do you use Windows or Mac? and which version of Windows or Mac do you use?
or are you a Linux user? :P
Printable View
do you use Windows or Mac? and which version of Windows or Mac do you use?
or are you a Linux user? :P
there's only one answer to this!
Vista? :P
Really need a multiple choice poll, I (like many others) use more than one OS.
If you just want primary OS, it is currently Windows Vista Business.
how on earth d'ya set up a multiple choice poll?
Multiple operating systems for me.
Main Pc running Vista Ultimate
Macbook Pro running Leopord (was upgraded from Tiger) + Xp on seperate partition.
Older Pc's got Ubuntu running on it.
So think ive got all bases covered there :P
sorry, looks like i can't change a poll into multiple choice
ah well.. we can just have people write their secondary OSs in here :P
or only vote their main OS..
and i'm quite surprised that Vista is the main OS atm..
I regularly use Windows, OSX and Linux.
Radio buttons = inappropriate for this poll.
Vista home computers. XP on work lappy.
everything but OSX at present.
OSX offers nothing over free alternatives, and has no one in their right mind would use it for business.
Its worth noting thou, at home its now only vista in a non virtual machine
The whole lot, VMWare workstation FTW ;)
XP MCE 05 on Media PC (swithering over sticking Vista on... know as soon as I do I'll regret it)
Vista Premium on Main PC (well, will be, when I connect all the bits together :surprised:)
Vista Premium on Laptop
Leopard user here :) Much happier than I was running Vista.
Windows XP, mainly for gaming and non critical work I suppose :D
Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista and Mac Tiger for regular use. Its not a single choice question.
Tiger on my main computer(laptop) and Ubuntu on an older desktop. Win XP home on VMWare on that computer, but I never use it, however I use it frequently on university computers.
i use Mac OS X and Windows XP
XP (atm main use), Leopard, and linux (various distros).
Vista Ultimate 64Bit.
Mixture of XP and Vista. Vistra preferred though. Linux for a couple of months on the eee before I replace it with XP.
Linux user here. Would love to try OS/X but can't really justify the expense of a new iMac. Wouldn't personally touch Vista with a very long barge pole.
Im using Best of both worlds... as im using Dual boot XP and Vista.
Im finding Vista 64 Nice and Quick on my Rig and a bit more up to date, but could never get rid of XP for compatibility is still far better Vista for a lot of H/W & S/W.
Voted for the OS i now use most = Vista.... But XP is far from being replaced in my eyes....
Ubuntu ftw! Having said that I am writing this on an OSX Macbook. Definitely no Windows for me these days.
Vista business for working - just because visual studio doesn't run on Mac OS X lol. I also use vista for games that don't run on OSX, or that prefer windows (CSS, BF2 etc)
Max OS X (OSX 10 doesnt exist, the X is the 10) for everything else - email, web browsing, WoW etc..its just a nice environment to use, and while everything definitely does not "just work", it tends to work nicely enough to keep me happy :)
XP (most of the time) and Linux here. I don't think i've ever used the Max OS... ever
Mac OSX most of the time but XP/Vista because of work
i still think that mac osx is a damn fine os, not one reload since i unpacked this imac from the box with the exception of upgrading to leopard
Vista 64 for me.
linux for me at home
technically I spend more time with windows, sitting in front of my work laptop for 8 hours a day,
but spiritually I'm with linux :)
Really bad poll :laugh:
I've only ever used Windows (from 98se onwards). Hang on, I lie. I've used a really REALLY old mac a few times, I'm talking waayyy back in the eariler 90s. The ones you used to switch on from the side of the keyboard?
Windows Vista Ultimate here. Finally dropped XP completely last year, and am currently testing Windows 7 beta. :) No iCrap here! :P
Windows xp64
Currently I'm using Vista as my main OS... Mostly because the idiots at freedesktop.org and the UIfags are screwing up the Linux desktop something shocking. And I'm still pissed at Linus for scrapping the ataraid subsystem.
XP at work, and on my main machine at home.
OS X 10.5 on my Macbook
Soon to be OS X 10.6 on a shiny new Mac Pro (or whatever the new one will be) to replace my main home machine.
Macbook may be replaced, or just upgraded to 10.6 (unsure yet)
Bring on windows 7... hope its as good as they say
Plex? You could argue that it's 'just' a port of XBMC, but when it's hooked up with a Logitech Harmony One, it's pretty amazing. The app store is pretty cool too.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Depends on your business surely? Not having to maintain an A/V solution etc would save a fair bit of cash, plus it's built on BSD, so implements a sensible security policy.Quote:
and has no one in their right mind would use it for business.
That being said, I use OSX for general use (Word processing, Internet etc etc etc)
Vista for gaming
Linux for fileserving
Each has their own good and bad points.
Wooh thread revival!
Plex < MediaBrowser.
No one would use it for business is a generalisation. The A/V market that dosen't want to use premire on windows, or the really bespoke stuff with custom keyboards....... Wow, thats a big market there!
Does it account for 0.01% of the total sales? Sorry i forgot to recognise it!
Vista isn't best for gaming, a Xbox/PS3 is surely?
Linux is awful at fileserving, its a mess of standard that bites you in the arse when you want to have a 'watcher' on a file on a network share.
OSX has useless business support, its horrifically expensive, and they don't seam to try to sell service contracts!
My point about OSX offering nothing over the alternatives is true, the way to claim i'm spouting crap would be to talk about Coco or any of their 'api enhancmenets' not trying to pigeon hole things!
Linux, awful at fileserving? lol.
There you go, fixed that for youQuote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Merely pointing out, each has their own strengths and weaknesses. Like I said I have used pretty much every OS floating around. Each has there own strengths and weaknesses.Quote:
The A/V market that dosen't want to use premire on windows, or the really bespoke stuff with custom keyboards....... Wow, thats a big market there!
Does it account for 0.01% of the total sales? Sorry i forgot to recognise it!
Depends on the game. Personally I reckon Vista is better for FPS/RTS and Xbox/PS3 is better at platformy type games. All depends on your view point of course. Again, it depends on what you're doing with them.Quote:
Vista isn't best for gaming, a Xbox/PS3 is surely?
Well I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one (you're wrong) :) .Quote:
Linux is awful at fileserving....
Horrifically expensive? It ships with the hardware?Quote:
OSX has useless business support, its horrifically expensive
http://www.apple.com/support/product...r_sw_supt.htmlQuote:
and they don't seam to try to sell service contracts!
:confused:Quote:
My point about OSX offering nothing over the alternatives is true, the way to claim i'm spouting crap would be to talk about Coco or any of their 'api enhancmenets' not trying to pigeon hole things!
I still maintain that out of the box, OSX is better at giving novice users a more integrated, secure and more difficult to break environment.
Work laptop - XP Professional
Home laptop - Mac OSX
It depends what you mean by file serving i suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Its just i'd like to see someone easily setup a clustered share.
Or easily allow for remote file monitors and other fun things that cheap linux NAS's break.
If you mean FTP, then yes its quite excellent.
Look at how much it would cost for a SMALL business set up of say 300 desktops, 30 spares, 15 servers. Its not cheap.Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
Now look at someone like HP or Dell, how much money they spend on advertising, and pushing their brand. Apple don't seam to take on business users seriously, this could easily explain their market share been less than 1%?Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
Better than what? Tried Ubuntu lately, everything out of the box works fine, soon as you want to do anything like get a scanner to work, you find out how buggered you are. Because of the monopoly reason that everyone developes their stuff to work against windows, virus writers not withstanding, it is the simplest choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
But 'cheap Linux fileservers' are not enterprise type devices so you aren't comparing like with like - not many home SME users (at whom the cheap Linux NAS boxes are aimed at) need clusteringQuote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Yes SFTP is excellent (as is SSH) - and I believe that you can buy a port of the SFTP server for Windows... - but then why buy buy it when the original is available open source? But Windows users are fortunate in that they can get Putty, so they aren't completely left out! Linux is nothing if not inclusive!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
And all these tools are available on the the Mac platform too!
Note carefully that i didn't say that there where shining panacia's of file server.
I've a lot of hate, and criticisms to go round.
(for instance right now been told that i'll have to wait till 6pm to get some FX history back..... How can it take that F**King long, i can walk over to where FX sit, and ask them for the data faster)..........
Neither is Windows? So you're advocating using what?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Right, so they don't spend money on advertising, but that's not what you said. You said that businesses would be mad to deploy on OSX? How does advertising hook into that?Quote:
Now look at someone like HP or Dell, how much money they spend on advertising, and pushing their brand. Apple don't seam to take on business users seriously, this could easily explain their market share been less than 1%?
You can go to Dixons or PC World and buy a Mac compatible scanner. You plug it in, and it will talk directly to iPhoto or something similar. Plug in a camera, and it'll even fire up iPhoto for you and ask if you'd like to import the photos. Drop in a CD and it'll open up iTunes. Log in to iChat, and the video camera will become live.Quote:
Better than what? Tried Ubuntu lately, everything out of the box works fine, soon as you want to do anything like get a scanner to work, you find out how buggered you are. Because of the monopoly reason that everyone developes their stuff to work against windows, virus writers not withstanding, it is the simplest choice.
You can't do that with Ubuntu. You can do bits of that with Windows, but it's not as intuitive. You're talking about all sorts of stuff from the perspective of someone who is a coder/geek.
XP64, Vista x64 Ultimate, Win 7 x64 Ultimate and OSX Leopard all multi-booting...
Plus VMWare virtual machines running a mix of 32bit Windows XP and various Linux distros (32 and 64 bit)
Windows and Ubuntu for me. I have nothing against macs, I just don't think I'd use any of the features it has over windows.
Vista running on my main rig, XP on another, Ubuntu on an old laptop.
You can do a lot of that with Linux (I don't know about Ubuntu specifically) but I plug my camera in, it mounts and an app opens to allow me to import. I plug my Ipod in - and app opens and allows me to load music/podcasts etc into it. I hover over a desktop music icon - and it plays. Similarly with CDs and DVDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
As it is a function of the gui, I would expect that most Linux distros will do it.
Just because it says Mac compatible on the box doesn't mean it is IN the box. Also you tried ringing tech support for something to do with Mac or is compatible, they go errr what?
I love the look of Macs. I am very tempted to buy a MacBook Pro. But I am always put off when I have to do something on my dads iMac (10.5). Nothing makes sense, things are in odd places or hidden. I end up having to Google where things are. I wish MS kept Office the same as the Windows version though.
Been using Windows 7 now for a while and I like it. Be either getting it on my MSDN subs or an OEM with a hardware upgrade to my PC. As for the Macbook Pro, for the same money I can get a Dell XPS with Windows, Office and Adobe Premier/Photoshop Elements and have a wealth of games at my disposal.
The only businesses that OSX is best for are ones with arty-farty types. Anyone else that wants to get proper work done either runs their business from *nix, windows or a mixture of the 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
Linux is useful for single specific applications. It's rubbish for running a network.
Windows Vista Business at work (goes to windows 7 next week).
Home is Windows vista business on Laptop, 7 on Desktop, A Windows home server, OSX10.5, Windows XP and unbuntu. Oh and 2k8 HyperV server running all sorts of wierdness!
Except that whole "internet" thangQuote:
Originally Posted by badass
It really is at that volume, hell once your beyond 10 CALs and into the world of Volume Licensing. I'm going out on a limb here and saying that you've never been involved in setting up a business IT stratergy, or even had to use one that had more than 1 site! OSX has little in the way of tools built into it for helping maintenance of the network, and there is sod all 3rd party tools in comparison to the alternatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
If your going to build your business on a technology, you need to be certain that you as a client are going to continue reciving the service, at the level you expect. You have to have confidence that you are an important part of the business. Apple squander millions on their advertising, whilst the adds like we've seen in the last week are sloppy and full of fail, they used to have a clean slick simple message. It always neglected the businesses. Why buy into someones propertry junk, if you are not an important area that they are obviously going to be continuing to support! This is REALLY important, and must be taken into consideration by any business.Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
You can do all of it in windows, every single bit. You can also in Ubuntu netbook edition, i jam in a SD card, it opens it up, and views the pictures. The only difference is that when i open skype/msn my camera isn't active, not until i switch it on (i like the idea that its physically power starved when not in use!).Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
The scanner point is interesting, whilst i was at Heathrow waiting for my delayed departure, i was watching someone who was moderately geeky buy a netbook, she choose a £200 offering, and then wanted a webcam, dixons actually had a member of staff who said that it was easy as long as you bought the right one, and promptly used that to upsell her. Thing is she will have gotten a set up that worked!
As soon as you stray away from everything is written for the monopoly that is windows, be it to mac, linux or even Acorn (yup Castle are still going apparently!) you have to have either knowledge or good sales people.
This i think is actually an intresting point against linux.Quote:
Originally Posted by directhex
Look at the fricken mess, wasted money that is the internet! If you where SME who owned that mess you would be desperately trying to cut cost, centeralise managment of the boxes etc.
Linux when used properly provides a very solid (and inflexible) collection of unix apps. The anoyance is there are so damn many that do pretty much the same job. Given the way that the people who maintan these things love to have spats with each other, linux has proved time and time again in my industry that it is very expensive in the knowledge skillset required.
A company I've worked for has just fired 30% of its staff. All the expensive network contractors have gone, and you've got desktop support staff maintaining the servers. The solaris systems haven't been working properly since that guy went. All the windows stuff is still fine.
That is the ultimate problem with the word linux, it covers such a wide variety of things, each one different because the developer wanted to do it "best" in his mind. This means that a tremendous knowledge is required to do very simple tasks.
(that said my personal dedicated web server runs debian, it has been compramised once, and that was because i was stupid enough to use pearl, and not spend every waking second of my life poised and ready to update a critical flaw. But it still is running linux rather than windows, purely because serving a very low volume of files, apache just fricken works fine.)
I was under the impression that the Google search engine runs on a few thousand networked Linux machines, so it can't be that poor.
Linux for me, I don't game, its free and my 3 Ubuntu machines are rock solid stable (one crash out of 3 machines since last September, happened whilst streaming media from my NAS) I never have to restart it except when I gets a Kernal update.
Updates are intergrated, massive one-stop software repositories, no antivirus needed, I've found it great for all my home needs plus it zooms along faster than when I was using MS on the same machine.
Forgot to add the work corporate in front of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by directhex
Linux is utterly useless for running a corporate network compared to windows server 2003 and 2008.
Although I wouldn't say linux runs the internet. A lot of ISP's mailservers and web hosting, but most of the real internet is run by specialist hardware with its own propietry firmware.
Care to quantify that?Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
And domain servers, and routers, and financial transaction servers, and time servers, and file mirrors, and web archiving crawlers, etc, ad nausium.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
You'd be suprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
XP Pro SP2. Mainly due to the fact most apps work on it over Vista and to use OSX, need to give money to the money grabbers at apple -.-
Find me a solution based on linux where:Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
1. I can pay a yearly fee for an operating system that the average office worker can use straight away without expensive training for the vast majority of users.
2. There is a large pool of engineers available with experience in troubleshooting desktop issues for £25,000pa or less (in the home counties) that actually have enough social skills to not annoy the users.
3. The server operating systems are compatible the majority of software that most businesses need. Things like book keeping software, groupware etc that our users can intuitively use.
4. The server operating systems can easily be used for desktop imaging.
5. There is a sizable pool of non fundamentalist nutter IT engineers available from local/regional support companies that can supply holiday cover.
6. Has a simple to setup centralised update management system that comes free with the server OS.
7. Has an office suite that can open Office 2007 xlsx and docx files.
Like I said, linux has its place, but it's not running an office network. I don't care if it's technically better at anything, in reality it costs too much to use.
Other version of Windows for me - Win 7 RC. :rockon2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Hmm - they used to say that about IBM...
They used to say "no one got sacked for buying IBM"Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Pretty different I'd say TBH :)
Win 7 here too. Very pleased with it so far
Regards
That is indeed what they said, on the basis that it was the safe option - nothing outstanding, but safe, and although there were other products available, IBM pretty much had the monopoly - which is pretty much where Microsoft is now. Buit when you are at the top of the heap, there is only one way to go...Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Look at IBM now - a completely different business from what it was 30 years ago.
On a different (but related) theme...
The interesting (to me) analogy is the one of malware - not for nothing termed viruses, and biodiversity - or diversity of the operating system. With a large population of one species, a virus can spread unchecked, until immunity is acquired, when a mutaion causes similar damage. Other species (operating systems) remain immune or less affected. That isn't grounds for complacency - an appropriate virus could cause equal damage to populations of Macs or Linux machines although the lower population density (just as in the biological case) could limit the spread of infection.
That isn't going to be a cause for Windows to die out, but it is an argument for corporations to keep a mix of operating systems in their computing network - reliance on one particular platform can (and has) caused severe disruption in the past and will again at some point.
This is a good point, i've worked at a bank which had linux terminals as seperate systems for just DR issues. Thing is no one really liked them, most probably because they where used to NT4, this and with the collapse of one of the counterparties ment that there where fresh out of software that could run on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
The reason why most companies keep all the terminals the same is because the cost benefits are hudge, and the risks are very limited.
Ubuntu, and it doesn't even cost a thing, unless you want to donate, or buy support contracts off Canonical, for whatever bizarre reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Or have a small pool of engineers who can run a corporate network and actually know what they're doing for around £50,000pa, would be a better idea, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
*tick* More collaboration software than you can shake a stick at. And several powerful book keeping packages too.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Since before the big bang.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
The above group in answer 2 don't need much holiday time, and the rest of the team are competent enough to cope with a collogue being off for a few weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Out of the box.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Neither are standardised documents formats, ODF is the standard format. Not that either are designed for sending to people. But if you insist, OpenOffice can import Office 2007 formats.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Only if you don't know what you're doing. See answer 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
aidanjt, have you actually ever seen a large company running linux?
Because my bull**** detector is ringing.
Desktop support people paid £50k.... are you fricken nuts? These people are front lines, whos job often involves saying "press caps lock, its on the left, its a strange shape.....". The time demand is most often users been fools.
Then add in the fact you just say users can work ubuntu. They fricken can't. It requires training, going from XP to Vista requires training, hell going between XP with themes to 2k like view requires training. Users are all to often fricken stupid.
You're complaining at my answers because your company keeps hiring people with an IQ of a rock?
Oh, and note I said "engineers", not 'tech peons'. This is the second time today you've purposely cherrypicked what I've said (wrongly) to make an argument against me.
No your really not understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
At my company we've got desktop goons paid £25k, we've then got the guru's who are paid 4 times that in basic alone.
We only have 2 gurus for 4 sites, we have 5 desktop goons in london alone.
This is because desktop goons should be that with an IQ of a rock, because compared to the end users they are the first line. As i said spend most of their times dealing with caps lock confusions (which given that the OS puts up a warning bubble is an amazing achivement).
This is a company with 10bn+ under management (ie 2% fee of that to run all the companies non performance related costs) and ~250 employees. Its typical of a financial firm.
I would like to know which company is spending £50k per year on its desktop goons. Really i'd be tempted to retire there!
Remember, kids: Caps Lock keys under Loonicks are much more complicated than under Windows. Knowledge of text consoles may be required for operation.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by directhex
Interwebs sarcasm at it's finest.
They look different on the log on warning no?Quote:
Originally Posted by directhex
Any change, be it to Vista or win7 or Ubuntu (hahaha, like that would ever happen) is costly.
There is indeed no windows logo next to the big text marked "Your caps lock key is ON"Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
True enoughQuote:
Any change, be it to Vista or win7 or Ubuntu (hahaha, like that would ever happen) is costly.
windows vista here but dont like it but. only a bit till windows 7 comes out
No. Normal people cannot use Ubantu. "power users" stand a far better chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Linux based netbooks have 4 times the returns of Windows netbooks. That says it all.
A small pool of engineers will be able to hold 4 different phone calls at once, all day every day? Or have you never worked on a helpdesk?Quote:
Or have a small pool of engineers who can run a corporate network and actually know what they're doing for around £50,000pa, would be a better idea, no?
5 phone calls each at the same time?Quote:
The above group in answer 2 don't need much holiday time, and the rest of the team are competent enough to cope with a collogue being off for a few weeks.
This is the thing Linux zealots don't get. That is irrelevant. A business that keeps getting documents from external parties in propietry Microsoft formats doesn't give a **** about Linux zealots whining about open formats and standards.Quote:
Neither are standardised documents formats, ODF is the standard format. Not that either are designed for sending to people.
That's more like it.Quote:
But if you insist, OpenOffice can import Office 2007 formats.
No.Quote:
Only if you don't know what you're doing. See answer 2.
I use Windows 7 RC on my desktop, and windows xp home pro on my Eee... I also occasionally use Ubuntu 9.04 NBR on my Eee from a flash drive, which is really quite polished now I have to say. Had everything working straight off a live usb with no problems.
@Agent: Don't Google and Lucient Technologies run linux full time? (Lucient I'm pretty sure do, my mate's step dad used to work for them). There are a fair few research facilities that run linux full time as well including the Large Hadron Collider folks, who have their own custom version.
Yes, as do many other very big (and thus, profitable) corporates. Including a not so insignificant proportion of the market trading sector. It also massively dominates the embedded device markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zadock
So, I think we can safely dismiss the "ZOMG LOONIX COSTS TOO MUCH TO RUN" and "ZOMG LOONIX IS TOO COMPLEX" arguments peddled out by the Microsoft marketing dept. That campaign was banned by the Advertising Standards Authority for a reason.
My old man is not a computer wizz by any stretch of the imagination. When he was growing up the toilet was the field out the back, tissue paper was doc. leafs, lighting was an oil filled lantern, and their entertainment center was a huge radio, with a battery that had to be carried into the nearest town to get charged. So, with that in mind, when I say he can use Ubuntu, that should tell you one thing. If you can't figure out Ubuntu, then you're either a) in a coma, or b) clinically braindead.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Another Microsoft strawman argument. The Linux 'distributions' bundled with most netbooks suck hard. They're cripple/jailware with limited functionality. You're comparing that, to a fully fledged OS. Furthermore, most of these have tiny/cheapass SSDs, compared to XP-based netbooks which usually come with a more reasonable performing HDDs. And I'm sure Microsoft cooked the 'return' numbers in their favour, also.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
That small pool of engineers would spend more time tackling the reasons for the calls. They'd have most of the actual technical faults elimitated. And they're more likely to hold 'helpgroup' sessions to train out the common PEBKAC errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
You're missing the point. If everyone keeps peddling documents in a non-document exchange format, then it'll always happen. As for standards not mattering, if the internet was run like document exchanges, every new router firmware would break the internet, different brand routers wouldn't talk to each other, neither would mail servers, web servers, etc, ad nausium.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Read this for more info, and perhaps use it to educate people who send you MSO/OOXML documents: http://en.nothingisreal.com/wiki/Ple...Word_documents
I like the idea we can all move to open formats for office word - at least in a perfect world that's possible. Reality is probably very different, certainly there's very little I can do about it in my company.
I will say one thing on the whole Window/linux arguement - I think Windows does do 'noddy user' rather well, and the built in help is really very good indeed (I dream of having documentation like that for our product). It's interesting to note too, that distros ape Windows a heck of a lot thesedays, whereas OSX really doesn't (although I guess 7's new taskbar..). I think linux has come on a long way in recent years but it's still (in my eyes) not really a 'big thing' on the desktop - certainly not in the sense that we were all told it would be 10 years ago. I've nothing against it mind (hey, i've got the unbuntu sticker on my monitor and everything!) - I just don't have any use for it at home or work (the former because licences cost me nothing and windows does more for my part. needs, the latter because there just isn't any pull from out customers for anything but Windows).
Name them. I used to work for a certain german institute which shall remain nameless. They have been withdrawing their linux terminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Where does this happen? The reason these technical faults are magically eliminated again shows you've no fricken idea. Have you ever sat foot inside a company, or had to have one of the projects your managing depend on an internal IT team? Please give some details so i can understand where your coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Yes because telling all your counterparties to change their working pratices is a GOOD idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Yahoo be one. NYSE being another, much of Wall St. is following suite. Need I go on? Not that it'd satisfy your irrational Linux hate anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Erm, how did you derive at that notion? And where did I use the word 'magical'? "They'd have" implies work/effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Yes, and yes. I was with an internal IT team helping in-house developers fix their code for integration with our network when I was with an electronic engineering SME. Are you going to make a point some time?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
It surely is.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
yahoo is political, NYSE is a bespoke internal system, kind of like bloomberg, its not a market maker...Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
There was one big wall street player that heavily used linux and unix in general, its now been half slotted into a certain japanse bank and BC!
Shall we go down the check list of big companies (FTSE would be easier for me, as i know more people who work there) and see what their running.
There is no trading bank in london that dosen't use windows for the majority of its desktops.
What issues would it fix, please list them? You make it sound like there is infanate upside, with no downside. I think your risk perception is wrong, and i think your reward perception is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
so an EE firm, how easy do you recon it would be for them to make the change? How much do you think it would cost? Are the apps they use going to run as is? It took me ages to even begin to learn how to work Orcad at uni, the cost in productivity of a workforce changing tool because its not available any more is hudge!Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
You wouldn't get in a position where your able to talk to counterparties if you think like that, if you ever want to make good money in the business world, loose the "i know better than you" attitude when it comes to a business you know nothing about, your counterparties will rape you otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Did I, or did I not, say "market trading"? And I don't care if "Yahoo is politicial", it's a valid example of a company which successfully runs Linux for trading and finances.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Time, money, security, and experienced administrator's sanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
No. I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm dismissing ridiculous Linux myths, FUD, and flat out lies, nothing more. Again, with the strawman arguments. Enough already.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
The apps they used worked spot on natively, in Wine, and Dosbox, and we kept a few Win2k boxes around for experimental purposes. And all it cost was my time, since I worked on the infra. part in the lab, and rolled out over weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Yes, TheAnimus 'no's best. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
There's a difference between an "I know better than you" attitude (as you're coming off now, as a matter of fact), and disseminating useful information to your business partners. It may be a fine line, but tact is key.
*Note*: I wont be bothering to respond to future stupid "LOLZ LOONIX IZ T3H SUX" type arguments.
Yahoo would run it even if it cost ten times more! The financial stuff they do is also childsplay, they are no DBK or proshe! The thing is this is a tiny fraction of the market for desktops. Its market share is minuite. This is such an obserable fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
How? From my experiance of administrating them myself (okay, a lot has changed in 6 years) and paying people to administer them, i've only ever had a linux box compromised (thanks to pearl). Never a windows one, and the muppeter who does the windows one costs less too! Windows is piss easy to administer for 90% of tasks, there are a 10% where the design makes it a real bitch, this is where linux often shines. Maintaining a secure windows system is rediculasly easy, pre SP2 it was hard because out of the box config everything was turned on. But now its so damn easy, i don't see how any time could possibly be saved.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
But how can you run half the apps without having emulation like wine, hudge configuration cost surely? Compared to how nicely XP just works, the ease at which SMS can be configured and controled, with people like Sophos doing excellent anti-spam/virus software that is a joy to administer!Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
To me emulation (and you will see this stance in the win7 emulation of windows bits) is an administrative cost. This comes from me not having to do the administration myself, but been impacted when people feck it up (the joy of been in systems architecture is you have to think about the costs of every 'great peice of software' you think of using, i would love to name n shame a certain column store database)!Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
I'm not trying to say i know best, just that there is a reason why people are using what they are using, and sending formats in the way they are. To say they are wrong with not idea of how they work is going to make you wrong rather swiftly.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Hey b0redom,Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
i found linux better at that type of thing.
when i plugged my phone in to linux it instatly sorted it all out it even had the driver to allow me to connect to the internet using my phone. to get that functionality on windows i have to install software from the sony ericsson website yet on linux it just works.
I have yet to connect a printer to linux. but i have added a printer shared by windows and in around 20seconds i could print to it.
on an unrelated note to the above: yahoo use Freebsd for their mail servers not Linux. but they may use Linux as well I dono.
@ TheAnimus,
I find it quite funny people need retraining after going from 2k to xp.
I can picture it thou.
how many times have linux servers crashed compared to windows servers?
im quite interested in that.
windows 7 takes around 8gb disc space without any software installed.
thats one thing that pisses me off about windows operating systems each new releease takes more and more disc space.
windows 7 take slightly less than vista but still alot more than Linux does for the same amount of applications.
i would assume windows servers are the same in that regard. more disc space= more time it takes to image and restore.
You would be amazed how stuck in ways people get. A place where i used to work we had a multi PHd'd Physicist who couldn't work XP going from NT4, he just hated everything and refused to give it a fair chance. You also get some dodgy apps that people have which make assumptions no apps should make about location of config files etc. Even a re-install can break those, let alone a version change. There are massive costs involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by lodore
Linux servers not crashing, i would say introduce them to this bizarre database vendor one of the teams here is using. The vendor insisted it had to be dodgy hardware, all the hardware was swapped, even differen't UPS. The max uptime is about 2 weeks on those, then segfault. The working solution was to use a "watchdog" timer to automatically reset the server.... I should be really greatful for that team, not only did we come in at a much lower cost on IT (generic, non specalised windows support staff just cheaper) but our systems actually work! Our database server didn't crash once in the 3 months between upgrade time. This is a server been managed by the same company IT team.
The thing is you can manage anything badly, and they have found a way here, they use a certain virtualisation server system, from a more fruit themed software firm:
http://www.parallels.com/uk/products/virtuozzo/
It is the most horrifically unstable, un-reliable peice of crap. How can running a certain vendor app (which is all C/C++) in my container, de-stabalise, and DENY memory allocation to another container? That isn't virtualisation in my book, thats the level of crappery that gets you blacklisted!
OSX - work
XP - games
ubuntu - sofatop
One of the things to remember is the fundamental difference in design architecture between windows and *nix.
*nix is based on the concept of a central core with lots of simple programms that only do one thing, but does it very well, so outside the kernel is the shell (or several optional shells, which have their own apps to do useful things, like read a directory format a disk etc - and on top of that are the user applications - mail programs, gui's etc - and lots of choice. There is also a lot that you can do scripting, and best of all (to my mind)is that most of the configuration files are text base.
Windows is a large highly integrated monolith. True, there are individuall apps within the monolith, dlls that do specific jobs, but it isn't so easily divisible, and while there is a set of published APIs, there are others that are not readily accessible used internally - making external development of core functions harder. Configuration is through the Registry hives, and while those components exist as system files, they are neither readily accessible (without using 3rd party apps) nor (using regedit) intuitively readable.
Which model you prefer dpends on where you are standing - and The Animus and b0rdom are at one end of the spectrum, Aidnjt is at the other.
For the corporate user, Windows represents the 'safe' option - certainly at the desktop, less so at the server side, many networks have mixed Linux/windows systems (and Hexus is hosted on aBSD platform with Apache/php combination - which I know is another one of The Animus's pet hates :) - but it works well). Other big UK sites (such as jobsite) use a similar setup. And of course when Microsoft bought hotmail and converted it from a *nix server base to a Windows server infrastructure, they ran into all sorts of problems, which were well documented in a leaked internal paper. That was a while back, and windows has improved since then.
So it comes down to horses for course and while entrenched positions are interesting to watch, neither are ever going to convince the other that 'their' OS is best - because it all comes down to individual philosophy and requirements.
But as this thread was originally 'apple or mac' it has arguably gone off topic (notwithstanding the *nix starting point of Apple\'s current OS.
Hey NetBSD is my unix of choice at the moment any way. OpenBSD are just too busy with their head up their arse as to what constitutes a flaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Mac is built atop BSD, bringing with it lots of easy out of the box functionality, thou little in the way of network maintance, and a whole keg of security flaws!
My hatred for Apache is because i had a bug exploited to loose control (thou not elevated) via it.
My hatred for PHP is because its a fricken awful language, in any metric which you could devise to measure the cost of using it, it fails.
If you work in the real world, most businesses refuse to accept office 2007 files. Might as well sent them a lotus 123 file, it's no use to anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
I voted for Other Windows. I really love the look of Windows XP Media Center Edition.. The taskbar looks pretty sweet