Slashdot Mirror

Look at it this way -- MSIE's dominance only really started when Netscape 4.x started to lag behind.

According to this dataquest press release, Microsoft had already captured 39% of the market when NN4 was being released.

Let my explain my perspective with an analogy: Mr. Netscape decides to take a short cut through an alley in the middle of the night. Out from the shadows, comes Mr. Microsoft, who stabs (bundles browser with OS) Netscape, takes his wallet (gives away the browser and pays others to do likewise), and leaves him for dead. Bleeding but still alive, Netscape stumbles out of the alley and turns south looking for help, eventually he collapses, and dies, on the door step of Mr AOL who revives him as an undead zombie. Mr AOL hides Netscape in his basement because he has an agreement with Microsoft not to show him to anyone, not even his closest friends (their subscribers.)

Now, was Netscape stupid to go down that alley? Sure. Could he have done a better job of defending himself against the knife weilding attacker? Sure. If he wasn't in shock and new first aid, could he have lived? Perhaps. Does his failure to do any of these things adequately make it his fault that he was knifed and robbed? No.

Another thing to consider is that had Netscape been more successful in fighting off Microsoft, something the court says would have been difficult given Microsoft's unfair dealings, it would mitigate much of any claims of damages Netscape could now sue for as a result of those judgements.

The "webletter" on the Gartner site is a paid Microsoft publication of the original Gartner report, it is NOT the actual Gartner report.

Are you comparing the one on Gartner's site with the one Microsoft bought?

If so, they're the same report.

It applauds what Linux is doing in other areas.

Where? You're obviously privy to another report.

Sheesh. Stop the zealotry and start to look at things with a *calm* and objective eye.

Oh I agree entirely that the Linux zealots can get a little out of hand. What I'm questioning is why there's a Microsoft published "Webletter" that just regurgitates the origional report?

It doesn't strike you as odd that they'll spend money to do this, when Gartner already has a
copy up themselves? Especially since there's not much indication that it's a Microsoft report, other than a little legalese at the bottom.

If Microsoft is spending money to rehash their public reports, wouldn't that be considered an income source for Gartner, and be in their best interest to publish material which Microsoft will likely pay for?

As an aside, how do you find the consultants for Gartner who come to your site? I worked for an IT corporation, who had a "Strategic Alliance" with them. What I remember most is when one of their "visionaries" who was supposed to be giving a presentation on the "Future of Internet Technologies" stood in front of the audience like a buffoon because he couldn't figure out how to plug his laptop into the projector.

An intern from the helpdesk fixed it for him.

The "webletter" on the Gartner site is a paid Microsoft publication of the original Gartner report, it is NOT the actual Gartner report.

Are you comparing the one on Gartner's site with the one Microsoft bought?

If so, they're the same report.

It applauds what Linux is doing in other areas.

Where? You're obviously privy to another report.

Sheesh. Stop the zealotry and start to look at things with a *calm* and objective eye.

Oh I agree entirely that the Linux zealots can get a little out of hand. What I'm questioning is why there's a Microsoft published "Webletter" that just regurgitates the origional report?

It doesn't strike you as odd that they'll spend money to do this, when Gartner already has a
copy up themselves? Especially since there's not much indication that it's a Microsoft report, other than a little legalese at the bottom.

If Microsoft is spending money to rehash their public reports, wouldn't that be considered an income source for Gartner, and be in their best interest to publish material which Microsoft will likely pay for?

As an aside, how do you find the consultants for Gartner who come to your site? I worked for an IT corporation, who had a "Strategic Alliance" with them. What I remember most is when one of their "visionaries" who was supposed to be giving a presentation on the "Future of Internet Technologies" stood in front of the audience like a buffoon because he couldn't figure out how to plug his laptop into the projector.

An intern from the helpdesk fixed it for him.

I agree with witz. If you take a careful look at the actual Gartner Group report here, you'll see that this report isn't really "anti-Linux propaganda." They simply believe that Linux won't replace Windows as the most-used desktop OS in the land (at least by 2004 the way that Linux is currently going).

IMHO, and this is not intended as a flame, this whole tempest-in-a-teapot was blown up by ComputerWorld journalist Ellen Cresswell. She says that Gartner "painted an unflattering picture of Linux" in their report when the actual report isn't really that critical on Linux, It simply raises issues that have been discussed on Slashdot as real live problems with Linux. But Cresswell blew up this report as Gartner's "slam" on Linux when the report wasn't any such thing. Let's not let Cresswell benefit from a useless and pointless flamewar between Gartner and the Linux community.

And even though Gartner obviously has substantial reservations about the success of Linux in the mainstream (if you thought the desktop OS report was bad, check this Gartner server-oriented Linux report out), we shouldn't flame them. Instead we should prove them wrong, right?

So let's prove them wrong!

Rob Thornton

Mmmm yes, makes perfect sense to me. Next week : how we'll all be living on Mars in five years time, the moon is made of blue cheese and Bill Gates is a visionary leader ...

Yep. Have a look at the "Sales Graph" at http://gartner11 .gartnerweb.com/public/static/hotc/hc00082967.html

I don't know if this is the same article referred to in the IDG article but it's worth a look anyhow. It has a large graph of "Server/Host Spending by Operating System". Linux has a very low level of spending compared to NT and the predictions for Win2K. Well obviously! They're overpriced to start with and need plenty of cash for maintainence...