Free doesn't allways mean open source though - so no code readilly available- and the EULA for a lot of "free" software prohibits backward engineering or modifying the code - - - .
Free doesn't allways mean open source though - so no code readilly available- and the EULA for a lot of "free" software prohibits backward engineering or modifying the code - - - .
Software that's "free" and not open source is usually on its way to becoming a "for profit" product. You're just doing them the favor of being their beta tester...
Ot it's the "teaser" to get you to buy their "full version"
I'm not so sure about that.
When I was doing volunteer work for a local NPO I set up a lot of Linux machines for the members to use.
I just performed a default installation, made sure there were easy to get to links on the desktop for several web browsers and just let the folks use them...giving no special instructions.
They could go for years with no maintenance at all. All I'd usually have to do is delete Windows executable crapware downloaded to the desktop.
Neither.
Although I had previous computer experience back in the punch card days...I had gotten out of the field entirely by 1982 and had close to zero experience at the time. Once I learned Win95 I needed a bigger challenge and that was Linux.
I was so ignorant at the time, i did not even know what a partition was.
Linux was an excellent learning experience.
Yes, as I mentioned in another thread, I just gave unsophisticated users Linux machines to use and they needed no special instructions
Most people need more than a browser on their computer. Install iTunes on Linux? PowerPoint-ish tool? Do a mail merge? etc.
If all you want is a browser, you don't need a very sophisticated OS.
Most people I know don't need anything but the basics.
That said, I also don't believe in going through a lot of hoops and work-arounds.
If something works better and easier on Windows, I don't hesitate to do so...nor do I proselytize for others to use Linux.
All you need is Chrome
I don't understand those who seem to think you have to do everything on ONE OS. I like Linux, but have nothing against Windows when something works better on it.
Chrome OS. I prefer to have more control over my system. For one thing, I DO NOT want to go through GOOGLE just to print a page to the networked printer 2 feet away.
BTW, same thing for cloud thermostats, etc.. I'm NOT going to have something like that controlled only by someone else's server.
If you want just a dead stupid web machine, that's all you need though.
I'd never have one because I need more than a poor browser.
Exactly.
But, the problem isn't just zealotry on the user side.
Folks developing (marketing) OS's also seem to think their "solution" can apply to all problems/applications.
If it can, it does so poorly. If it does so "well", it is bloated.
Windows as an application layer (NOT an OS in 3.0), Windows as a desktop OS, Windows as an OS for PDA's (WinCE), Windows as an OS for phones, Windows as an embedded OS, etc. "Well, what is it, guys?"
The RTOS I've developed for my current project would be piss poor in a desktop environment. It doesn't obsess over speed, has no notion of disks, or users, or The Internet, etc.
OTOH, it is designed to be reliable, robust, secure and seamlessly distributed. The application has no idea that it is executing on a set of ~100 CPUs vs. "just one". Nor *which* of those it is executing on at the current time.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.