@kona:

You can define a Windows emulator as something like VMware or Vbox if you really want, but you would be incorrect to do so.

Neither VMware nor Vbox are operating system emulators.  They're virtual machines.  You'd be better off defining them by what they do - emulate hardware.  They don't emulate Windows.  You can attempt to install Windows or, I suppose, most other operating systems that support x86 architecture.  Here's a nice table outlining this for VirtualBox:

A nice table outlining that

Next...Not sure why it's important that WINE not be installed by default.  Please let me know if there even exists the concept of standards or default in the Linux world (I'm only half-joking).  It sounds like a pendantic argument since you can install WINE through the package repos of any distro I can think of.  Right?

The only reason some flavor of Linux isn't my primary OS is because OpenSolaris is better in few ways, both technical and in a practical sense.  And the only reason I don't run OpenSolaris as my primary OS is because Vista is about one million times better in supporting the hardware set of my convertible tablet PC.  But the laptop isn't my primary computer either.  So why don't I run Vista, Mac OSX, some flavor of *nix or BSD or Solaris on my desktop?  Because they all suck for supporting games and pretty much anything that runs through the Microsoft APIs (e.g., DirectX).  Maybe one day it'll all come together.  But there is a reason you're in that 1% of all users that run Linux as a primary OS.

The good news is that if it weren't for WINE (or similar projects such as Qemu) - which for some reason I now feel the need to underscore the fact is not part of Linux - you probably wouldn't even have that 1% of the client PC market.  I suppose it is better represented on the server side, but then again that's almost a no-brainer when you consider server costs.  Hard to argue the benefits on the server side when you can put up a LAMP server for the cost of just the hardware.  Sounds like a deal to me.

Anyway, Linux is cool. It offers a lot for its price.  It's not magic sauce.  It needs a lot of work.  It is buggy.  It is not user-friendly.  It lacks direction and standardization.  It is usually improving.  Sometimes it is not improving.

It has a place in the client PC market.  Currently, a vanishingly small place.

When it can run my games better than my XP desktop, I will consider making it a permanent resident on one of my partitions.  At the moment, 3 of my 4 spindles are devoted to non-MS operating systems.  But aside from the XP partitions, none remain for very long as I'm constantly trying new operating systems on for size.

Funny thing is I don't use Linux as my main OS. I use Windows XP. I just have a lot of friends that use Linux and happen to learn what I know from them.

I was just trying to point out to the other poster that Linux guys don't spend all day on a Windows emulator nor use the command line much. Seems he thinks all Linux users do this but I can't change his mind.

As for your statement about Linux not being user friendly I disagree.

^

So many of them...all seem to fall by the wayside, though...

I got a buzz from the Demo of QNX ... that installed/ran from a floppy .... looked so much better than just about anything in its day....

I have BeOS 5 somewhere too ....it looked like the bees' knees too....

But...

Windows 7 came along and basically blew everything out of the water, no matter which way you want to lean....

Running it on/from a floppy won't happen, though...;)

Sorry I just had to do it  

Nice desktop you got there tazgecko. Oh yeah, google doesn't stand a chance against microsoft. They're just stealing some windows7 thunder

     All this nonsense is a trip...seriously. Know where I use google? At BK's machine. When I had mine it was all Fire Fox as a browser when I found out it beat the shit out of IE. Anyway....I'm partial to Windows because I like the OS. True it isn't the 'best' one out there but there really isn't a 'best' OS. Only ones that work better then others to one degree or another. I don't like Chrome...I think it's ugly as sin. I don't like Google for all those reasons stated. But then again yahoo does the same with their toolbar. Difference between them? Not too too much. Its a matter of personal preference. My two cents...I'll stay Googleless thank you.

     BTW...isn't it true that all of them...google, yahoo, MS, Mac, etc., etc., do the same thing. Collect info so that, in their minds, they can 'provide' competitive services and the real issue is how aggressive they are in using 'questionable' tactics? Just business as usual to them in another cutthroat market.

LOL at someone still trying to push Linux after all these years.

As if Linux isn't a viable OS these days Dog? It is.

The question shouldn't be "Is this or that OS better?" it should be "Is this OS the right one for me?"

No, it's not as far as the average consumer is concerned.  I seem to remember hearing how Linux would get all this huge market share after Vista, yeah, still waiting for that one.

I wish it would.  I'm not a fan of Trusted Computing.  But if I can't play a game I want to play under *nix (which is common) at best I'm still left booting in and out of different OS sessions.  It's a hassle.

Multiple choice answer, then;

a-) Properly supported

Improving constantly

c-) Compatible with everything

d-) Minimal but commonly accepted Standards

e-) None of the above.

Mine would fall right into the B slot for MS_DOS_95_98_CE_XP_Vista_7 for "Free" market dumping (don't start me on the latest "Buy American" gimmicks) reasons. The multi-tasking dream kept us awake long before hybrids started to take a stab at booting alternatives - you can dig a rig, but you can't change how it fails until something aims for the C slot.

Corporate goals prevent the D slot.

If only we all could be as wise as this.

Google does not care about which platform they put their 'OS' on. Linux is just handy because all of the work is already done for them and it will cost little to place it onto a new computer.
What Google is all about is Cloud Computing. They want users to use the Internet for everything, to have an OS and applications totally independent from hardware. THIS is what Google is aiming at.
Linux vs Windows, you are dreaming. Its about Cloud vs Hardware.
And thats why the Google 'OS' will not take over Windows. Because Google don't care about the hardware and because Google wants it to run on Windows and every other device/OS which connects to the Internet.

[Edit] I have just found this on my RSS feeds.  An Operating System for the Cloud

I think someone needs to REALLY educate themselves about that statement. That is THE single biggest crock I've seen in a LONG time.  VMWare is not a "Windows" emulator at all. It is a software driven HARDWARE emulator. It comes in different varieties to run it on, from Windows, Linux and the more advanced enterprise solution which it their own Linux kernel.

Get some salt for that foot, but then again I think you are probably quite used to the taste by now.

Cloud computing, this would just give google greater acess to personal information...

Yes Phoon I know that. I just used the wrong words in my post.

Yes, it would, and users who go with the Chrome OS will be giving up control and access to everything to Google.  The way I'm reading it, Google is 'borrowing' the Linux kernel on which to base a browser based interface (rather than an OS as such) that supports Google apps that are based/stored on the web.

Now I see various issues with this idea... slow internet connections being one of them.  Storing and accessing that much data on the internet is going to be a major issue for those who have slow connections... dial-up and/or low-end DSL, etc, but more importantly, what about when one's internet connection is down???  A while back my ISP went down in my area and was off for about a week.... cloud computing and Google's proposed 'cloud based' OS would have been useless to me in that circumstance.

The other issue is privacy when one uses/depends on Google's cloud based storage???  Sure you have access to it (while you have an adequate internet connection) but so does Google... and how long before hackers learn how to get in as well.  Sure hackers have learned how to access data on harware based OSes/storage facilities, but we have firewalls, fire-walled routers and other security apps to help guard against that... combined with a bit of common sense... but how would one apply hardware based fire walls and security apps to a completely intangible cloud?

My biggest issue, however, is Google's well known practice of incorporating phone home abilities into its apps...google.analytics on a hardware based OS and independent browser would become a pussy cat and irrelvant, once you surrender ALL control to Google's 'cloud based' OS and built-in browser.  Google's primary source of income comes from advertising, and data mining users is its primary source of intel to target people with specific advertising, so this Google OS is not a "let's give the people something useful" kind of thing, but a profiteering opportunity for Google to spread its slimy data mining tentacles even farther.

Oh, and before anyone says that Google does not collect personally identifiable information and can't identify you or your IP address, etc, don't be so naive.  Google admitted that it knew the locations and identities of those persons in China who were accused of dissidency and internet wrong-doing... it just refused to hand over the data to the Chinese Gov't for fear of a huge financial backlash from Western businesses and users alike.

Yup, go with Google's cloud based OS/browser and you may as well send them a disc with your entire life history, prefences... likes and dislikes.

I can't believe you talk all this stuff about how bad Google is with data collecting and data mining and phoning home when MS and Windows do the same thing.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

you're probably correct on many levels. a cursory review of Bing's privacy policy sure does indicate that they collect data in order to provide a better web surfing experience for the user (NOT my words). there is also a statement directly related to targeted advertising. I would also assume that MS will make money from advertising from Bing. they also provide several options for opting out but then one would have to register in order to opt out, right???

I'm not registered with google or bing and a search for general services (plumbers, roofing, etc.) on each returned targeted ads from google and none from bing.

me thinks they both have their faults however MS does make a product while google whores data out. lesser of two evils, I gotta go with MS.

Starkers, your last reply is addressed by the following quote too.  Internet speed = the hardware and responsiveness bullet.  Privacy concerns = the security bullet.

The thing is to be informed about what you use and none of the major players hide what they do or don't do with your data.  In the end, they don't take anything . . they are given it.

Indeed.

You hooked modems, the cloud kept filling with thunder strikes -- the only thing missing is a giga_Tesla capacitor solid enough to "accumulate" such power spikes or divert the unforeseen consequences.

The gaping hole has a flaw, though; ISP monitoring & their precious consumers gathering speed or producing counter-measures such as grounded but conductive walls.

Not by me... I have NO Google products/services on my PC and I have entered into NO agreements with them, yet Google monitors my internet movements etc via google-analytics. Up until I implemented AdBlock Plus and NoScript to block google analytics and Google ads, I got ads based on my locale and internet interests, etc... meaning Google knows my location and what are my preferences/interests, etc.  I don't want to see ads... period, and I certainly don't want Google knowing stuff about me so as to profit from targetted ads based on my internet activities.  Google can go and get... you know.

I give the bastards nothing and never will... which is why I point blank refuse to use any of their products/services requiring the acceptance of A EULA that states one must agree to the mining of data.... and anyone with any sense would refuse to also.

Sure Google has a search engine that produces results... but at what cost to the end user, particularly if they use the phone home browser toolbar?  And it's no use saying Google does not collect personally identifiable information, cos history can prove otherwise: for example, Google having the 'dirt' on those Chinese 'dissidents... it also provided law enforcement with details on people who were searching for and dealing with kiddie porn.  Now while that is a good thing in itself, how long before Google drops the "do no evil" thing and sells out to the highest bidder when it comes to your data?? 

You may not have anything criminal to hide, but there are so many ways your 'innocent' information can be exploited to your disadvantage.  Nope, there is no way on Earth I'll show blind faith in a company that's designed purely to profit from advertising and information gathering... but if you want to place your trust in them, be my guest.

The bottom line here is that Googe does everything with profit in mind... meaning all its 'so-called' free apps are geared to generate profit in one way or another from its users.  NOT on my PC... NOT on my watch!!!

A person can draw whatever line they want and say "I won't cross this" but you are kidding yourself if you think you are not spraying yoru digital seed all over hither and yon. 

I realise that... every time I log in and post on WC I gather and disseminate data, for example.  However, you miss my point!  It is Google I dislike and speak of here... and I willingly give them nothing.  I block Google at every opportunity because I see it as a scavenging parasite, so anything they have on me they have taken...

BTW: I was not able to find that link to a Google page on me (spoken of in another thread)... it's like looking for a needle in a haystack when I don't recall which thread I saw it.