Zugg Software :: View topic

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:44 am

As I'm sitting here scanning all the files on my network for the virus, I suddenly had some incite:

I know how to stop Microsoft and Windows, and it isn't even that hard (if you know the right people):

Most of us know that technically, linux is a fine operating system. It now has high quality install programs that even my grandmother could use. There are software alternatives for Office that are file compatible. There are good web browsers, email clients, etc. So, what's stopping linux from taking over:

1) Lack of commercial software development. Part of this is a chicken/egg issue. Software developers (like me) need a large enough user base to make it worthwhile to write software. So, the government (or some big company with lots of money) should provide incentives for linux programs. After all, don't they still pay farmers to not farm? There are government subsidies for all sorts of silly things...why not for encouraging non-Windows software development? You've got people like Mark Cuban pouring his money into promoting HDTV (HDnet...great stuff) because he sees the future pay off in that technology...why doesn't someone do that with linux development?

2) Lack of games. There are still lots of good games for the PC, especially in the online area. But the DirectX spec is public, so why hasn't some clever programmer written a DirectX library for linux? I mean, linux programmers are supposed to be the best, right? So, let's write some code that will make it EASY for game developers to port their game to linux. I mean, if they can port some of these games to the XBox, why not linux if the right libraries were available? Both operating systems use the same graphics cards. Sure, console games are cutting into the PC game market. PC game revenue is down a lot compared to several years ago and the console revenue far exceeds it. But there are still always going to be games for the PC that just don't work on consoles.

3) Lack of Hardware Vendor support. This is the REAL KEY! After all, when Microsoft releases a new version of Windows, why do we care? What stops us from just ignoring them and continuing to use what we have? Well, we try for a while, but when we buy our next computer, we are FORCED into using a computer with the new version of Windows. It's because computer vendors are in bed with Microsoft. They are getting incentives and kick backs. Just look at the relation between Dell and Microsoft! If one of these hardware vendors had REAL GUTS, they'd get a *good* version of linux and install it. But don't just install all of the public domain software that comes on the 7 linux CDs you can get at the store. Instead, only install QUALITY software. Set up the computer so that grandma can use it. Install a good email (Evolution) and a good web browser (Mozilla) and something like Open Office. Get in there and tweak it so that it runs great...then put your MARKETING forces to work and tell people that they have a choice. Have demos showing exactly how much you can do with a linux computer and how reliable it is and how you wouldn't have any trouble with viruses and wouldn't have to pay for new versions of the operating system every couple of years.

I think a hardware vendor could make a killing with a properly run marketing campaign in this area. But oh yes, Microsoft wouldn't be pleased, would they. They might pull your Windows contract for your other computers and try to put you out of business. Oh, but wait, the Government said they didn't have a monopoly and weren't a threat, so there's nothing to be worried about, right?

Oh yeah, and while we are at it, add some basic copy protection so that us software vendors don't get ripped off by the linux hackers. Because the linux hackers do NOT want this to happen. They do NOT want the mass market using linux, because then they wouldn't be L33T anymore. They don't want commercial linux software...they want it all to be free. So, you'll have to ignore a lot of the linux hackers that would try to derail this idea...and they can be pretty vocal.

But you know, as a software vendor myself, if there was something like eLicense for linux, and if there were enough people using linux to pay my bills (of if someone would subsidize linux development for a while), I'd start writing linux software in an instant.

Really, I'm not kidding! You pay my bills and I'll give up on Windows and install Kylix and start writing quality linux apps. Send email to zugg@zuggsoft.com to find out where to send your money and how to address your checks or money orders. (I take PayPal too! :)

Yeah, it will never happen. It's sad. Because it's really not hard. But it goes against everything this country is set up to protect. You don't think Billy is going to go down easy do you? His money will go a long way in preventing this from happening.

Hmm...this post probably eventually shows up on Google, doesn't it. Hmm...I better lock my doors, I might make some enemies talking like this.

But I can dream...
Speaking of which...it's probably time for bed now (if I can sleep). 'night.

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:54 am

Just a quick note, on #2, there is already a movement known as TransGaming ( http://www.transgaming.com/ ) which is emulating the windows platform CD's directly onto linux with a rather interesting business scheme. People who purchase licenses can vote on what games need to be worked on next, so it's directly from the public. Rather interesting the number of games that are more and more available.

Sad thing is, the "linux hacker" reputation is often taken far to much. Those people are definately in the minority from what I've experience in the community. Most users simply want people to give Linux a fair trial, and see if indeed MS or Linux is right for each given person. Friends of mine at OIT and MIT alike agree on this, and have even worked on local campaigns to assist in the movement (visiting many Linux User Groups (LUGs) around the world).

I really think that, if more people weren't afraid to try it, people would really enjoy Linux. The more modern distros can give you 1-2 CD's with exactly what you need to get up and running, a good email client, office package, browser, and other essential applications, and let you go. You don't even need to get into a shell anymore. Heck, I've even had people in their 50s sit down and try out Linux and they found it easier to use than Windows which they were already familiar with. For instance, why should I have to hit CTRL+C to copy? Why can't I just highlight it and paste elsewhere? I mean hell, you're highlighting it for a reason yes? XFree86 (XWindow) has this ability by DEFAULT, and it's one of those things that I absolutely hate dealing with in Windows.

Hell, if anyone here wants to learn Linux, I implore you, give it a shot. Try out Gnoppix ( http://www.gnoppix.org/ ) and see if you like it. Yeah, that's right, you can boot off that CD and not install a SINGLE THING and try out Linux. (Yes, I know it's a GNOME based environment, but I'm a GNOME fan, so shoosh all you KDE users out there). I think you'll find that Linux is not the "hacker OS" everyone thinks it is, but more a mature, and fully capable operating system. And for you gamers out there, look around (I'd find the link right now, but I'm tired), there's a ISO where you can boot into Linux and play the UT2k4 demo directly, no install or anything required! Gaming in Linux at its best with a brand new title.

Eh, enough with this rant. But yes, I think it's time for a new operating system that doesn't suffer from MS's flaws. Now, if only the commercial world would see things that way...

Here's to dreaming.

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

Stopping Windows isn't the solution. Linux is just as bad if not worse. The main philosophy of Linux is that all software should be "free". While it can be your best friend it can also be your worst enemy. I don't dislike Linux. It is a fine OS but that doesn't mean I like everything with it.

What would you say if I claimed you had GPL code in zMUD? You would scream and if I had proof you would get crazy. Everything you had worked on would be lost. No escape: You would have to release the full source code of zMUD under the GPL.

That is why Linux is so scary. You can never be certain a project is 100% linked to non GPL code. If people want to see your program "free" then they pick up their magnifying glasses and deassemblers.

Windows just feels so insecure because it is so heavily targetted. "Everyone" runs Windows so it is more often attacked.

I think what is important to realize is that there isn't anything such as security. Linux has its issues just like Windows has.

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:24 pm

I am no Microsoft zealot, nor am I a linux user who knows the system inside out. What I am, is just an ordinary user who can see the after affects of Microsoft's actions - which is the basis of what I'll say.

I dont believe Microsoft/Windows should be stopped. Through one means or another, ole billy has forced the price of hardware to way below affordable prices, compared to what they used to be before I even knew what a computer was. I've seen the old articles for PC's, multimega thousands of dollars for the computing power of a watch. Not just prices have dropped, the tech level has improved vastly, giving normal people supercomputer power for just a few week's drinking money. You can even look at the beginnings of linux and see that MS had a hand in that too, Torvalds wanted to make a unix clone on available (and affordable) x86 hardware because he couldnt afford unix software/hardware. Even the growth of linux is based on the advances afforded by cheap computing solutions given to us by the beheamoth itself.

I have dabbled with various flavours of linux, but always I go back to windows. I dont find the system very intuitive, which is a shame because linux seems to have so much potential. The greatest "bonus" of linux is its configurability - which is also its downfall. The options are quite frightening when you get to the core of it, from the kernel to the soundcard to the videocard. Everything in linux seems come configured for compatibility for different platforms (and hardware) - the os is only a few years old and already nobody can agree on a common "standard".

Both camps have highly successful projects, and both camps have hugely sucky projects. Both camps have valid reasons for doing what they do. So I say screw trying to say whether open source or closed source is the best solution, the best solution is to actually care about what is written under your supervision. If someone releases stupid software, knowing it isnt finished yet, then they can go to buggery. Likewise if a concern is raised by users but ignored because the budget isnt there, then the superviser can go to buggery too.

It is easy to yell and rant about the way Microsoft has everything integrated together, but...perhaps it isnt such a bad thing. I kind of like my programs talking to eachother in their little ways, like just now I got the winampCOM plugin script working from the Finished Scripts section. I like that interoperability! Even if it all the integration I use is just a music program, it makes my perception of the system improve vastly. The latest flaws in both OS's right now seem to be more and more about buffer overruns, which cannot be solely blamed on Microsoft. I attribute this to the way people are learning (and doing) how to program, as each year new ways of doing old stuff evolve and improve and bring new aspects to 'unsolveable' problems.

There eventually will be a point in time where buffer overruns and integration engine exploits are a thing of the past and our generation of users/writers is laughed at for being overly paranoid of such problems, but we wont get there if people dont take responsibility for what THEY write and lead by example. I dont think this last point is an issue for Zugg Software to have to consider, I learnt it by reading Zugg(tm) rants over the last few years. I still dont remember zMUD being some kind of broken exploit into my system, ever.

Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:45 pm

quote:
Originally posted by Rorso

Stopping Windows isn't the solution. Linux is just as bad if not worse. The main philosophy of Linux is that all software should be "free". While it can be your best friend it can also be your worst enemy. I don't dislike Linux. It is a fine OS but that doesn't mean I like everything with it.

I'd REALLY like someone to finally point me as to where all these damn people are saying that the Linux philosophy is that everything must be free. Again, as a member of the community, I have NEVER seen this except from the same type of people who believe that everything in windows should be free (and download the programs to make it so).

quote:
Originally posted by Rorso

What would you say if I claimed you had GPL code in zMUD? You would scream and if I had proof you would get crazy. Everything you had worked on would be lost. No escape: You would have to release the full source code of zMUD under the GPL.

Actually, I wouldn't scream, I'd ask kindly to see exactly where it was, and from which application it was taken from as any RESPONSIBLE developer would. And honestly? If you claimed the zMUD had GPL code in it, I'd prolly be closer to laughing in your face than actually trying to fight it.

quote:
Originally posted by Rorso

That is why Linux is so scary. You can never be certain a project is 100% linked to non GPL code. If people want to see your program "free" then they pick up their magnifying glasses and deassemblers.

That's called a trust issue, and that is where those of us who aren't crazy gun-toating Linux users are seperated from the "stereotype".

quote:
Originally posted by Rorso

Windows just feels so insecure because it is so heavily targetted. "Everyone" runs Windows so it is more often attacked.

I think what is important to realize is that there isn't anything such as security. Linux has its issues just like Windows has.

Saying there isn't anything such as security is like saying that Jails are just fancy condos. Yes, everywhere has it's issues with security, but the point that I was attempting to make is that the power is in YOUR hands with Linux. If YOU manage your system properly, Linux can be far more secure than Windows. In Windows, a lot of the security problems are something that MICROSOFT must fix, not YOU, the owner of the system. That means more time for these virii to spread while the patch is in development.

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

quote:
Originally posted by IceChild

quote:
Originally posted by Rorso

Stopping Windows isn't the solution. Linux is just as bad if not worse. The main philosophy of Linux is that all software should be "free". While it can be your best friend it can also be your worst enemy. I don't dislike Linux. It is a fine OS but that doesn't mean I like everything with it.

I'd REALLY like someone to finally point me as to where all these damn people are saying that the Linux philosophy is that everything must be free. Again, as a member of the community, I have NEVER seen this except from the same type of people who believe that everything in windows should be free (and download the programs to make it so).

http://www.gnu.org/
Look at the text beneath the GNU Smile

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Look at the four kinds of freedom.

If you link an application to a GPL library then that application too has to be GPL. Also please note I never said that the GNU/Linux philosophy states that software _must_ be free. Only that it _should_ be free.

In my opinion piracy is no threat at all for software developers compared to what free software could become. That is piracy you could stop but free software can probably not be stopped.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Rorso

What would you say if I claimed you had GPL code in zMUD? You would scream and if I had proof you would get crazy. Everything you had worked on would be lost. No escape: You would have to release the full source code of zMUD under the GPL.

Actually, I wouldn't scream, I'd ask kindly to see exactly where it was, and from which application it was taken from as any RESPONSIBLE developer would. And honestly? If you claimed the zMUD had GPL code in it, I'd prolly be closer to laughing in your face than actually trying to fight it.

There are more ways to get this issue than stealing code. One is to link the application to a GPL library.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Rorso

That is why Linux is so scary. You can never be certain a project is 100% linked to non GPL code. If people want to see your program "free" then they pick up their magnifying glasses and deassemblers.

That's called a trust issue, and that is where those of us who aren't crazy gun-toating Linux users are seperated from the "stereotype".

quote:
Originally posted by Rorso

Windows just feels so insecure because it is so heavily targetted. "Everyone" runs Windows so it is more often attacked.

I think what is important to realize is that there isn't anything such as security. Linux has its issues just like Windows has.

Saying there isn't anything such as security is like saying that Jails are just fancy condos. Yes, everywhere has it's issues with security, but the point that I was attempting to make is that the power is in YOUR hands with Linux. If YOU manage your system properly, Linux can be far more secure than Windows. In Windows, a lot of the security problems are something that MICROSOFT must fix, not YOU, the owner of the system. That means more time for these virii to spread while the patch is in development.

My point is that security is not easy to reach. Of course Linux is more secure as you have more control of it. More control means that you have to know what you do though. A lot of users don't know what they do. If they knew we wouldn't have these security issues to begin with.

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:09 am

Far be it for me to disagree, however, the GNU isn't everything there is to Linux. There are many libraries that are released under licenses that allow paid software development, yet the library itself is open source. For instance, most things released under the FreeBSD license allow for paid software to be developed using those licenses, as long as proper credit is given. Linking to the "Free software movement" and claiming that everything Linux-based is based on that is rather nieve.

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:32 am

quote:
Originally posted by Rorso
My point is that security is not easy to reach. Of course Linux is more secure as you have more control of it. More control means that you have to know what you do though. A lot of users don't know what they do. If they knew we wouldn't have these security issues to begin with.

This is a fairly broad view, computer security is directly tied to users, but at the same time developers need to keep security in mind too. The most security-minded user will get nowhere if his/her vendor is lax in this area. More control doesnt always infer more security either, the more aspects of something a user can mess with means more accidental doorways for problems to manifest through. It may be fine for people who NEED to stay up to date on exploits, but to the average Grandma Walton, there is just too many overwhelming options.

Wanderer Joined: 13 Jan 2002 Posts: 76 Location: USA

Some Jails are just fancy condos... no really... they are.... :)

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 7:49 am

quote:
Originally posted by Kronus

Some Jails are just fancy condos... no really... they are.... :)

If you and family members are in jail down here, the jails try to organise special family cells for you to all cohabitate. So in essence, they really are condos! :)

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:29 am

There *ARE* ways around using GPL libraries and licenses. I have a good friend who works for a company that actually *DOES* make commercial software for linux and is doing just fine. Yes, they have to be very careful with what they use and what they link to and they spend a ton of effort supporting all of the different variations of linux (especially the whole KDE vs Gnone issues). They are a big company and have lots of money and people to work on this, but they stay in business in a niche market that is using linux because they need a reliable and secure operating system not controlled by a monopoly like Microsoft.

So, it is possible to do commercial development on linux. But not for the small developer like myself.

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

quote:
Originally posted by IceChild

Far be it for me to disagree, however, the GNU isn't everything there is to Linux. There are many libraries that are released under licenses that allow paid software development, yet the library itself is open source. For instance, most things released under the FreeBSD license allow for paid software to be developed using those licenses, as long as proper credit is given. Linking to the "Free software movement" and claiming that everything Linux-based is based on that is rather nieve.

If I understand it correctly Linux is GPL or LGPL. So it is connected to the free software philosophy. Actually fsf wants the Linux OS to be called GNU/Linux because Linux is just the kernel. The rest is the GNU system Smile

.

Most of these fears could easily be solved by making the compiler detect if GPL libraries are used or not. Then again the compiler would need to know the license of each library.

My views on this might be a bit affected by the fact that I have seen discussions on licenses that probably made the one breaking one never program again. Programming is about having fun but a lot of people use the licenses to smash the fun into pieces. In the GPL case this is so extreme because if you have distributed something linked to GPL code or containing it then you can't remove it and redistribute the new clean version. You are forced to release the source code of the bad version. Even if the work was done for years.