Re: New Linux Machine Update

On 2024-08-12, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2024-08-12 8:11 a.m., chrisv wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:
 

As far as I know, everyone here except for Joel Crump and Larry
Pietraskiewicz have good salaries and can afford to buy software if they
need it. Linux is clearly a preference, not a necessity.

 
Almost no one uses Linux because it costs less than Windows.

 
Well, I'm sure that some do, especially if they're building their own
machines and don't want to spend $200 on a license.

>
I used to be that way.

Most people buy an off the shelf PC which includes Windows.
The real cost savings using Linux comes to commercial businesses, mostly large corporations, where
scaling Linux is far cheaper than Windows. But even that isn't always the case because in general
large corporations require support which means commercial versions of Redhat, suSE and so forth and
that can be expensive as well.
With user land applications moving to the cloud things are changing rapidly though.

But I did finally break down and bought a new Windows license ~2 years ago.

It's trivial to purchase "legit" licenses for Windows all over the place. these are usually extra,
legit, corporate keys that were not needed or used.
Buyer beware though.

>

If you bought a
machine pre-built, you don't notice the cost of Windows but you would if
you're buying each piece separately. For what it's worth, back when the
first Ubuntu came out, I opted not to buy a Windows license specifically
 because simply using the distribution would cut costs. It did an
admirable job, but in the end I felt I needed Windows.

>
Pretty much my conclusion too: there’s a few tasks that just don’t
functionally work well enough under Linux or Mac, such that forking up to
have a Winbox is a path of less resistance (eg, fewer headaches).

For most, it's not worth the headache.
Windows works and runs the popular applications they require.
A friend of mine is a lifetime Machead. We argue all the time, lol !  His biggest issues with Macs
is that Excel does not run the super, and I mean super, complex spreadsheets with macros and so
forth that he needs to run for his job as a commercial real estate appraiser.
They have issues but work around methods are available.

>

OTOH, Linux and Windows users will often choose FOSS applications over
payware mostly because they are free.  Quite sensible.
 
Windows users are far more likely to pirate payware, of course.

 
I try to avoid pirating anything because I feel that those companies and
its employees deserve to eat. In my case, open-source is simply more
familiar and more than good enough for what I need.

>
It’s the value paradigm:  being good (or even ‘better’) while at a lower
functional lifecycle cost results in a winning combination…and there’s
ample FOSS examples of this.  Of course, there’s also “crappy but free” as
well as “crappy but expensive” too - it inevitably should shake out with
the non-FOSS stuff losing out in the competitive marketplace.

Time is money.

To give you an
example, I have a license for Outlook 2021, but I'm using Betterbird
because:
 
a) GnuPG is implemented in the software without the need for an extension.
b) Usenet is implemented without the need for a second program.
c) Message filtering is intuitive and works as it should.
d) CardDAV and CalDAV are implemented directly and supports both being
encrypted through its support for GnuPG.
 
Other than the proprietary eM Client which requires an annual
subscription, I can't think of a program that does all of the above _well_.
 

>
I’ve been debating setting up an Outlook client again, as there’s still
some things it does quite well that are lacking in other email apps - for
example, Apple’s Mail app is downright bad at alphabetical based search
jumps, and text searches overall.
>

If you ae using Windows, try Mailbird or EM Client for payware.
Thunderbird for free.

-hh
>

--
pothead
Kamala Harris = Four More Years Of Obama.
Send Her To The Curb.
Vote snit "Kook Of the Decade".