So in my role as the “computer guy” I was asked to help a friend buy a laptop for school. She was looking at her computer package from school and had all the usual anti-virus, firewall, and fourteen different spyware programs needed. Her network apparently makes it necessary to run Windows so I went shopping with her. We got to a few stores and ask for a laptop running XP (Vista isn’t supported because its … new) but we couldn’t find any. Online, we can’t find any that we are happy with. What frustrates me to no end is that we get no choice in the matter. Unhappily we get a 32-bit Vista system and I run the role of setting it up. I get to starting and have to accept the terrible restrictive EULA. Fine. I have to go through HP’s Personal Care system or something. It asks me for a name, email address, real address, etc etc. At this point, I get frustrated because I don’t want HP getting her information. I dislike the “send anonymous usage statistics to HP (recommended) check box. I dislike the tons of pre-installed programs that HP includes like Personal Care, AOL. ActiveX controls, etc. All this because we’re not given a choice in the matter, we don’t get to decide what we want installed, what startup programs launch (initially. I know we can msconfig the startup programs). I couldn’t even uninstall Internet Explorer (security holes that Microsoft refuses to close) so I installed Firefox 2.0.0.5 and blocked IE from accessing the web. The frustrating matter is the lack of choice. What frustrates me moreover is the programs that request information about us to install. My email address inevitable becomes something along the lines of user@fakeemailadress.fake.
When Microsoft's Windows XP went gold back in the fall of 2001, the platform was, practically speaking, the only desktop operating system game in town. But is this town now big enough for Windows and Linux?
When XP first appeared, Microsoft Office had won the productivity suite wars, Internet Explorer had driven Netscape out of the Web browser market it had pioneered, and Linux, while beginning to gain steam as a server platform, was a desktop platform that only a true geek could love.
Today, OpenOffice.org has grown into a viable competitor to Microsoft Office, with enough clout to have forced Microsoft toward a dramatically more open file format strategy. Firefox has risen from the ashes of Netscape and–along with Opera, Safari and other smaller browser players–is steadily dismantling Internet Explorer's market share.
And the Linux desktop now boasts two major desktop environment options, GNOME and KDE, that have grown slick enough to deny Microsoft's newest client operating system, Windows Vista, anything near the prima facie usability advantage that Windows enjoyed against the circa-2001 Linux desktop. Linux has certainly been a worthy competitor to Windows on the server side, but can Linux really challenge Windows as an enterprise desktop alternative?
To continue reading this article by Jason Brooks at eWEEK.com, go here.
Before everyone goes to arms over the title, consider this: Linux options are much more than just the desktop environment. Linux remains largely entrenched in the server realm, along with substantial growth in the mobile markets as well.
The big question that remains is why we are seeing this? Over the past few months, I have seen ample speculation bouncing back and forth as to where the attraction is with other projects, and after some searching, it appears that the answer is not what you might think.
Developers Jump Ship, Platform and Form Factor. So where are the development teams heading off to? Nontraditional client devices. And by nontraditional, I'm referring to mobile devices, set top devices and other non-PC appliances. Some people have even argued that we are on the verge of seeing an embedded explosion much like the one we first saw with PC-only a short time ago? I'm not in a position to answer these questions at this point, yet base on my recent research, it appears more likely than ever before.
What About Migration to Linux and OS X? It has been my experience working with developers that they run on two core principles: they love what they do and they'd rather be paid as much as possible. Granted, as obvious of a statement as this might strike you at first, consider the following: has recent development for the Mac, Windows and Linux development been as fun as it once was? Based on the comments of those developers I have spoken to, the appeal has all but vanished. Between competition with one another (closed source development) and the quest for funds becoming more challenging, many have simply opted out for the fruitful pastures of alternative development landscapes.
The cost of upgrading to Windows Vista is forcing more organizations to evaluate alternatives including Apple Macs and Linux for the desktop.
Half of silicon.com's 12-strong CIO Jury IT user panel said the Vista factor is likely to lead to an increase in Macs on the desktop in the corporate computing environment.
That echoes the comments of Capital & Regional CIO Richard Snooks who said in an interview with silicon.com this week that given the cost of being "railroaded" by Microsoft onto Vista, Macs are now "smarter money".
Nicholas Bellenberg, IT director at publisher Hachette Filipacchi UK, said his company runs lots of Macs with good cross-platform compatibility with Microsoft applications–though he added Entourage on the Mac doesn't match Outlook on the PC for functionality.
Bellenberg said open source is another serious alternative on the desktop. He said: "What I would also expect is that there will also be more people trying out Ubuntu Linux and the like. If fellow CIOs haven't checked this out, they should do. Perhaps it's obvious but the quality of open source desktop software has come on no-end since I last reviewed it."
But Gavin Whatrup, group IT director at marketing agency Creston, said the cost of Apple hardware is still a barrier preventing more widespread deployment of Macs.
He said: "With a mid-range Mac still being approximately 33 per cent more expensive than its Dell equivalent, don't expect a mass migration to the Mac any time soon. OS X may be improving but it still has a long way to go to be as heterogeneously robust as Windows XP."
Graham Yellowley, director of technology services at investment bank Mitsubishi UFJ Securities International, said the mass population will stay with the PC due to the number of applications that work with the hardware and operating system.
Microsoft is trying to push their inferior OO-XML office file format specification as a standard. The existing ODF office file format standard is superior and is already implemented by all major office suites (except by MS Office). The OO-XML specification has big problems and is designed to be hard to implement. For example to be able to implement “autoSpaceLikeWord95” or “useWord97LineBreakRules” you would have to reverse-engineer these proprietary applications.
Sign the petition and say NO to OO-XML.
Chris Pirillo sparked off a little controversy last week when he announced that he was “upgrading” from Windows Vista to Windows XP. It started with a post on Pirillo’s blog entitled Windows Vista I’m Breaking Up With You.
Apparently lacking anything better to write about, a number of mainstream media outlets picked it up as a story and the usual controversy surrounding the opinions of a high profile blogger ensued.
But Pirillo’s decision to move back to XP has some strong weight behind it and having experienced many of the same issues in my own limited use of Vista, I would, if I still had a copy of XP, probably move back myself.
Here’s a few of Pirillo’s complaints:
- My scanner doesn’t really work (Hewlett-Packard Laserjet 3052). HP hasn’t caught up with support yet, and software updates won’t be available until SP1 time-frame. The software works like a charm in XP – amazingly well, as a matter of fact.
- Windows Movie Maker crashes on a regular basis.
- My IPFax software doesn’t work (the driver will likely never be updated to be Vista-compliant). Never, EVER caused me a problem in XP.I need this software to work, and dual-booting to use this is not an option.
With much of the 'yawn-fest' surrounding Vista's release, Microsoft has had their hands full trying to keep their brand from being seen as becoming the digital version of K-Mart for IP properties. What makes this all the more tragic is that Microsoft does have some great product releases, such as Surface, Xbox 360 and of course, Windows Mobile. But this becomes back page news when we hear about them allegedly paying bloggers to speak their advertising copy as if it will carry more weight coming from "the community."
Microsoft's "People-Ready" Ad Campaign: Can't Buy Us This Way. To be clear, I have no problem with Federated Media receiving revenue from Microsoft. But where many of us feel the line is crossed is when we see otherwise trusted bloggers reading off Microsoft-speak as if it is coming from their hearts. It proved to be rather disturbing for most people who have found out that pockets were being lined for the effort.
Why does Microsoft do this to themselves? Do they not understand that if they stand firmly behind those products that they produce that have been successful, that an honest community can be built around it? In some ways, it seems like ever since Robert Scoble left his post as Microsoft's Chief Evangelist, their PR efforts have really fallen into the toilet.
On Friday July 13th, INCITS V1 met via teleconference for 3 hours but failed to reach a 2/3 consensus necessary to recommend an "Approval, with comments" position on Microsoft "Office Open XML" (OOXML) document specification.
V1 is a Technical Committee of INCITS, an industry forum accredited by ANSI for recommending the US position on ISO/IEC JTC1 ballots. On April 2nd the INCITS Executive Board asked V1 "to coordinate and develop the U.S. recommended position" on OOXML and to return this recommendation by July 17th. After several meetings, including a two-day face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC in late June, and the recording of over 300 member-submitted comments, V1 voted last Friday.
The initial motion of "Approval, with comments" failed by one vote to receive the 2/3 necessary to pass the motion. Further motions of "Disapproval, with comments" and "Abstention, with comments" also failed. ("Disapproval, with comments" is also sometimes called "Conditional Approval" since it signals that the committee would change its vote to Approval if the concerns raised in the comments were addressed in a revised version of the submission). The result is that V1 will report out a large list of technical comments for consideration by INCITS, but will not report a consensus position on this controversial ISO "Fast Track" submission.