to be honest. It’s only problem was that MS failed to define the minimum requirements properly, and OEMs tried to shoe Vista into 512MB boxes.

  7. Andrew says:

    @TED

    “…And a wonderful exercise in distortion, omission and outright lying it is, too.”

    And you’ve come to this “epiphany” how? Where exactly is the distortion, omission and lies?

  8. Phenom wrote, “This is where you are dead wrong. Files and pipes are old, out-of-date.”

    Old and out-of-date can still be better. Look at Vista, for instance. M$ added all kinds of totally unnecessary bloat to information handling and things bogged down. One can imagine some optimal data-structure for some application but then interoperability is in the tank because any other application may well prefer a different data-structure.

  9. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson

    “oiaohm, oldman knows a Hell of a lot about IT. He works for a large organization with thousands of units widely distributed. He is a pro. He’s just a bit cranky and not trusting the upstart GNU/Linux.”

    That is the point he might have been a pro in the past but he has let is skill slip. He is forgetting the basics. He might have been a pro in his day but his day is past about time he goes back to basics and starts understanding what software matches with what.

    oldman go back over the basics work out exactly why SSD with windows just not sane. Then rethink. There were other options you could have suggested that allow windows to complete with Linux without suggesting solutions that are not safe.

    Viktor
    “Don’t know… is faster boot speed worth using an inferior operating system like Linux? It seems that the only thing Linux excels at these days is booting fast. Very important.”

    That is the thing Viktor look at oldman fast boot speed is import lets forget what we are giving up to achieve it.

    For flight control systems where 1 second boot is require Linux is used. Yet this avoids solid state drives completely. Instead uses flash in cpu address space to reduce coping requirements to basically nothing.

    I can make windows boot fast safely. SSD is not the safe option. SSD is not even the fastest way to boot Linux. Flash in ram slot is the fastest way to boot linux. No disc IO calls. If you really do care about speed it is flash in ram slot.

    Really Windows 7 or 8 on SSD is using a inferior solution for speed alone. But when you are giving up data stability its insane.

    I am not forgetting what is being given up to achieve goals. Sooner or latter oldman is going to cause a big mistake if he don’t remember the limits of SSD. Heavy servers use mix of ramdrives and spinning discs for very good reasons.

  10. Phenom says:

    Pogson, a post to undig. Thanks

  11. Phenom says:

    The same things applies to applications which is what most users care about.

    Absolutely right, Pogson, I am happy to acknowledge that you start to see the light.

    However,
    The fact that everything is a file and the processes that handle files can do their thing without disturbing a user’s files helps to make the system snappy.
    This is where you are dead wrong. Files and pipes are old, out-of-date. While they have certain benefits, these are rather limited. Modern systems are designed to work with high-level data structures with automatic marshaling. Not only all these enable definition of stable API; it also becomes possible to exchange in a valid way process-specific resources – file, memory, network, whatever handles.

  12. oiaohm wrote, “oldman so you are not a pro because you don’t know your OS limits or Hardware limits.”

    oiaohm, oldman knows a Hell of a lot about IT. He works for a large organization with thousands of units widely distributed. He is a pro. He’s just a bit cranky and not trusting the upstart GNU/Linux.

  13. Fast booting is a symptom of the structure of the OS, not a singular feature. GNU/Linux is modular and tight so it is pretty easy to do things in parallel without making a mess. The same things applies to applications which is what most users care about. The fact that everything is a file and the processes that handle files can do their thing without disturbing a user’s files helps to make the system snappy.

  14. Viktor says:

    Oldman really is faster boot speed worth losing your data.

    Don’t know… is faster boot speed worth using an inferior operating system like Linux? It seems that the only thing Linux excels at these days is booting fast. Very important.

  15. oiaohm says:

    oldman so you are not a pro because you don’t know your OS limits or Hardware limits. Not knowing hardware limits is how you end up losing large amounts of data.

    “The “superiority” of linux internals isnt going to replace the functions that I would lost were I to move to using Linux. Without the software that actually gets the work done, these “features’ may as well not be there at all.”

    The fact is if by moving to SSD and the OS causes it to fail taking all you work with it the extra features you get are worthless. I did not say you could not run Windows. I am simple saying it is incorrect to think of running windows on SSD as a option. Windows is not suitable for SSD.

    Windows on ram disk with supporting spinning media is safe. Ram disk does not run into the write issue of SSD and in fact will allow system to boot even faster as long as it does not go flat and have to reload from the spinning media. Correct hardware for OS limitations gives good results.

    OS on right hardware is sane. OS on wrong hardware for it is insane.

    Only a person who does not know there tech would suggest SSD as a solution for Windows 7 or 8 system to boot from.

    Every OS has stuff its designed to work with and stuff its only partly designed to work with SSD is only partly supported by Windows.

    In fact OS X on SSD is fine same with other operating systems. So if you want to run SSD and you want it to last your options are Linux, OS X, BSD’s and Solarias and others that keep there write count down.

    The reality is Windows is not SSD friendly or safe.

    This is what is so funny. People go hey SSD will allow windows to boot as fast as Linux not allowing for the fact that Windows is not SSD compatible for primary drive.

    For a data drive that does not contain swap or temp files SSD is perfectly good to use with Windows. It will last. Boot drive SSD Windows will not last.

    oldman “geek esoterica” no its just a simple case of you being a idiot who is trying to dig you head into the sand and not understand the limitations.

    Oldman you made a Magical claim that SSD will fix the problem without understand that SSD was not an option in the first place.

    Because all you do is swap slow boot speed with fairly dependable and recoverable data-storage. For fast boot speed and non dependable data-storage and non recoverable data-storage due to the Windows doing the wrong thing with SSD drives.

    Oldman really is faster boot speed worth losing your data.

  16. oldman says:

    “oldman not one of the changes that tomshardware covered address the issue why windows breaks SSD drives long term before Linux on the same model drive.”

    Another barrage of meaningless geek esoterica backed up with your usual gratuitous insults. You miss the my point as usual, so let me try again.

    The “superiority” of linux internals isnt going to replace the functions that I would lost were I to move to using Linux. Without the software that actually gets the work done, these “features’ may as well not be there at all.

    “Its a simple case of you being a idiot as normal oldman. ”

    Thats nice Mr. Microsoft VAR, now run along to supporting those windows systems…

    And as usual you run off at the mouth about geek esoterica that avoids the real issue. That none of

  17. oiaohm says:

    oldman not one of the changes that tomshardware covered address the issue why windows breaks SSD drives long term before Linux on the same model drive.

    Its a simple case of you being a idiot as normal oldman. Microsoft added all the features to interface and operate SSD yes. But they did none of the upper operating systems changes to stop the operating system from wearing the SSD out. The upper level of Windows is still design for spinning media.

    All you need to do is get the xfs developers alteration to a VM install windows and install Linux and watch the counters for number of writes. Just in bootup clean install windows. Windows does more disc writes. As you keep on running that number gets worse and worse and worse. XFS developers like looking at how other file-systems work.

    SSD requires you to read a lot and write sparingly. Interesting enough this is exactly like running from a livecd/livedvd. This is why Linux is so good at it. In fact for long life on SSD its tempting just to place a Linux Live CD image on them.

    Old spinning media has many more write cycles before failure compared to SSD. Both media types need different treatment.

    Reading from spinning media needs to be planned and is slow? Right. So windows does a nasty cheat that suits spinning media. Load up application copy sections of application straight to swapfile so they are in the right order and on a straight read line on spinning media so speeds up loading application. Windows 7 and windows 8 still do this when installed on SSD. What is basically stupid and just wearing the SSD out without any good reason. Because reading the application from disc is fast the application is locked from alteration anyhow while it open.

    So way windows uses swap abuses SSD. The way windows runs its temp directory abuses SSD. Way a lot of applications use there own private temp directories in windows also abuses SSD. So SSD does not last running windows because there are design faults.

    Atleast two things need to be changed in Windows to make it sane to run on SSD. 1 temp directory done like linux tmpfs. 2 the swap system altered not to write unrequited optimisation method to SSD.

    Finally track down stupid coping like the registry hives themselves not running a compare before coping. Even if the last registry hive was complete identical to the current hive windows goes ahead and copies it again every boot. This stupid coping makes sense on spinning media to a point does not make sense at all on SSD. This is purely because SSD are write limited.

    This is all upper level work oldman to kernel and low level work compared to graphical interface.

    The mid level of windows suxs badly on SSD and basically shortens the SSD operational life.

    Mid level of Linux about the only area that sux is the logging system. And there are proposed replacements to that that will make it better for SSD.

    Oldman unless you know what is wrong you cannot know if it fixed. Oldman did you forget SSD is limited write.

    Mostly the stuff required to make Windows SSD sane is straight forwards. Yet Microsoft has not done it.

  18. Ted wrote, “Linux had a real chance at retail when Windows 95 was around. I remember Red Hat being on shelves in a whole section of Linux in Staples, and Linux on the cover of every PC magazine that wasn’t gaming-related. Linux blew it.”

    I never read a PC magazine and I am a computer-geek. They had a limited play. If IBM had been pushing GNU/Linux on the desktop then instead of OS/2, it might have made a difference but there was no FireFox and no OpenOffice.org at the time, flagships. M$ spent, what? A $billion advertising Lose ’95 (Stones, etc.). I don’t think GNU/Linux was ready for the desktop just then and installing GNU/Linux was just for geeks. M$ had the OEMs and ISVs on a leash. If they pushed GNU/Linux they would have been cut off from the Wintel cash-cow, so we got what we got.

  19. Hey! Ted! That’s a wonderful exercise in innuendo.

  20. Ted says:

    “The Collective “Free Knowledge for Socialism” (COLIBRIS), member of the Great Patriotic Pole (GPP)”

    NEWSFLASH!

    Socialist organization badmouths evil, immoral, proletariat-enslaving product of decadent capitalist company.

    Film at 11.

    And a wonderful exercise in distortion, omission and outright lying it is, too.

  21. Ted says:

    @Pogson;

    “It’s just a matter of time before retail shelves near you are cluttered with change.”

    Interesting that you choose the word “cluttered”. I’d say that’s one of Linux’s weaknesses – it’s too fragmented. All that choice has become a bad thing – people do not know what to choose. You’ve got Windows or Mac, and they’re fairly easy choices, but should you want Linux, which Linux? There are easily a dozen popular distros, each (some much louder than others) proclaiming themselves the best for a particular type of user, or for a function, but what happens to the newbie user who just wants to try it out and isn’t sure what they need? They just end up in a cycle of TryDistroX, get discouraged, and switch back.

    Linux had a real chance at retail when Windows 95 was around. I remember Red Hat being on shelves in a whole section of Linux in Staples, and Linux on the cover of every PC magazine that wasn’t gaming-related. Linux blew it.

    Linux had another chance when Vista was released and was nowhere near the success MS hoped it would be. It blew it again.

    Windows 8 will probably give it another chance, but all the distros will fight and fragment the market, as they all believe their way is the One True Way, and Linux will just end up getting nowhere on the desktop. Again.

    Why can’t it be accepted that Linux has already FOUND its niches; it has got things it’s genuinely good at (web servers, non-RTOS embedded, hardware appliances and the like), but desktop is not going to be one of the successes? Why the push to get it EVERYWHERE?

  22. Intel says its SSDs work with Linux.

    Intel has done lots of work on Linux to make sure there are no problems.

  23. oldman says:

    “oldman it does not change the fact that Windows is still designed to operate on the write style spinning disc media tolerates and flash media does not particularly like in fact hates.”

    Really? You may want to take a look at this.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-solid-state-drives-ssd,7717.html

    I dont know about you, but this looks like pretty good support for SSD’s to me. But then again I am not an “expert” like you Mr. Microsoft VAR.

    “Yes this might be true. Linux is lacking the surface finish but its deep internals are good. Windows has the surface finish but its over a internal that basically shot.”

    Linux is lacking more than surface finish and you know it sir. You admit this each time we get treated to one of your “its getting better” screeds.

    The bottom line is this. I and others run applications not Operating systems. You can talk geek crap about Linux’s internal superiority, but all of the “better” features don’t make up for the fact that the desktop tools still either arent there or are just plain inferior.

  24. oiaohm says:

    Viktor “10000 desktop computers and notebooks (mostly notebooks) running Windows. I don’t remember a single support ticket concerning hibernation/suspend/resume.”

    Really again it supply. You could just as simply by 10000 desktop computer and notebooks from providers of working supsend and resume.

    If you pick machine from random supply its pot luck if windows works. http://biosbits.org/ is kinda important. Lot of cases when a Linux machine is failing on suspend and resume. Windows machine will successfully appear to suspend and resume. Issues like damaged usb keys after resume and other nasty issues appear from the bios not suspending the devices properly.

    Linux detects devices not suspend properly and fails.

    Yes you would have had issues in your tickets from windows failing to suspend properly but it just does not appear as that. This usb key with first sector blanked, disc state not written properly so directories disappear and the list goes on. All side effects.

    Linux tells you where the problem is suspend and resume. Windows it just destroys other stuff that does not appear to be suspend and resume related. Yes it can be why the same machines are turning up on the tickets all the time. Run biosbits.org on them and it like hello the suspend system is defective in this one. So explaining all the random errors.

    People come to me all the time claiming MS suspend and resume works I demo a machine ask them if it works. Then point out that the bios is defective and the side effects that happen every time that that windows machine goes threw a suspend and resume and is appearing to work. Appearing to work and working are two different things.

    Linux does not do the appearing to work. The suspend either works properly or it fails.

  25. Viktor says:

    Hibernate/Suspend/Resume even on windows is not dependable either.

    Yes, it is dependable. I worked one year for systems administration at Siemens in Munich. 10000 desktop computers and notebooks (mostly notebooks) running Windows. I don’t remember a single support ticket concerning hibernation/suspend/resume.

    Just stop ridiculing yourself even more than you already have done so far, Ohio Ham.

  26. oiaohm says:

    oldman it does not change the fact that Windows is still designed to operate on the write style spinning disc media tolerates and flash media does not particularly like in fact hates.

    There is no point having solid state flash drives if you burn them out just writing temp files.

    So yes you might be able to speed windows up on solid state media does it mean you should most likely no. Physical ram drives are more tolerant to windows abuse. Even then Linux can exploit those better.

    oldman
    “And all the things that Linux doesn’t do for me make it useless at the tasks I need to accomplish with a desktop.”
    Yes this might be true. Linux is lacking the surface finish but its deep internals are good. Windows has the surface finish but its over a internal that basically shot.

    Due to the differences between windows and Linux. Linux can safely be placed on cheap solid state storage. Windows cannot.

    I am even seeing it with some of the early ones. People who have asus netbooks solid state windows installed new. The people who converted those to Linux are not having any issues yet. Those who left them on Windows the solid state drive is dieing. Its out of write cycles. The issue causing this problem is not fixed in Windows 8.

    Heck the ready boost idea of Windows is how to shorten life of USB keys. Because its doing something flash media does not particularly like. Ready boost like stuff should be done to physical ram drive or spinning media accelerated by a ram drive.

    Windows kills solid state drives. Reality will hit home soon enough as people lose there data from failing drives. So under 20 second boot on hardware not suitable to run the OS is progress I think not.

  27. oldman says:

    “Yep and lose their data. There is a difference between cheep and good quality solid state drives.”

    NO doubt, but that doesn’t change the fact that solid state disks are getting cheaper, especially if you don’t try to get the biggest one.

    “One major difference of Linux makes it better on solid state. ”

    And all the things that Linux doesn’t do for me make it useless at the tasks I need to accomplish with a desktop.

  28. oiaohm says:

    “One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn’t try and make the “ACPI” extensions somehow Windows specific.”
    Yep that is exactly what MS did. WMI is integrated in ACPI.

    Linux works at all on x86 hardware by lieing to the hardware that it is windows. Reason the ACPI Linux section does not work at all.

    Viktor
    “Do you know why Shuttleworth doesn’t stop touting the myth that Ubuntu boots super-fast? Because he knows that Hibernate/Suspend/Resume by and large sucks.”

    Wrong as normal. Ubuntu is slow booting these days compared to Fedora and others. Fasted booting Linux is used in aircraft control consoles. 1 second. Little hard to catch it due to the fact the OS image is always in the address space of the cpu so no coping from external media to ram.

    Hibernate/Suspend/Resume even on windows is not dependable either.

    Lot of motherboards produced post middle of 2011 function a lot better with suspend resume with Linux. There is a reason a better testsuite http://biosbits.org/ bios makers are no longer depending on just Microsoft provided testsuites that have been defective even for running windows.

    Before you really say that Linux cannot suspend and resume you really should down load biosbits and run the tests and see how bad of trash bios you got is. Can explain once every 14 to 30 days lockups of windows, randomish usb key destruction and so on. Really keep only the machines that pass biosbits decently after firmware updates.

    Windows users are hurt by the defective bioses in many ways that Linux is mostly not. Loss of data is quite a common one for windows users. Linux it normally comes clear there is a bios issue because the Linux kernel bails out when something is wrong. Where windows will attempt to keep on running.

    Hardware that Linux normally will not suspend and resume from is normally a sign of a lot more more problems for windows users that normally get blamed on malware when in fact they are hardware defect.

    oldman
    “Cheap solid state drives will allow everybody to have 20 second or less boot times regardless of what they load.”
    Yep and lose their data. There is a difference between cheep and good quality solid state drives.

    One major difference of Linux makes it better on solid state. temp directory never written to disc if it can be avoided. So reducing disc writes so extending solid state life. Simple feature windows still lacks.

  29. oldman says:

    “But we would be doing in from the crappy linux desktop that you would saddle us all with Robert Pogson.”

    Lets try that again…

    But we will NOT be doing it from the crappy linux desktop that you would saddle us all with Robert Pogson.

  30. oldman says:

    “It’s just a matter of time before retail shelves near you are cluttered with change.”

    Yep I’ll be using my tablet in conjunction with my desktop running windows just like I always have. Cheap solid state drives will allow everybody to have 20 second or less boot times regardless of what they load. We will all be consuming media on line legally from commercial retailers.

    But we would be doing in from the crappy linux desktop that you would saddle us all with Robert Pogson.

  31. Viktor says:

    Nice try. But it happens with Intel’s not closed-source drivers, too.

  32. asmoore82 says:

    Really interesting you should bring up hibernation/power management. Did you not know that this was something deliberately sabotaged by illegal tactics??

    http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Examples_of_use_for_sabotage#Microsoft

    Funny thing is, as others can readily attest to, they sabotaged themselves more so than they did */Linux. Suspend/Hibernate issues on */Linux are caused by closed graphics drivers. Non-free software is always the weakest link in the ecosystem.

  33. Viktor wrote, “”

    Perhaps you are doing 10X as many processes with GNU/Linux than that other OS could imagine: e-mail server, web-server, database, search engine, etc. I know my Beast does more than any desktop system I have ever seen with that other OS. In the last decade there was one time I was forced to use XP the whole year at work. I built Beast because of that. It was crippling. I could only open files with the application that wrote them, for instance… People would send me files and I would have to install something to read them. It was awful. I was once sent a file by the Director of Education. I could not even tell what application wrote it and the director could not even tell me, he was so locked-in. I had to talk with the IT guy who had installed the application for him.

  34. Andrew says:

    That proprietary closed-sourced software was chosen is against the current law.

  35. Viktor says:

    Agreed the first time I ever enjoyed trouble-free suspend and resume and hibernation was with the Debian-derivative Ubuntu 6.06, never could get various versions of Windows to reliably suspend.

    Do you know why Shuttleworth doesn’t stop touting the myth that Ubuntu boots super-fast? Because he knows that Hibernate/Suspend/Resume by and large sucks. And that goes for Linux in general. I have four computers I actively use as desktop systems. How big is the chance that suspending these computers takes close to 60 seconds? With Linux it’s 100%. What a success.

  36. oe says:

    “GNU/Linux suspends/resumes nicely here”

    Agreed the first time I ever enjoyed trouble-free suspend and resume and hibernation was with the Debian-derivative Ubuntu 6.06, never could get various versions of Windows to reliably suspend. Forget the moral, preach argument; Linux really did surpass the commercial alternatives for a Desktop solution close to 10 years ago for general transaction computing (generic office/database/low end graphical work in office suites whether from a fat or thin client) and has been better for general technical computing (barring CAD and that gap is closing quickley with the likes of Unigraphics and ProEng now ported to Linux) from about ’94 onward with the Slackware 1.0 distro.

  37. Clarence Moon wrote, “If you could get Linux to do this one simple thing, I think you would see how boot time is not anything that people care about anymore.”

    GNU/Linux suspends/resumes nicely here.

  38. Clarence Moon says:

    I am not privy to the goings on of Barnes&Nobel…

    Are you hoping we all have forgotten how you were predicting the very end of Microsoft due to the B&N counter suits that would surely destroy Microsoft’s patent arsenal for all time?

    Of course your findings of law were dismissed as mere chutzpah by the right-thinking Microsoft fans here, so it is not too useful to rub it in, but it does deserve more than a hand wave.

  39. Clarence Moon says:

    When I was a boy…

    According to your posting here, Mr. Pogson, when you were a boy, high-tech was a Lone Ranger decoder ring found in a box of Nabisco Shredded Wheat.

    30 years ago, when the IBM PC was introduced, computers loaded their OS from a floppy disk, at one time single-sided and capable of 180K bytes of storage. They went quick enough, I think. Today, you just let the thing hibernate or sleep for an instant-on condition. If you could get Linux to do this one simple thing, I think you would see how boot time is not anything that people care about anymore.

  40. Clarence Moon, not accepting the reality that things change, wrote, ” the result is the same, namely that people continue to use Windows and, unless there is some compelling reason to use something else, will always use Windows.”

    I can remember a time when people did not use that other OS and I could live long enough to see those happy times return. When I was a boy, no one wasted time re-re-rebooting or delousing PCs. I have those happy times again in my home because we don’t use that other OS. The world is catching on with */Linux. It’s just a matter of time before retail shelves near you are cluttered with change.

  41. I doubt it is practical for a government to provide/support multiple OS. Picking one is a good idea, especially if it has the language/units supported well. A government could also include bookmarks to its web sites.

  42. I am not privy to the goings on of Barnes&Nobel and M$ in the back rooms. Perhaps the deal is M$ pays them for the privilege of saying B&N took a licence…

  43. Viktor says:

    Pogson, I’m eagerly awaiting your take on the Microsoft “conspiracy” regarding Barnes & Noble. You must feel terribly betrayed.

  44. jon says:

    All well and good, but you left out COLIBRIS demanding that only the government-developed Linux distro be made available to customers. It’s unclear if they mean gov’t customers or all Venezuelan customers. Either way, it’s not a sentiment in keeping with the notion of free software.

    Who knows what the Chavez regime is doing with this. I do know from my own experience that their are times in a large organization where you buy the software that runs the applications your employees need. The zero-cost of Linux is often balanced against the retraining costs involved. Even if it’s just a routine Office clone like LibreOffice, you still need to pull people away from work for a few hours of familiarization and hand holding. That has it’s price, too. And, of course, if you already have Windows installed and paid for on, say, several hundred desktops, you won’t be in a rush to replace anything anytime soon, even if someone pays you to do it. Employees hate change and it costs money to get them to change.

    On the other hand, someone setting up something new should certainly look at Linux and see if the initial savings are significant. Support costs are probably going to be about the same because you need to pay people to support whatever OS you run.

    That said, no one I’ve ever known in business or government cared at all about the “evil Microsoft” bit. If anything, they were jealous of that company’s success and saw it as a model to be emulated. They would only pay attention to people talking about Linux if that person was a suited member of their IT contractor’s management. Having a 20-something sys admin in jeans and a black shirt going on about Linux (I’ve seen it) just convinces them Linux is some kind of pointless geek hobby.

  45. Clarence Moon says:

    The world can and does make its own software cooperatively.

    At the end of the day, Mr. Pogson, the result is the same, namely that people continue to use Windows and, unless there is some compelling reason to use something else, will always use Windows. It is the common thing to do. The most that can be said for using Linux is that it potentially saves the user some amount of money that otherwise goes to license fees due Microsoft. Even that small benefit presumes that the computer vendors do not keep it for themselves.

Leave a Reply