Why linux will never make it.

[Big-E]

Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?

That sounds preposterous to me.

If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling computers without a windows. This clearly is not happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.

Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.

Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire computer fron start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of windows. Not possible.

I think you need to re-examine your assumptions

[bubzuru]

a linux distro does not need any part of windows
to boot it has its own bootloader and the linux kernel
handles file IO and other important functions , so what part of
windows does any linux distro use ?

it is the BIOS that loads the OS from the disk it memory so it can run

maybe i just don't understand what your tryna say

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel

[n3rd]

Big-E I think you are wrong.

Linux is goof for many things.

IE: give schools edubuntu, this way they will safe money, no viruses.

people tend to think they need microsoft because they think Linux distro's dont have the whole thing, but this is not true.

also understand that 80% of the human population is ingorant and stupid.
they need click and play otherwise they wont understand, that is what made Microsoft so big, they are user friendly ( I dont care what every1 else thinks about what I just said so dont even bother to start bashing deep down inside you know I am right ).

Linux does not yet provide the easy install and play thing what microsoft does provide but to say that you NEED microsoft is a big false.

[ayu]

I run Ubuntu on my lappy from start to finish, there is nothing that i have on windows that i can't do there.

The only thing is games, and that G-card in the lappy can only run one of my games anyway, and it's native Linux.

[Lyecdevf]

Fact #1 is that linux existed before windows. So why would linux need any thing from windows?

I mean I can not believe that you brought some thing like this up! First of all this does not even belong in this section because you did not bring any facts. You are just saying that linux can not run with out some elements of windows and this is could be a good discussion. So I think it should belong in the debate board.

Speaking for my self I found that the more I used windows the less I liked them. Until it came to the point that every day it was almost painful to turn on the computer and work on windows. Yeah, the games are great and it is easy to install programs but that is pretty much all it has to offer. So if you can manage with out your games for a while you do not really need windows at all. Sure it is difficult some times to install some applications of linux but most of the time you can use the applications that are already on your OS or you can use the GUI, package manager or Yast to install programs on it. Learning how to install from source is not that difficult and if you run into problems I just see it as a chalange. Maybe you find a bug and you can report it and in a way you are helping out the community. In windows there is no such thing, Probably they do not even look at the issue you are having. I do not think they care. They work for money and not necesarily to make people happy.

[n3rd]

I run Ubuntu on my lappy from start to finish, there is nothing that i have on windows that i can't do there.

The only thing is games, and that G-card in the lappy can only run one of my games anyway, and it's native Linux.

there is a game for linux, its a mmorpg called Regnum.

it is supposed to be really good and big.

[bad_brain]

well, there are 2 types of Linux distributors, the fundamentalist ones and the liberal ones. the philosophy of the fundamentalist ones (like Debian) is "open source only", and because many hardware manufacturers don't provide the source code for their drivers those are not included. the hardware support for those products is either none or open source drivers created by the community are used, and those usually don't work as well as the original ones (simply because it's a try&error development procedure when manufacturers don't provide specifications).
on the other side are the liberal ones like Ubuntu, they have no problem with non-open source drivers and include them in their distros.

to understand this you have to look where Linux comes from: servers and professional networking. and on such systems there is simply no need for g-card drivers for example. in the server-world Linux is #1, and the liberal distributors now begin to rock the world of desktop systems...and because there is no greedy moneymaking machinery behind it the development simply takes longer than MS needs for their products (but well, look at Vista, imo it's still a beta-version, SP1 makes it even worse).

if a OS developer will survive in the future he has to be either very flexible or very specialized, the times where all computers where pretty the same are over...now we have mediacenters, pocketcomputers, smartphones, gaming systems, etc. MS is a dinosaur of the old computer world where 1 OS was for all, they tried to provide a flexible solution with the different Vista versions but greed and the fear of real changes made them fail miserably.

look where Linux was 5 years ago: an OS for enthusiasts and freaks, and look where it's now: it's used in schools and the liberal distros are well install- and usable even for the average Vista-user. the hardware- and game-manufacturers will not be able to close their eyes for long anymore, Linux users are becoming an interesting marketing target...

[Swan]

Lyecdevf, I think that Big E offered a far argument and point of view. And hey, anyone who lauds the benefits of Linux cant be all bad

[Big-E]

Dammit, now I just feel bad. I thought I was going to get flamed AND laughed at - It was a joke.

Code: Select all

  http://www.hotubuntunews.com/blog_13.shtml

It seriously made me belly lol - and I thought it would make you too.

Edit:

At least this provides a fair argument on the behalf of linux.

PS. Windows sucks.

[Nerdz]

Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?

I tought someone deleted the first post... I wondered who you were talking to...

[G-Brain]

Hahaha, I remember this discussion. Kinda old though.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2 ... +all%3F%22

Brilliant.

[bad_brain]

memo for myself: never answer posts before having at least 1 liter of green tea

[Stavros]

I must congratulate you on a successful troll, Big-E.

Suck-O, I know you're not this gullible.