Re: For The Gamers

On 2024-12-27, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

On 2024-12-24 04:44, RonB wrote:

On 2024-12-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

Le 2024-12-23 à 01:30, RonB a écrit :

On 2024-12-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

Le 2024-12-22 à 01:06, rbowman a écrit :

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 05:25:09 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>

On 2024-12-21, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>

The reason they use Windows is because it runs Microsoft Office (and
businesses are "married" to this crap) and Microsoft's has leverage
with the computer manufacturers. Monopolies have a lot of inertia
that's hard to overcome. But you'll note that, for development
purposes, Microsoft is now including Linux in Windows. There's a
reason for that. And, as software moves to the "rental" phase and more
and more of the applications move to the "Cloud", there will be less
and less necessity to use Windows.
>
>

No purchasing manager was ever fired for specifying Microsoft.

>
I wouldn't bet on it.

>
Leaving out the cloud I have to agree. Microsoft and the availability of
Microsoft Certified Whatevers makes pointy headed bosses sleep better at
night.

>
It's the same argument as the one that was made as to why IBM won over
superior platforms in the 1980s. At the very least, anyone who suggests
Microsoft can't be reprimanded because the boss knows that they will be
able to find a ton of people who can use the well-known software as well
as a ton of techs who can troubleshoot it. Even if they can't afford
that staff, there is lots of help online for most problems if they
search for it. That doesn't mean that the operating system is
necessarily better; it simply means that businesses take a lot less risk
in choosing one over the other.
>
I've always mentioned that I believe that in fields like education and
finance, everyone would be better off using open-source though. For
finance, you need a robust kernel and a filesystem which resists bit-rot
to keep those records. There shouldn't be a need to back up data daily
for fear that your records will corrupt (even though it is still clearly
smart to do so). Similarly, in education, if the public system desires
removing all financial barriers to learning, doesn't it make sense to
run an operating system which can be deployed to even the most
affordable hardware at no performance penalty and prioritize the use of
software which can be downloaded at no charge? I've actually asked this
many times in the past and the answer has always been that maintaining
the Linux servers is more costly and time-consuming to the technicians.
I imagine that it is because the slightest change in configuration
causes chaos across the board.

>
First off, what happened to all those people who kept suggesting IBM was a
"no brainer" when it sank?

>
By the time IBM sank, all of the standards they have introduced except
for PS/2 (for mice and keyboards) had already been abandoned.
Third-parties were already making better PCs than IBM was so suggesting
that company was no longer necessary. However, even if people chose to
suggest IBM anyway, they would have gotten ThinkPads which were
spectacular computers. Only the IBM hard disks became notoriously awful
by the end.

 
I just brought up IBM because they used to say the same thing about them.
"You can't go wrong suggesting IBM."
 

Second, do you really think important databases run on MicroSlop? Windows
might be the front-end, but I'm willing to bet that most corporations run
SQL under Linux servers for their important records. You've heard of Oracle,
right? (Not endorsing them, but they're the world's largest database
company, I believe. They have their own "flavor" of Red Hat.)

>
I'm becoming increasingly aware of how ubiquitous Linux is. Clearly, it
has made inroads in areas where failure is not an option. I'm not
against using it again, especially if sticking to Windows introduces new
issues like the fTPM stuttering I mentioned before (I don't think Linux
necessarily resolves this issue as much as offers ways to circumvent it
which are not available to Windows users).

 
I'm getting to the point where I'm not so much a Linux advocate. When
someone says they like Windows better, I just kind of shrug my shoulders and
say, "Okay." The only that bothers me is when I'm told that Linux is hard to
use, or requires constant tweaking. That's simply not the case for me. Never
has been (at least from 2007 when I started using it as my main OS). There
were challenges in the 90s and early 2000s. (Which is partly why I didn't
stick with it until about 2007.)

>
I'll be honest: Linux is easier to set up on hardware than Windows. In
fact, even hardware encryption is easier to set up on Linux than it is
on Windows. I just wish I hadn't already gone through the process with
Microsoft's OS because I'm at a loss as to how to "take ownership" of my
nvme to complete the encryption process in Linux. Despite the fact that
the nvme's PSID was reverted and the drive was erased securely, it still
seems to have a tie to Windows. No matter.

I stay away from encryption, so can't be any help here.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien