I’ve saved the company the cost of two upgrades from the time we went with Windows 2000. I invested a lot of time to avoid this day – I really hoped that Wine would catch up rapidly and provide application compatibility in Linux .

Finally – about a week ago a client gave us a backup of a Quickbooks 2009 file – and we couldn’t install the copy we had to purchase just to open the damn thing. And even though Intuit keeps coming out with new versions of Quickbooks, the quality of our client’s accounting records are never any better.

So, having to buy a newer version of Quickbooks Slow every year just to access our client files annoys me to no end. They really don’t change the software significantly each year it comes out – but purposely change the data file format so folks like us will have to get a newer version. Meanwhile the program gets slower every year.

What pisses me off secondly – is the fact that anyone could use GnuCash to do everything they need to do, to keep a set of books. If they would, both they and our firm would save money.

The truth is that even though Quickbooks looks easy, I’ve seen some clueless clients completely misunderstand how to use it. So even though it looks straight forward – that doesn’t ensure that the output will be correct.

It’s not the ease of the interface, but rather, the accounting skill of the user that ultimately determines the accuracy of the information in their records.

But since most people don’t have faith in free software or lack the confidence to try Gnucash, I have to pay Intuit $200 every year. It would be much better for both of us actually, if they just gave me the source code. I’d compile it in Windows 2000 – wait a few days – and it will run in Windows 2000. Scratch that – I’d compile it with Winelib or in Linux natively, if possible. But for all practical purposes – Windows 2000 would give the best chance of success.

I’d then give Intuit the binaries so they could put it on a CD and sell it to other customers. I’d still pay Intuit for the software – as much as it would irk me to – given I have other tools available (Gnucash) – and that an operating system, is an operating system, is an operating system. Once you can boot into a window manager and the kernel has a way of running apps – everything else is just academic. Its just a matter of making the effort to get the software to run elsewhere – or giving the opportunity to someone to do it for you.

So as a result of being forced to upgrade, I next have to deal with an oddesy of getting Vista to install. Fry’s is out of the upgrade CD – but they still have 3 copies of the regular version on the shelves, but its $100 more expensive then the upgrade. The software is locked up in a cabinet – you have to ask an employee for permission to grab the DVD, walk out of their sight to the large row of cash registers and pay – vs. just grabbing it and paying. Stupid – makes a person feel like they are unimportant.

Thank you for letting me touch this packaged box of bullshit.

Since I initially can’t get what I want to save the company $800 overall – I go to the Internet “Microsoft Store” and place an order – but it has no way to separate out a billing and shipping address. It says billing address – you put it in – It says – “We don’t ship to P.O. Boxes.” I say – “Fuck you, its a download.” It can’t hear me. I try to place the order a few times – but the order form lacks the ability to have a shipping address that is different then the credit card billing address. I ended up alternating the office and credit card address between errors (which is always needed to approve an order)- and to my surprise, the order went through.

Hours later, I still hadn’t received an email confirmation from the Microsoft store saying – start downloading. I mean this should be an automated process. Everyone else can respond reasonably – just not Microsoft.

A day later still nothing. Must be the billing address thing I thought. I buy again – still no instant access so I call. 1/2 hour on the phone to have the guy have me repeat the info already given on the web site. “Ok I’ll release the product.”

Huh? I thought I was a customer. Being from the Linux world, I’m not used to being treated as if the software I was going to use, required an interrogation and subtle hints that communicated to me that I was a bad person and would continue to be assumed as such.

10 minutes later I get a call from the Microsoft Gestapo to “verify my order.”

Lets see, Bill gates is a multibillionaire – but he’s got to have so much security around his product that I have to go through all this bullshit. God forbid he looses a penny.

So I go through another interrogation verifying the information I provided, as if I hadn’t paid them for their product. Keep in mind that it’s a product I don’t even want, or believe should be necessary.

I start to download the Vista installer – 1/2 way through the hour download – 1 of the three download files stops and can’t resume. I then download each file one at a time and finally get the damn thing an hour later.

And get this – the application that decompresses the installation files won’t run in Windows 2000. I later found it won’t from the DVD of Windows Vista Ultimate upgrade. Even though Microsoft advertised that Windows 2000 owners are eligible to purchase Vista at the upgrade price. The message I got was: you can buy it – you just can’t use it.

If I was good little runt and paid for Windows XP the Microsoft Gods would allow me, the piss ant, to decompress the files with their utility. But because I’m not overly concerned about giving them $200 every couple of years, my money’s good, but my satisfaction as a customer is unimportant.

After fooling around with 7-Zip I was able to decompress only a portion of the download file and I can even get setup to start – but I can’t get past “Can’t find the install.wim file.”

After installing Vista – I don’t find it to be an improvement, but instead, a big nightmare. First, its taking up not 5000 MB like Windows 2000 – but almost 10000 MB of space – the entire size of my partition – which means I can’t install anything. I never imagined an operating system requiring so much room, so much more RAM and providing so little additional benefit besides some eye candy, that isn’t very good. And what did I get for the extra 5000 MB? Nothing really. Just a lot of heartache to install a few hundred megabytes of code from Borland – code that they give away for free.

Vista doesn’t allow me to do anything more then I could do before with Windows 2000 – or anything new I want to do now. All its done, that I couldn’t do before – is install Quickbooks Pro 2009, which, according to Borland, has a database engine that is compatible with Windows 2000.

However, I now have a slow bloated operating system that requires a tremendous amount of tweaking just to equal the performance I had in Windows 2000 with the same hardware. Plus Microsoft purposely broke functionality with Samba, which their developers easily remedied. So, I can’t browse the network until I upgrade Samba, because, of course, Microsoft had to mess with that.

Vista, after the install started installing updates like mad. I’ve ended up rebooting the computer too many times to count. It’s a huge time suck just to open up some Quickbooks files – that Intuit could have allowed me to open with Quickbooks 2008 if they so decided.

The next insult is the ultimate disrespect for the customer. The best I can say is that it’s the ultimate in stupidity, giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt.

I ended up buying two copies of Vista. An important thing to note is that the contents of the CD never change, but instead, certain parts of the operating system are installed based upon which key code you enter. They admit that in the error they show below – but this is well known around the Internet.

I used the CD I got from Fry’s to install Vista over an existing installation of Windows 2000. I used the product code for the upgrade – and I received the following error during the installation with Windows 2000 sitting on the same partition I was installing to, with the same disk that didn’t have this “problem” when I used a code for a non upgrade version:

“The following failure occurred while trying to use the product key
Code:
0xC004F061

Description: The software licensing service determined that this specified product key can only be used for upgrading, not for clean installations.”

I went ahead and installed anyway – not entering in the code. After all I know that the DVD contains the right amount of software on it to do a full install.

After I installed and tried to activate the product, it said:

“The Software
Licensing Service determined that this specified product key can only be used
for upgrading, not for clean installations.”

Recall from above that the Vista Upgrade will not work in Windows 2000.

So in other words, Microsoft flat out lied; even though I bought a product that was advertised as an upgrade from Windows 2000, I wasn’t allowed to install the product from both within Windows 2000 and outside of Windows 2000.

I couldn’t install the product unless I installed twice – all because of the “copy protection” measures taken by Microsoft – which included Microsoft not ensuring that installer functioned properly from within Windows 2000. And again, all of this is not because of any real technical reason that could not have been prevented, but rather, because Microsoft was dishonest in its advertising. Perhaps Microsoft decided not to care about customers that didn’t pay $399 instead of $219.95, even though they offered it to me for that price, and that they don’t like the fact that I didn’t buy Windows XP. But what it really is, is disgusting greed and unjustified guilt and suspicion cast upon the public.

All that extra hassle to make sure poor old billionaire bill gets paid. Microsoft truly cares about its customers.

I Googled these issues to look for an answer – that I felt was appropriate. Because nothing other then Vista accepting the code I paid $219.95 for was appropriate. And in that light, downloading a crack would have been appropriate. Because I was treated, during this entire episode as if I had stolen the software, when I had actually paid for it. I didn’t find the answer I wanted – but a way to work around the issue instead. That involves performing a second installation, that does not thing to prove I qualified for the upgrade. Meanwhile – when I had proof that I qualified I was told it I wasn’t allowed to use the software I paid for.

and found some interesting conversations, that reflect the psyche of the public when it comes to Microsoft: Its OK for Microsoft to rip off its customers. Anyone that complains must be “pirating” software because Microsoft would never do anything dishonest. If its not pirating of software, the end user surely is incompetent. Bottom line is that anything you buy from Microsoft is a gift from Microsoft, even though they have made more money then any effort, any work any suffering should allow. But, that’s OK because its “The American Way” and “Capitalism” and “Survival of the fittest”

From: http://www.vistax64.com/vista-installation-setup/37064-activation-error-0xc004f061.html

Poster Question:

“I’m getting an Activation Error Code: 0xC004F061 when I try to activate my
Vista Home Premium upgrade. I was running XP Pro on this machine, and when I
was doing the install, the installer said I had to do a clean install from XP
Pro. Now The error message is giving me the description “The Software
Licensing Service determined that this specified product key can only be used
for upgrading, not for clean installations.” Does this mean that even though
I had a Genuine Windows XP Pro on my computer, I can’t use the upgrade to
Vista?

To top it off, it keeps telling me that my 90 day free support call period
has expired, although I’ve never called it before, and just installed Vista a
few days ago. Anyone have any ideas how I can fix this issue?”

First responder:

“To use an upgrade version you have to start the upgrade from within an
installed, activated and genuine copy of XP. It will then allow either an
in place upgrade (for certain upgrade paths) or only a custom installation
(programs and data are not migrated). There has been published a work
around to allow the installation of an upgrade version w/o XP being
installed. Here is one link for it. Use at your own risk.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932

If you want to migrate data and settings from the XP installation use the
Windows Easy Transfer (WET) on the XP installation before the upgrade.”

Poster:

“I did start the upgrade from within XP…so it sounds like I’m pretty much
hosed because I did what the upgrade told me I needed to do? Am I completely
unable to upgrade from Windows XP Pro to Windows Vista Home Premium?”

The next set of posts are classic examples of the mindset of Windows users:

Poster 1:
1. What will Vista check for?
2. Will it want a valid CD key for the previous OS?
3. Will it give you the option of installing the 64 bit version clean? (assuming u have a 64 bit cpu)

Poster 2:
As far as I know, the Vista upgrade disks will require verification of Windows XP and then you will have the option to clean install or upgrade.
We will know more on or about January 30th:)

Poster 1:
Thanks for that but any idea about the rest of the post? Clean installs are need when you install a new M/B or your pc crashes etc, what will MS need to verify you have a legit CD/DVD

Poster 2:
The EULA is the same as XP now.

Poster 3:

You may be able to get away with that if your comp has XP on board or the CD to pop in during verification. However, I don’t approve of the use of a pirated copy of XP:(

Poster 1:
Not so much the pirating issue but does someone actually know the process of upgrading and technically what will happen if you want to upgrade from a fresh install using an upgrade version of vista. We aren’t really answering the initial post but don’t get me wrong, i appreciate any input. i just want to know the actual process, see my first post.

Poster 4:
I’ve just received my MAPS (Microsoft Action Pack) copy of Vista Business Upgrade. When booting from the DVD the installer asks for the Serial Key which I entered. However the installer refuses to install as “This version must be launched from Windows” So I deleted the key and continued the install selecting BUSINESS as the install at the relevant screen. However when now I try to activate Vista I get the following error code: 0xc004f061 and the text “The Software Licensing Services determined that this specified product key can only be used for upgrading not for clean installations” ***! Upgrades in the past have always allowed you to clean install as long as you had the original disks. So now it looks like I’ll have to install a clean copy of XP just to get this version installed…

Poster 1:
I called Microsoft this morning and spoke to their tech support. They said this was the first time they had heard of an activation problem. I got through to a real tech support guy, and he asked me about whether I was installing an upgrade or full version. I told him it was Windows Vista Home Basic, bought at Staples for $99, upgrading from a pre-loaded Windows XP Home on my Dell PC. I explained that the “Upgrade” label on the front of the box said “For users running Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP, or Windows Vista only. Backup and clean install may be required. See back of box for details.*”. The back of the box says the following: “Back up all your files and settings before upgrading. You must perform a clean install of Windows Vista and then reinstall your existing files, settings, and programs, unless you are upgrading from Windows XP SP2 Home Edition.” This would lead anyone to believe that a clean install is possible when upgrading. I tried the same things as mentioned above. Booting from the Vista DVD (because clean install was NOT an option when launching from Windows XP), then trying my Product Key at the beginning of the install process, which did not work (”this version must be launched from windows”), skipping it, and choosing “Home Basic” as the version being installed. Then tried to activate from the Control Panel in Vista and received Code 0xC004F061: “The Software Licensing Service determined that the specified product key can only be used for upgrading, not for clean installations”. The guy I talked to at Microsoft said that I would have to reinstall XP on my machine, and do a non-clean upgrade to Vista for my key to work. In other words, a clean install does not appear to be an option for versions of Vista labeled “Upgrade”, even though right below the Upgrade label it says “A clean install may be required”. This makes me wonder what would happen if you were not running Windows XP SP2 before upgrading, and were “required” to do a clean install with an “Upgrade” version. If Microsoft does not want clean installs to be an option for Upgrade customers, it should not be listed as possibility on the FRONT OF THE BOX, the back of the box, the Quick Start Guide, and in the setup dialogs. The right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing in this case. Excuse me, I have to go downgrade to XP now…

Poster 4:
We don’t install any illegal copies here, so I can’t speak about that. It never mentions that it does a valid key check, but I imagine that’s done in the background — most downloads from their website even require the check.

Poster 5:

http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070201/
Use Vista’s ‘upgrade’ version to clean-install

The secret is that the setup program in Vista’s upgrade version will accept an installed copy of XP, W2K, or an unactivated copy of Vista itself as evidence of a previous installation.

This enables you to “clean install” an upgrade version of Vista to any formatted or unformatted hard drive, which is usually the preferred method when installing any new operating system. You must, in essence, install Vista twice to take advantage of this trick. But Vista installs much faster than XP, so it’s quicker than installing XP followed by Vista to get the upgrade price.

Here’s a simplified overview of the steps that are required to clean-install the upgrade version of Vista:

Step 1. Boot the PC from the Vista DVD.

Step 2. Select “Install Now,” but do not enter the Product Key from the Vista packaging. Leave the input box blank. Also, turn off the option Automatically activate Windows when I’m online. In the next dialog box that appears, confirm that you really do want to install Vista without entering a Product Key.

Step 3. Correctly indicate the version of Vista that you’re installing: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate.

Step 4. Select the “Custom (Advanced)” install, not the “Upgrade” install.

Step 5. Vista copies files at length and reboots itself one or more times. Wait for the install to complete. At this point, you might think that you could “activate” Vista, but you can’t. That’s because you haven’t installed the Vista upgrade yet. To do that, run the DVD’s setup.exe program again, but this time from the Vista desktop. The easiest way to start setup again is to eject and then reinsert the DVD.

Step 6. Click “Install Now.” Select Do not get the latest updates for installation. (You can check for these updates later.)

Step 7. This time, do enter the Product Key from the Vista packaging. Once again, turn off the option Automatically activate Windows when I’m online.

Step 8. On this second install, make sure to select “Upgrade,” not “Custom (Advanced).” You’re not doing a clean install now, you’re upgrading to Vista.

Step 9. Wait while Vista copies files and reboots itself. No user interaction is required. Do not boot from the DVD when asked if you’d like to do so. Instead, wait a few seconds and the setup process will continue on its way. Some DOS-like, character-mode menus will appear, but don’t interact with them. After a few seconds, the correct choice will run for you automatically.

Step 10. After you click a button labeled Start in the Thank You dialog box, Vista’s login screen will eventually appear. Enter the username and password that you selected during the first install. You’re done upgrading to Vista.

Step 11. Within 30 days, you must “activate” your copy of Vista or it’ll lose functionality. To activate Vista, click Show more details in the Welcome Center that automatically displays upon each boot-up, then click Activate Windows now. If you’ve dismissed the Welcome Center, access the correct dialog box by clicking Start, Control Panel, System & Maintenance, System. If you purchased a legitimate copy of Vista, it should quickly activate over the Internet. (You can instead activate by calling Microsoft on the phone, which avoids your PC exchanging information with Microsoft’s server.

Poster 5:
Thank-you for the report about using a upgrade verison of Vista. I think Microsoft knows about this but is keeping tight lipped about it because this means lost revenue. I will not be buying a retail (Full) version of Vista because as the above post shows how to install Vista in a clean state using the upgrade version of your choice. Come to think about it I think I read somewhere there are oem versions available as well. I’m all for saving money when the top version (Retail) cost $400.00

I agree and I do. How that would happen must be thought out carefully. I do have some ideas, don’t mean it will work.

Mathematica: the effort that you describe – to create a replacement – how many schools are involved? Can others join you in the effort in a situation like yours?

You have a skill I wish I had – the ability to program beyond using Bash.

The more people involved the less work you would have to do to improve it.

Another point I haven’t mentioned is that I have had a tremendous benefit using Linux on my desktop.

There are a great many programs I simply don’t have to buy because I have replacements for.

Some are easy and ready, some I had to earn. But the bottom line is that I earned my freedom.

You can earn it too – its your choice really.

If you were not able to afford Mathematica, but you had the replacement that is not as good, what would you do?

You probably would work on improving it and solicit others to do so as well.

“It’s hopeless because I can’t be bothered to do it correctly and write a server to punch holes through firewalls, so it will only work for people with real internet connections who can establish direct TCP connections.)”

Give Wireshark a try – it will tell display network traffic.

I did this and was able to send scans to a Multifunctional.

Well, if you want to sing out, sing out
And if you want to be free, be free
cause theres a million things to be
You know that there are

And if you want to live high, live high
And if you want to live low, live low
cause theres a million ways to go
You know that there are

Any of those, ring a bell?

I do not like them, James-I-am.
I do not like green eggs and ham.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPxPciXcJvc

Enjoy.

I don’t expect to convince anybody. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that one can’t underestimate the longevity of a bad idea or the credit given to those who are wrong.

I just wanted to ask you (as politely as possible) did you know that Google ran its business almost entirely off off FOSS?

LOL

This is complicated stuff with a lot of nuiances. I don’t expect you to know everything. {By your tone though – some might – but I like it friendly}

But why add the geek part??

China has a national goal of software independence. That’s a lot of Hyenas.

Now – if everyone were able to give me a penny – I’d be very wealthy. Then if I was able to copy those pennies as easily as software can be copied – well – now do you see the writing?

NetBSD arriving in the form of a CD is a good mission impossible challenge to get it ready however.

Compiling KDE, drinking Cocoa next to the fireplace. Those were the days.

Hey first let me say that every time you mentioned that you could improve your essay in some way – I liked you more, and not deviously.

I too have disappointments as to what I hope the Linux desktop could be and is.

A minor point here – I didn’t bother to look – but I’ll bet you someone out there is trying to make a Mathematica replacement.

What muddies up the water and confuses the issue is the idea that Linux is a business opportunity – “dot com” bubble.

From my viewpoint its like trying to sell off the Goodwill as Macy’s. (Not saying you are)

And I’m not trying to misframe that on to you when I say – that pondering over KDE and Gnome – why are they separate – is almost akin to pondering the same of Goodwill and Bargain Box.

(Although in all honesty – I don’t feel KDE 3 is on a quality class with either, but rather, a public service class) [But I'll say that about KDE 4 and Gnome, well, just to be more funny then sirious.{I am sirious somewhat}]

James Leone

Good will towards others is never a wasted effort. The growth of human knowledge – the expansion of science – is far more important for mankind then can be measured or compensated for with money.

You make the reality of the world you live in – to a significant degree –
kindness towards others is often remembered and will often make a difference in who people want to associate themselves with.

The larger dimension of the good that collaboration in working to create a commons that is useful to all – is the hope and opportunity and good will towards mankind as a whole.

If the only thing important in this life was money – death, war, murder, (and realisticly much less extreme examples) would lead to a breakdown of society – you can’t place a price on civility.

I am a “zealot” because I believe in giving something back to the world that can have a permanent impact – that is positive. To help the schools. To give someone a chance to gain employemnt to start up a business setting up Linux servers or desktops (yes desktops it is possible) in situations in which they might not be able to be employed – if they are willing to learn – they can both help someone save while earning for themselves a small sliver of the billions of dollars accumulating in Gates and Allen’s coffers.

But its not just about that – its about having a sense of doing your part to work together to make something many people can use. Linux is about the users themselves – plus the added benefit of helping others as “gravy.”

The schools mentioned by another poster above come to mind.

I’m also a “zealout” because I’m willing to work to help myself, as well as others, have more then 1 viable option on the desktop.

Is it “better” then windows for people that don’t like to learn the ins and outs of it all? What goes on under the hood.

Not in the sense that learning Linux isn’t a self apparent experience. Its an educational experience.

That gift – the opportunity for you to learn – is there for you to take or reject.

Perhaps you are pissed off because you don’t have a choice, your attitude is attributory to that becoming a realization.

Meanwhile, we, the “zealots” are at least working towards a solution.

Give me liberty or give me death.

I think that the “Open Source” people had it wrong in trying to make a business arguement out of public service. In the process they overplayed their hand and made a lot of empty promices.

I don’t speak for anyone else, neither they for me.

I can understand some anger or [disbelief at what you perceive as the delusional being very vocal while making somewhat empty promices]. Others pointlessly arrogant. They forget they are working on a public good.

However – for those of us who are doing our public service, for you and others, you come accross as taking a piss on a volunteer beach cleanup crew, or perhaps the Red Cross.

James Leone

I use ubuntu and opensuse, and i think they are too complicated for an average person.

Since you don’t like finance people so much, I’ll list some other industries that are dependent on commercial software and are ripe for the picking. Academics are addicted to MATLAB and Mathematica, both of which are incredibly expensive. Everybody uses Excel. Visual arts and industry uses PhotoShop and Illustrator. Not a single free or cheap version has been able to make a viable competitor to these, and it’s as much due to quality as it is proprietary lock-in. Maybe, just maybe, good software development is expensive?!?

The real problem is that while it may be cheaper to USE linux, it sure as hell isn’t cheaper to develop for it. And THAT’s what matters. (You should try actually reading my post some time. It’s not that bad.)

The free/cheap software revolution is always juuuuust around the corner, isn’t it?

XP has a legacy of rich applications. Sharepoint, a collaborative product from Microsoft creates a dependency for MS software. That keeps me there.

The previous author Jon Harrop revealed his companies frustrations with development under Linux, and I have to say he was right. Linux two years ago was as he experienced.

But the hardware and software worlds are evolving at a very progressive rate. Two years ago, dual core was an expensive solution for a workstation. Shortly quad core will be common, and affordable.

As the need for compute power grows, I am forecasting a new architecture, perhaps 64 bit instruction with 128 or 256 bit databuses to overcome the current cumbersome Intel architecture. I believe Linux would be more scalable.

As for software development, there is the Eclipse workbench, common to both Linux and Microsoft which was not available even for linux two years ago.

And in forecasting Linux’s growth, we should look beyond the USA, which will not be a significant manufacturer of new software. Emerging countries with low wages will do the engineering and development to produce newer functional software, perhaps even a Linux replacement. The Linux market in Eurasia, Africa, South America, India and Russia is growing because foreign countries do not want the USA to hold them hostage to operating systems, to hidden backdoors for encryption code or to receipt of the OS patches. Microsoft is going to have very major competition from these emerging software engineering countries.

In my field, ERP systems for manufacturing and big business, this has already happened. The best ERP software is from Germany and India.

So what am I getting at? My answer is that Linux will expand more quickly then will Microsoft’ desktop market, it will be used where it is a low cost open source competitor– in cell phones, blackberries, eepc and other products. It will be used ubiquitously in the countries I indicated, because computer science university courses are using Linux as a classroom product, The next generation of IT people will be biased towards Linux.

Even Microsoft realizes that fact, and if you track Microsoft’s growth strategy, it is to concentrate away from the desktop. Microsoft is trying to provide their own ERP system, to enter the search engine market try to compete with Google, and Yahoo. Microsoft is entering into vertical markets which until recently they have always ignored.

So, for now, as far as the desktop is concerned, the buck is in the MS and Apple pockets. Look at RedHat, Novell, and Ubuntu, three formidable competitors who I predict will collectively own the desktop within the next 5 years.

We specialize in scientific computing so we use a mixture of low-level languages like Fortran and assembler for simple performance critical code and high-level languages like C# and F# for interactive technical computing with real-time 2D and 3D visualization. We started out on Linux in 2004 and have since migrated to Windows because the developer tools (e.g. F# and Visual Studio compared to OCaml and Emacs) are vastly superior and the market is vastly more lucrative (e.g. we earn more money from our F# software every day than we did from our Linux software in total ever).

The common language run-time upon which .NET is based makes it really easy to call libraries written in other .NET languages. For example, .NET provides a wealth of libraries like Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) that are written in C# but we can call them transparently from F# without having to worry about copying, marshalling, message passing, shared data structures, manual deallocation, type safety, segmentation faults and so on. That is almost impossible when calling between high-level languages on Linux. Moreover, this was the last nail in the coffin of one of our Linux products, Smoke:

http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/smoke_vector_graphics/

Smoke was a high-performance 2D vector graphics renderer that is much faster than Microsoft’s Windows Presentation Foundation. We would have loved to develop this into a competitor for WPF, to give Linux a completely hardware accelerated desktop environment with high fidelity graphics. Our productivity using OCaml and OpenGL was incredibly high and we could use the codebase to develop amazing applications really easily. But the project was an abysmal failure for several reasons. Firstly, our compiled OCaml code did not run reliably on customer’s machines due to subtle differences between core libraries and OpenGL drivers between Linux distributions. So we could only sell in source form. Secondly, without a common language run-time users are forced to write their code in OCaml and few other people want to do that. So we shelved the original complete application (Presenta) and tried to sell source licenses to Smoke. Then we gradually reduced the price but we have never sold a single copy of Smoke. Now we are giving Smoke away in the form of compiled OCaml bytecode and people are not even using that because it is so uninteroperable.

We clearly have very different observations about the state of Linux. You herald the closed source graphics card drivers as an example of great commercial code for Linux but I would hold them up as an example of exactly the opposite. The ATi Linux drivers are so notoriously unreliably that we have always avoided their graphics cards. nVidia’s drivers can be vastly more reliably but are a huge amount of work to install and maintain, and (as our product showed) third-party closed source software cannot rely upon them to work reliably between Linux distros. Installation of nVidia’s own package requires the user to manually select the version of GCC that their kernel was compiled against. If that isn’t pain enough, this machine here actually requires me to manually recompile and reinstall the nVidia drivers from scratch by hand every time I reboot or X will not start. So I think graphics drivers are an excellent example of Linux doing an extremely poor job of supporting commercial software even from major vendors and even when it is of paramount importance for almost all desktop users. If nVidia cannot make their Linux drivers user friendly, what hope is there for a small software house on the Linux platform?

I also wonder what multi-core CPUs have to do with GUI toolkits.

I use linux everyday, and asides from well-known issues (like multi-head is still difficult to accomplish), it is stable. If the OS and its associated software was so unreliable, I would have gone insane a long time ago, or switched to something else. {Nvidia and AMD manage to release binary drivers for their hardware. This is an inherently more complicated thing to do than application software, I don’t see them complaining.}

If Linux had only the poorest 2% of the desktop market, I’m pretty sure the movement would have waned by now.

But wait, its getting better, and stronger, even in the face of quad-core CPUs and GPUs that can double as a general-purpose CPU… I guess action speaks louder than words.

Sometimes people make it sound like linux is the only flawed bit of technology out there… See bluetooth programming in Windows? See the filesystem issues the git developers ran into whilst porting git to mac os? Programming the windows API is a black art… .NET exposes only a subset of that API… I have to bend my C/C++ when using Visual Studio… etc etc.

Curiously, the challenges i find in linux actually inspire me to empower myself to do something about them, since apparently, the only thing stopping me is my knowledge. That’s what I love about it, and that wouldn’t change even if I were a millionaire.

.NET is the reason we (a small to medium company) have ditched Linux. With .NET we can use better programming languages (F#), better IDEs (Visual Studio with drag and drop GUI designer), have reliable deployment and a vastly larger and wealthier user base.

In contrast, Linux has some nice languages like Haskell and OCaml but they are completely uninteroperable with each other and with almost all libraries due to the complete absence of a common language run-time. Deployment is unreliable on Linux due to brittle binary interfaces (we pulled a Linux-based product two years ago because it was so unreliable and have never attempted to sell Linux software since). Finally, Linux being good for people who do not earn a significant income makes it bad for software houses like us. Linux doesn’t just have 2% of the desktop market, it has the poorest 2% of desktop users.

The problem is that .NET is an essential foundational technology that the vast majority of desktop software must be built upon if you are going to be competitive. Desktop software on the Linux platform just keeps building on sand. For example, consider that by far the hardest part of using GTK+ or Qt from any modern language is the native-code interoperability because those core libraries are not even written in modern, safe, garbage collected languages. Moreover, native-code interoperability for high-level code like GUI libraries is a complete non-starter in the context of multicore computing. The only future-proof way to build such software is to have both the libraries and applications running with a concurrent garbage collector like the one in .NET.

That is why I think Linux is completely screwed on the desktop. I can well believe that Linux’ desktop market share has been in decline but the ubiquity of multicore computers is about to really drive it into the ground.

I was taking issue with the oft-stated justification for linux that it’s somehow helping. If somebody tells me they are doing something for the public good, I think that opens them up to argumentation on whether or not it’s really in the public good. And if they are being sincere about it, and not simply patting themselves on the back with sweet nothings, then I’d assume they might be interested in having somebody point out to them the possibility that they are wasting their time. If they really are doing this for society, then their enjoyment of the development is secondary, and I’m certainly right to point out that their time might be better spent on other things. Of course, I may be wrong in my conclusions about the usefulness of desktop linux, but that’s a separate issue, and I’m perfectly willing to have my opinion changed on that (and it already has in some ways). And frankly, I’d rather be wrong on this. If desktop GNU/Linux ever gets its shit together it would make me really and truly happy.

Furthermore, I’m not suggesting everybody should spend all their time trying to cure cancer. Not by a long shot. I hope I didn’t come off as somebody sanctimoniously trying to insinuate we should all be trying to save the world all the time. When I mentioned political correctness, I was using it as a bludgeon with the assumption than those I’m criticizing probably do buy into it. I personally don’t. I’m just saying that if somebody dedicates a lot of time to trying to cure cancer, but they suck at it, somebody should probably tell them.

Having said that, you really make some good points. I have been looking at desktop linux through the timeframe of normal OS development. If the nature of FOSS is that it takes decades longer but eventually achieves something truly great, something that Apple nor MS could ever do, then I would wholeheartedly support that. Sadly, I don’t think that’s the case, unfortunately. I think by the time linux gets where it needs to go, the idea of a desktop OS will be obsolete, and the FOSS crowd will go about trying to recreate whatever is de rigeur at the moment, achieving just as little success then as they are now (assuming my brilliant argumentative prose hasn’t killed off the movement entirely by then). So, if Google really provides the online desktop, someday, then I’m sure there will be a FOSS project parroting it, except not as well.

Though you bring up a really interesting point: if software goes completely into the cloud and truly takes advantage of its capabilities (e.g. massive connectivity to varied sources of data, access to massive parallel computation on-demand) then FOSS is probably just plain dead. Google could opensource its entire damn codebase, and what the hell would I do with it? What good is it unless you have the billion dollar distributed computation and database infrastructure? We’re already seeing this to some extent: Where is the FOSS version of GMail? It can’t exist. I’m not sure my computer can really search 5 GB of junk as quickly as those few milliseconds of time where I’m borrowing Google’s massive infrastructure. Maybe it could, but my point is that it’s already on the edge, where we’re getting personal applications from the web where the physical assets are truly enabling it.

Google Earth is perhaps the best example of this. There will never be a FOSS version of that. It’s impossible. Google could give away the code and data to that, and nothing would change. That must be tough for the really hard core free software folks. I wonder if RMS really never uses Google Earth, or if he does furtively at 3 am in his basement, awash in conflicted feelings before taking a three hour shower as he tries to wash off the shame.

• Those who work on Linux probably enjoy doing so.
• That the exploration of free thought is paramount.

Why should the Linux community be singled out for “not making money with the time they have spent on Linux” and “donating it to their favourite charities?”

The vast majority of people within the community spend their personal time on Linux. They choose to code. They choose to test. They choose to struggle, overcome and achieve.

It is no more a tragedy that these people choose to do what they do, than my neighbours who chooses to play golf, watch soap-operas, or spend their evenings dancing and drinking…. when they could be working on a cure for cancer.

So, that is the first point. I think you are trying to make a comment about political correctness…. but it appears to me a statement that is anything but politically correct. You are tilting at windmills.

I may have misread this though, and would appreciate the clarification because I think this is one of your key points. I share your frustration that as a society we are wasteful and could achieve more. However, we all must learn to respect each others personal choice, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. I very much doubt anyone is being distracted from the secrets of cold fusion by the lure of bash.

The second point; I think you are trying to compare the incomparable. It is like you are trying to compare a section of a library to a particular book. Or better yet, the graffiti on the wall outside the library to a book. Linux is not a desktop environment. However, the desktop environment aspect of Linux is comparable – so let’s focus on that.

You are right that Gnome and KDE only serve to confuse the issue. Personally I would like to see a single unified desktop environment supported and developed by the major distributions. Target this criticism at the major distributions. I expect their response would be two fold:

• That they have very little leverage over the kernel developers
• That the other desktop environment is in someway inferior.

So the kernel will continue to support the known-good, the lowest common denominator, and the distributions will have to build a platform and API model on top of that. Meanwhile the divisive issue of qt libraries Gnome; will continue to be unresolved.

Point three, a coherent vision isn’t necessarily the best thing. (Hail the anarchy!) On a more serious note; more cooks may not mean a better cake, but it almost certainly does mean more cake.

I firmly believe that the Linux community is building something which we may not fully see the benefit of for many generations. If since the dawn of time all men (and women) spoke in the same language, we may have achieved more, but I’d never have the chance to be seduced by a French accent.

Point four, on the poor performance of Skype and Google Earth. One wonders if the reason they behave poorly is primarily due to the hardware implications they have to overcome, or because of their own code. No doubt a combination of both is at play.

However, [in my experience] over the last few years the increase in hardware recognition has been astounding. Whilst the number of desktop users may not be rising, the number of targetable desktops clearly is. Suddenly, I am reminded of Kevin Costner in Field of Dreams.

I completely agree that there are developers who consider applications as serving Linux, and not the other way around. For a further example of this, read the threads on a whether Amarok should be ported to Windows.
There are many that believe that the primary purpose of an Operating System is not to serve programs, but to ‘Operate a System’ and damn the developers; they’ll have to accommodate us. In the free software world these folks can be even more militant.

There is an economic argument about striving for perfection and failing, as opposed to achieving the best plausible and achieving a passing mark. In the world of free software there are folks who will always strive for perfection as it is a matter of liberty for them. A beautiful kernel does not have to be the exception, but can be the motivation. So top of the wish list is an audio model and a video model right?

Point five, the upfront cost in dollars and donuts of an Operating System can not be considered as the only cost measure. Many users choose Linux because they don’t want a box that phones home every hour. Was it Tyler Durden that said the things you own end up owning you?

The point is that there are continuing costs associated with any purchase. There almost certainly is a happy medium between the costs of time and money and the benefit of liberty. Consider how the Ubuntu variants are trying to push towards this with their proprietary-codec-friendly distributions.

But is it only the geeks that care about libre software? At the moment, but I doubt it will be that way forever. Already we are seeing some governments considering the implications of restrictive software.

I completely agree with you that Linux won’t always be able to rely on the dominant OS being terrible. Contrary to what appears to be the over-riding opinion on the internet – vista is not bad at all. I expect the next Microsoft release to be even better. Surely it is only a matter of time now before Google are offering us all an online desktop. Which because it is made by Google will be seen as cool.

Still even though there is nothing else around that can do what compiz does, there is room for improvement. I am sure as the hardware recognition issue reduces, then the desktop environment will improve.