I am not the target of your question, but it applies to me. I do computer work for several companies. One of these companies has the choice of using a Windoze version of their processing software (to the tune of about $1000/year) or a version that runs on a mid-range computer costing over $10,000 per year. I am not saying there is not a Linux version out there, I don't know, but the package is very specific to what they do and they are out of business without it or something else. The software requires monthly updates on its forms and procedures so it isn't likely to be available in the shareware market and be usable. I have seen versions of this for larger companies exceed the $100,000 per year mark. If his Lexus CD is supported by Linux, I know a lawyer who could easily convert over. He just uses Outlook, Word, and a Law CD that allows him to research case law when needed. His network is a Win95 network and he sees no reason to fix what isn't broken so he hasn't upgraded and won't until he finds his computers too old to work. It shouldn't be hard to realize that there are very many programs only available on Windows, and many that are more economical there. While they aren't the determining factor in my using Windows, I enjoy playing a few games that are only available on Windows. If you really want to see Linux jump in popularity, create a large group of wonderful games that only run on Linux and you will see a lot more Linux computers sell. I don't know what is available in Linux, but I can imagine that there are few "Visual" programs such as MS Access, Visual Basic, etc. that are compatible with Windows. Windows is easy. Linux has a ways to go to get there. Windows is popular and transitioning to Linux is not easy enough for the common user. It takes me 40 minutes to install the OS and setup a simple file server in Windows and have it actually operating for any version from win 95 to XP excluding NT and 2000 and the server products. 2000 takes a little longer and I don't use NT. But it's easy. It's been about a year since I researched it, but I believe there was a product, Wine or similar that allowed the user to either use itself as a sort-of windows compatible package or the user could store Win 95 or 98 on the HDD for the Wine to access the Windows library for compatibility. When I looked at it, it could run a number of windows programs, but in many cases, the menus were either incomplete or completely missing. Why would someone NEED windows? I guess it is for the same reason they NEED Linux, it caters to the best product their company needs. Buck -----Original Message----- From: shrike-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:shrike-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rodrigo Del C. Andrade Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 1:33 AM To: shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: The end of RHL for private use? [was: Fedora vs. RHL] Whats is that, that makes you so dependent of winblows software? And if it so dependable to the point of ditching linux (forgive me father), why not use an application server win winblows 2k and access what yuou absolute must with rdesktop or some scheme like that? Vantroy GuGuy Fraser wrote: > Yup that's pretty much my take too. Back when RH broke wine just > before RHL9, > I was forced to ditch linux on all desktops but my own at work. It > looks like I may > have to ditch mine too now :( > > Jesse Keating wrote: > >> On Wednesday 24 September 2003 06:40, Brian T. Brunner wrote: >> >> >>> Rather RH10 is renamed, and is the first release of Fedora, which >>> will continue much of the tradition, and much of the method, of RHL. >>> >>> How much "much" is, is the rest of the beef. >>> >> >> >> The how much is the beef. 4~6 month release cycle (somewhat normal), >> but errata only supplied for 3~4 months after the next release, >> giving each Fedora Core release a 7~10 month life span. Also, Fedora >> will do away with the previous strive to keep binary compatability >> going, and instead bring in as much new stuff as possible, making >> rolling updates impossible. Havoc has sated that Desktop users and >> production environments are no longer the target audience of >> RHL/Fedora, instead the hobby market is, with fast changes and >> constant new features. THis makes Fedora all but unusable in any >> production place, where RHL was still VERY useable, even with it's >> 1year+ lifespan. >> >> The bottom line is, RHL as we know it is gone. Period. In it's >> place, we have some of the RHL bits, being paired with the Fedora >> contents, and the start of a rapidly moving, constantly changing >> hobby distro that is possibly full of breakage. Sound like Gentoo >> anybody? Those of us that have build our businesses and practices >> around Red Hat Linux are now left at a choice between forking over >> _large_ amounts of money that we can't really afford for RHEL, or >> changing our businesses to go with a different vendor of Linux, one >> that is undoubtedly lesser quality than RHL of old and RHEL of >> current, or trying to make Fedora Core a viable solution, putting in >> tons of man hours to try and maintain backports for customers who >> just can't change everything every 9~ months. >> >> Thats the beef, or at least my part of it. >> >> >> > > > -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
